G/AG/W/194  
 
15 February 2019  
(19-0908) Page: 1/41 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 26-27 FEBRUARY 20191 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
12 February  2019 a s specified in WTO/AIR/AG/34.  
 
  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON OF COMMITMENTS: A RTICLE  18.6 ... 5 
1.1   Egypt's pest control subsidy  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
1.1.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90019)  ................................ ................................ ... 5 
1.2   EU's intervention policy  ................................ ................................ ...............................  5 
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90026)  ................................ .............................  5 
1.3   EU- Brexit's no deal scenario  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
1.3.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90031)  ................................ .............................  5 
1.4   India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
1.4.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 90111)  ................................ ................................ ....... 5 
1.5   India's import duty protections  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90042)  ................................ ............  6 
1.6   India's soymeal export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ..................  6 
1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90044)  ................................ ............  6 
1.7   India's proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ . 6 
1.7.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90003)  ................................ .........................  6 
1.8   Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  ................................ .......................  6 
1.8.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90089)  ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
1.9   Moldova's environmental charges  ................................ ................................ .................  7 
1.9.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90005)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.10   New Zealand's support to dairy processing facilities  ................................ ......................  7 
1.10.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90006)  ................................ .......................  7 
1.11   Nigeria's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 9003 4) ................................ ................................ . 8 
1.12   Russia's increased support to dairy sector  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.12.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90007)  ................................ .......................  8 
1.13   Switzerland – "Loi Chocolatière" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision on Export 
competition  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
1.13.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90020)  ................................ .......................  8 
1.14   Thailan d's support to palm oil growers ................................ ................................ .........  8 
1.14.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90008)  ................................ .......................  8 
1.15   U.S. Farm Bill 2018  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 
1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90071)  ................................ ................................ . 9 
1.15.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90010)  ................................ .....................  10 
1.15.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90037)  ................................ ................................ .... 10 
1.16   U.S. trade promotion payments  ................................ ................................ ................  10 
1.16.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90013)  ................................ .....................  10 
1.17   U.S. Boston Bounty Bucks funds programme  ................................ ..............................  10 
1.17.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90038)  ................................ ................................ .... 10 
1.18   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
1.18.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90018)  ................................ .........................  11 G/AG/W/194  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 9012 0) and United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 90039)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
1.19   Canada's wine s ale policy  ................................ ................................ ........................  11 
1.19.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90040)  ................................ ........  11 
1.20   EU's CAP reform  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12 
1.20.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90022)  ................................ ...............................  12 
1.21   European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  .........................  13 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90087)  ................................ ................................ . 13 
1.21.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90028)  ................................ .........................  13 
1.22   Ghana's poultry imports  ................................ ................................ ..........................  13 
1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90041)  ................................ ........  13 
1.23   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  13 
1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90032)  ................................ ...............................  13 
1.23.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90088)  ................................ ................................ . 14 
1.23.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90029 ) ................................ .................  14 
1.23.4    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90004)  ................................ ................................ . 14 
1.23.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90043)  ................................ ........  15 
1.24   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  15 
1.24.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90033)  ................................ ...............................  15 
1.25   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ . 15 
1.25.1    Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 90002)  ................................ .....................  15 
1.26   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ .... 16 
1.26.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90027)  ................................ .................  16 
1.27   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .............  16 
1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90045)  ................................ ........  16 
1.28   Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
1.28.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90068)  ................................ .........................  17 
1.29   Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  ................................ ............................  17 
1.29.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90009)  ................................ .....................  17 
1.30   U.S. proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ . 17 
1.30.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90035)  ................................ ...............................  17 
1.31   U.S. support to cotton sector ................................ ................................ ....................  18 
1.31.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90036)  ................................ ................................ .... 18 
1.32   Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  ................................ ................................ ........  18 
1.32.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90046)  ................................ ........  18 
2   POINTS RAISED IN  CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTI FICATIONS  ...................  19 
2.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ... 19 
2.1.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  19 
2.1.2    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/70)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  19 
2.1.3    The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/22, G/AG/N/MKD/24)  ..........  19 
2.1.4    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/32)  ................................ ................................ ......................  20 G/AG/W/194  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.2   Special Agricultural Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ .................  20 
2.2.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/168, G/AG/N/TPKM/169, G/AG/N/TPKM/171)  ................  20 
2.3   Domestic Support commitments (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ............................  20 
2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/117, G/AG/N/AUS/118)  ................................ ........................  20 
2.3.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ ..........................  21 
2.3.3    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  ................................ ................................ .........................  21 
2.3.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47)  ................................ ................................ ....................  21 
2.3.5    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG/N/TPKM/175)  ................  29 
2.3.6    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  29 
2.3.7    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44, G/AG/N/MYS/45)  ................................ ... 31 
2.3.8    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/101)  ................................ ................................ ....................  31 
2.3.9    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/17, G/AG/N/TUR/18, G/AG/N/TUR/19, G/AG/N/TUR/20, 
G/AG/N/TUR/21)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  32 
2.4   New or modified Domestic Support measures (DS:2)  ................................ ....................  34 
2.4.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  ................................ ................................  34 
2.5   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............  37 
2.5.1    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/67)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  37 
2.5.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/230, G/AG/N/JPN/231, G/AG/N/JPN/232, G/AG/N/JPN/233)  ...........  37 
2.6   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  .....................  37 
2.6.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/119)  ................................ ................................ ...................  37 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ .........  38 
3.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ... 38 
3.1.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  ................................ ................................ ......................  38 
3.2   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..............................  38 
3.2.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  ................................ ..... 38 
3.3   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............  39 
3.3.1    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICA TIONS  ................................ ................................ .......................  39 
4.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
4.2   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  40 
4.3   Republic of Korea  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 40 
4.4   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  40 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  40 
5.1   India ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  40 
5.2   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  41 
5.3   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  41 
  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  Egypt's pest control subsidy  
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90019)  
Australia seeks further information on its question  to Egypt at 88th and 89th CoA (AG-IMS ID 88020 
and AG-IMS ID 89076) regarding pest and disease control.   
 
Egypt listed a Pest Control Subsidy as "Green Box ", noting the measure was directed for pest control 
for cotton; the subsidy was calculated as a fixed amount per acre for all cotton producers who are 
small farmers; and pest control is provided in cash to farmers at the end of each season.  
 
Can Egypt explain how the subsidy was tied with actual pest control, given the subsidies were 
provided at a fi xed rate per acre and even pest -free crops could receive the subsidy?  
1.2  EU's intervention policy  
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90026)  
Media reports over the past year have suggested that the European Commission is considering 
revising its ceiling for i ntervention buying in down to zero tonnes, subject to monthly review. 
Intervention buying in incentivises production even when market demand is not there, and the 
stocks accumulated can overhang the market for prolonged period. The Commission 's SMP stockpi le 
accumulated during the 2014/15 market crisis has only recently been sold down following a long 
period of soft prices including for other exporters around the world. There are a wide range of 
alternative measures available to address the economic distres s of producers during a downturn 
which are less likely to affect markets over such a long period.  
 
a. What consi deration has the European Union given to reforming intervention policy and 
instead using non -distortive green box measures?  
b. As a leading SMP expo rter which benefits from a more stable and undistorted market, 
what signals is the European Union  willing to give regarding future support policy?  
1.3  EU- Brexit' s no deal scenario  
1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90031)  
As the deadline for the UK 's exit fr om the EU approaches on 29 March, both the UK and EU have 
announced elements of their planning for a 'no deal ' scenario.  Like the EU and UK, other 
WTO Members will need to plan for this contingency.  For exporte rs currently accessing the 
EU28  Market, who are holding export licenses and/or closing commercial contracts to supply 
agricultural products to the EU and UK, what assurances can the Commission provide to Members 
that they will continue to be able to supply the EU and UK mark ets under current terms f rom 
30 March in the event of a 'no deal '? New Zealand expect s that the EU and the UK will honour 
existing arrangements, in terms of certification, licensing, customs checks or other measures which 
could affect trade.  
  
1.4  India's support to rice exports  
1.4.1   Quest ion by Japan (AG -IMS ID 90111)  
An article says that India "give a subsidy of 5 % for non -basmati rice ex ports for the four months to 
25 March  2019, the trade ministry said in the order dated Nov. 22. " 
(https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/india -to-give-5-percent -
subsidy -for-non-basmati -rice-exports -for-4-months -government/articleshow/66762378.cms ) 
  
a. Does India give a subsidy of 5 % for non -basmati rice exports as the article says?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 6 - 
 
  b. If it is true, is India against the Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture because it does 
not have the entitlement of export subsidies in the concession.  
c. If India is not against the Article 8, could India explain the reason in detail?  
1.5  India's import duty protections  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90042)  
In 2018, India gradually increased its import duty p rotections on several edible oils (i.e., soy, 
sunflower, and canola oils).  
 
a. Please provide a list of the affected agricultural products with the current and previous 
import duty.  
b. Please explain the domestic circumstances surrounding, and policy rationale for India 
raising the import duty on edible oils.   
1.6  India 's soymeal export subsidies  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90044)  
In July 2018, India increased its export subsidy for soybean meal from 7 % to 10%. Noting that India 
does not have any  scheduled export subsidy entitlements:  
  
a. Please list all subsidy measures provided by India for the export of soybean meal.  
b. Please explain the process by which the subsidies are provided and explain any eligibility 
criteria.  
c. Please provide the total valu e and quantity of export subsidies for soybean meal by year 
and by destination, and in particular to the United States.  
1.7  India's proposed domestic support measures  
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90003)  
The Indian government has unveiled a package of $2.8 billion  in direct payments for India 's small 
farmers by 31 March. This aid package will be paid to the owners of 120 million small and medium -
sized farms.  
 
Can India give more detail on this proposed new $2.8 billion aid programme for farmers includi ng 
the specific criteria after which the subsidies will be distributed and which sectors are expected to 
benefit the most from this scheme?  
1.8  Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  
1.8.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90089)  
a. In January 2019, the Mexican government announced the Secretariat of Agriculture and 
Rural Development (SADER) 's budget and priorities for 2019. In the budget, a total of six 
billion Mexican pesos will be allocated for the implementation of the Strategic Programme 
of Guaranteed Prices  for small producers of basic commodities of corn, beans, wheat, rice, 
and milk.  
i. Canada would be interested in the details of the operating procedures for the 
guaranteed prices programme.  
ii. Canada understands that under this programme that Mexico will purc hase certain 
volumes of these basic commodities from small scale producers. Could Mexico G/AG/W/194  
 
- 7 - 
 
  elaborate as to how it will dispose of these purchased commodities on the domestic 
market?  
b. In the same budget for SADER, four billion Mexican Pesos were allocated for  the 
implementation of the second Strategic Programme: credits for the Livestock sector. 
Canada would be interested in the details of the operating procedures for this programme.  
i. Could Mexico indicate which states are eligible for this programme?  
ii. Which ty pes of livestock will be eligible for this support, in order of priority? (For 
example: beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, small ruminants, poultry)  
1.9  Moldova's environmental charges  
1.9.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90005)  
As Ukraine is aware, Moldova applies  environmental charges on both imported and domestic 
products pursuant to the Law No. 1540 dated 25 February 1998 "On Charge for Contamination of 
Environment" as amended. Specifically, Ukraine understands that charges are applied for primary 
packaging mate rials such as plastics and aluminium and pack aging such as Tetra Pak and 
PET-packaging. According to para 6 of Article 11 of the Law certain goods and packaging are exempt 
from the "Charge for Contamination of Environment ". The extent of these exemptions, however, is 
not entirely clear.  
  
Ukraine exports to Moldova beer, juice containing products, non -alcoholic beverages and other 
products packaged in such type of packaging.  
  
a. Could Moldova please clarify if Law No. 1540 as amended applies to all packaging used in 
beer, juice containing products, non -alcoholic beverages and other products, such as Tetra 
Pak and PET -packaging?  
b. Could Moldova please verify that this measure does n ot represent an import restriction, 
specifically that domestically packaged products and imported products face the same 
charges for such packaging?  
1.10  New Zealand's support to dairy processing facilities  
1.10.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90006)  
Regional  Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced end -November 2018 that the 
government would provide a $9.9 million repayable interest -bearing loan for Westland Milk Products 
from the Provincial Growth Fund. He confirmed that some of the spending from the $1 billion 
Provincial Growth Fund will qualify as agricultural subsidies and have to be reported to the World 
Trade Organization, something New Zealand has not done for 25 years.  
 
The funds to Westland will be used to develop segregation facilities at the co -operative 's Hokitika 
site, which will enable Westland Milk Products to collect and process different types of milk products 
and milk, such as A2 milk and colostrum.  
 
a. How does New Zealand intend to notify this support to its dairy sector in its DS:1?  
b. Can New Zealand explain more in detail about this programme and support granted from 
the Provincial Growth Fund. How much money is available from the fund to agricultural 
projects, how much for the dairy sector and which agricultural projects are envisage d to 
be supported?  
c. Is this a shift away from previous declared New Zealand policy of not granting government 
support to agriculture and the farming sector?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.11  Nigeria's domestic support programme s  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90034)  
Australia welcomes N igeria 's submission of domestic support notif ications for the period 2012 
to 2016,  G/AG/N/NGA/17 , in October 2017.  
a. Does Nigeria plan to include key agricultural elements of its Economic Recovery and 
Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support no tifications?  
b. Specifically, how will Nigeria classify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets?  
1.12  Russia's increased support to dairy sector  
1.12.1   Question by Eu ropean Union (AG -IMS ID 90007)  
According to Russia Dairy news in late November, the Russian government is increasing support per 
hectare for farmers by 11  billion rubles ( €145m) and the volume of subsidies per litre of milk by 
8 billion rubles ( €105 million) as part of a general increase in agricultural support to 294  billion 
rubles next year. Additional funds will be allocated for the recapitalisation of the Rossekhozbank.  
a. Can the Russia n Federation  explain more in detail the eligibility criteria for these  new aid 
schemes?  
b. What was the purpose of the recapitalisation of Rossekhozbank?  
1.13  Switzerland – "Loi Chocolatiè re" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision on 
Export competition  
1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90020)  
a. Can Switzerland confirm that following the new "Loi chocolatiè re" in operation as of 
1 January 2019, an amount equal to previous export subsidies will reach chocolate 
producers via farmers and private funds?  
b. Can Switzerland explain how the new law complies with the Nairobi Export Com petition 
Decision and its new certified schedule?  
1.14  Thailand's support to palm oil growers  
1.14.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90008)  
At the end of November 2018, the National Palm Oil Committee announced that it would support 
150,000 palm oil growers with up to 22,500  baht per individual grower for a total cost of 
3.5 billion  baht for the taxpayer.  
a. Can Thailand indicate the possible effect on palm oil production the following years of this 
support measures?  
b. How does Thailand intend to notify this support scheme?  
Further, the Minister of Energy has announced that the Electricity Authority Thailand will purchase 
160,000  tonnes of crude palm oil at a price of 18 bah t/kg for the use as fuel in power generation.  
c. Can Thailand confirm that this purchase has taken place?  
d. Can Thailand indicate the current market price for crude palm oil in Thailand?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.15  U.S. Farm Bill 2018  
1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90071)  
Australia n otes the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (otherwise known as the Farm Bill) was 
signed into law on 20 December 2018:  
a. When will the United States  notify this package to the WTO?  
b. How will the support to agriculture authorised in the Farm B ill be classif ied under the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. How does support to agriculture authorised in the Farm Bill adhere to WTO limits for 
domestic support in agriculture (US do mestic support is capped at $19 billion)?  
Australia notes the Farm Bill will continue fun ding for the Market Access Program, Foreign Market 
Development Program, Emerging Markets Program, and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops 
Program, the four main  trade and market access programmes authorised under the previous Farm 
Bill.  
d. Will the organisations that have been awarded funding under the Agriculture Trade 
Promotion Program that was introduced as part of the $12 billion farmer assistance 
package still be eligible for funding from the Market Access Program (MAP)?  
e. What are the d ifferences between these two programmes?  
Australia notes the Margin Protection Program for dairy producers has been renamed as the Dairy 
Margin Coverage Program and it will modify coverage levels and premiums:  
f. Why have the coverage levels and premiums be en adjusted under the programme and to 
what extent?  
g. What is the forecast uptake of this programme with these modifications?  
h. Australia notes that the sugar programme will continue in its current form under the Farm 
Bill. Will the continuation of the curre nt sugar programme be impacted by the US -Mexico 
sugar suspension agreements and will this have any implications for Australia's sugar 
access under the US WTO sugar quota?  
i. Australia notes the Farm Bill will modify the organic certification requirements for imported 
agricultural products.  What will this involve compared to current process and are these 
new arrangements expected to change current import requirements?  
Australia understands that the United States  uses the authorities of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to purchase various food stuffs outside of the farm bills, such as the purchase of 
$50 million  of fluid milk in August 2018, which are then redistributed through nutrition and food 
assistance programmes.  
j. Does the United States  plan to expand commod ity purchases under Section 32 of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act to additional commodities beyond those 
included in recent years?  
k. How do commodity purchases under Section 32 differ from those made under the authority 
of Section 5 of th e CCC Charter Act, including those announced under the Food Purchase 
and Distribution Program as part the $12 billion package to assist farmers impacted by 
trade retaliation?  
l. The US Department of Agriculture often notes in Section 32 purchase announcements  that 
purchases are made "with the purpose to encourage the continued domestic consumption 
of these products by diverting them from the normal channels of trade and commerce ". G/AG/W/194  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Does the United States  anticipate any market impacts from diverting purchased 
commodities from the normal channels of trade and commerce?  
1.15.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90010)  
With the renamed Dairy Margin Coverage programme the 'margin coverage levels ' are offered at 
reduced premiums and the range has been increased up to a margin of $9.50 per hundredweight 
(cwt.) for milk.  The subsidized part of the premiums is going to increase for the first 5 mi. pounds 
of milk produced.  
Can the US indicate the expec ted increase of the budgetary outlay for this programme in the coming 
years and whether it is expected to influence the level of production in the US?  
1.15.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90037)  
a. The Farm Bill 2018 has made a number of changes in agriculture risk coverage in terms 
of both price and yield calculations. Under the historical ARC provisions, plug yield was 
70% of the county 's transitional yield. The Farm Bill ch anges the plug yield in the 
ARC benchmark revenue calculation to be no lower than 80 % of the  county 's transitional 
yield. Beside this, USDA Risk Management Agency trend -adjusted yield factors will be 
incorporated into the benchmark and actual yield calculations. The United States is 
requested to explain the reason behind increase in plug yield as  well as using trend 
adjusted yield factors in calculation of ARC payments . 
b. Under the recent Farm bill, fixed reference prices for PLC are now allowed to "float" higher 
based on the Olympic moving average price and may increase to as much as 115 % of the 
statutory reference price. Beside this, market loan rate for covered commodities has also 
been significantly increased. What is the rationale for adopting a floating rate reference 
price and increase in market loan rate for the covered commodities?  
1.16  U.S. tra de promotion payments  
1.16.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90013)  
The U.S. Dep artment of Agriculture awarded $200 million to 57  organizations through the 
Agricultural Trade Promotion (ATP) Program to help U.S. farmers and ranchers identify and access 
new export markets.  Can the US give any more detail on the criteria and eligibility for these 
programmes?  
1.17  U.S. Boston Bounty Bucks funds programme  
1.17.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90038)  
Boston Bounty Bucks funds administered through the Boston Col laborative for Food and 
Fitness  (BCFF), is a dollar -for-dollar matching programme that enables farmers ' market customers 
using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to expand their purchasing power. 
Programme participants receive double the amount spe nt in SNAP benefits at farmers ' markets (up 
to $10.00). The goals of Boston Bounty Bucks programme were to provide more direct sales 
opportunities for regional farmers through the creation of new and expanded farmers ' markets in 
Boston and to increase the economic viability of local farmers ' markets by making them accessible 
a new pool of consumers - those who use food stamps/EBT benefits to purchase their food. It seems 
that, under this scheme the regional farmers get direct incentive s by using the SNAP. Th e 
United  States is requested to clarify the following:  
a. How is the Boston Bounty Bucks funds notified in the domestic support notifications?  
b. Under which category (Green, Blue, or Amber box) the subsidies are/would be notified?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.18  Canada's New Milk Ingredient C lass 
1.18.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90018)  
In 2015, before Class 6 was implemented in Ontario, total skim milk powder (SMP) exports for the 
calendar year were 13,671 tonnes. In 2016 this amount almost doubled to 23,687 tonnes. In 2017, 
following the im plementation of the national milk ingredient strategy (Class 7) total SMP exports 
tripled at 71,861 tonnes. For the 11 months to November 2018 total SMP exports already total 
61,635 tonnes. Canada assured Members at the November 2018 C ommittee on Agricultu re 
(AG IMS ID 89055) that under the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) it had agreed 
to ensure elimination of milk classes 6 (in Ontario) and 7, including their associa ted milk class prices, 
within six  months from entry into force of the agreeme nt. Given the negative impact these high 
volumes of SMP on the global market continue to have on other major dairy exporting countries, 
can Canada provide an update on what it is doing to eliminate milk classes 6 and 7, and their 
associated milk class pric es? 
1.18.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90120)  and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 90039)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it was in the process of verifying the accuracy of 
data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales.  Canada also st ated that once 
completed, this information would be provided.  Is this information available?  If not, please 
provide an update on when and where this information will become available.  
b. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it is not obliged to publish a fu ll list of eligible 
Class 7 products and is not in a position to confirm whether the list is identical to the list 
included in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -06, Nova 
Scotia Reg. 12/2017, and Saskatchewan Order No. 28/17.  
What information will Canada publish regarding Class 7 eligibility to inform Members ' understanding 
of Class 7 and ensure Canada is complying with its WTO commitments regarding the implementation 
of this government measure?  
c. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada states that processor margins "may include return on 
investment for the processors " but did not answer the U.S. question about how this factor 
of the margin is determined.  Please explain how the return on investment is determined . 
1.19  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.19.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90040)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United States in AG -IMS ID  85012, 
AG-IMS ID 86034, AG -IMS ID 87016, AG -IMS ID 88096, and AG -IMS ID 89021.  As such,  the United 
States repeats its previous questions.  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that are continuously 
available, available to grocers by  moving them to the LCBO Wines category ". 
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order to be 
sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 12 - 
 
  b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer and wine 
authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been distributed to operators 
of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have been 
distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization that permits the 
operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine bou tique 
inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002 specifying different retail price parameters and size 
parameters for i mported bag in box wine than for the category of existing Ontario bag in 
box wine?  (http://www.doingbusinesswith lcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%20T
ender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported  bag in box wine is limited to four  stocks  keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited  to 40 SKUs? If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
f. According to Canada 's STE notification (G/STR/N/16/CAN), Nova Scotia applies mark -ups 
to commercial wines that have been bottled in the province d ifferently than commercial 
wine that have been bottled outside the province.  Specifically, commercial wines that are 
bottled in Nova Scotia are afforded a mark -up reductio n of 20 percentage points 
(from  140% to 120%).  
i. Would Canada make available the Nova S cotia Liquor Corporation documents setting 
out mark -ups for commercial wines bottled in the province and bottled outside the 
province?  
ii. Given that only commercial wines bottled in Nova Scotia would appear to qualify for 
this benefit, could Canada please exp lain how this policy ensures non -discrimination 
against foreign products?  
g. The Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation maintains a preferential mark -up for Emerging Wine 
Regions (currently 43%).  How does a producer from an emerging wine region, as defined 
by the NSL C, apply for recognition of their emerging wine region status?  
h. Please provide a list of non -Canadian Emerging Wine Region wines available for sale 
through the NLSC.  
1.20  EU's CAP reform  
1.20.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90022)  
Australia seeks further information  on the status of the European Commission's CAP reform proposal. 
While Australia welcomes the proposal to reduce total CAP funding,  Australia has concerns regarding 
the increased flexibility provided to individual member States to design tailor -made progra mmes for 
farmers and rural communities.  Australia understand s under the current proposal that member 
States will have the option to transfer up to 15% of their CAP allo cations between direct 
payments  (pillar 1) and rural development (pillar 2) priorities i n line with their EC approved Strategic 
Plan. 
a. Will the EC set minimum funding requirements (in Euros ) per member State for pillar  1 
and pillar 2?  
b. Given the inc reased flexibility devolved to m ember States, how will the EC ensure each 
Strategic Plan is WTO c ompliant?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 13 - 
 
  c. If member States deviate from their strategic plans, will there be any punitive actions 
taken by the EC?  
d. Furthermore, as a major canola exporter to the EU, Australia seeks further information on 
the EU 's plan to improve protein crop production.  
e. Does the EC 's CAP reform proposal plan to increase the supplementary rate for coupled 
income support for protein crops (from 2%)?  
1.21  European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90087)  
As a result of Br exit, the European Union is planning to unilaterally apportion its Tariff Rate Quota 
volumes between it and the United Kingdom as of 29 March 2019.  
a. Given the allocation of certain quota volumes for 2019 has already occurred, and in many 
cases, import lice nces may have already been issued, how does the European Union  (EU) 
propose to manage the change to its quotas from its existing EU -28 schedule to its new 
EU-27 draft schedule during the quota year?  
b. How will EU importers be expected to manage existing con tracts to import products into 
the UK (whether directly or indirectly) under EU -28 quotas?  
c. How is the EU informing importers of the intended changes?  
1.21.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90028)  
The EU has launched Article XXVIII negotiations in response to  Brexit, which are due to start in the 
coming weeks, once claims of interest have been acknowledged.  While the EU has signalled its desire 
to engage in those negotiations in good faith, it appears that the impact of EU regulation 2019/216 
published 30 Janu ary this year in the event of a 'no deal ' would be to unilaterally impose an outcome 
before affected Members have had a chance to engage in negotiations with the EU.  
 
Can the EU clarify how it intends to act ensure negotiations can proceed in an open and fair manner?  
 
1.22  Ghana's poultry imports  
1.22.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90041)  
The United States requests a response to AG -IMS ID 89023:  
  
The United States understands that Ghana has established new import requirements on poultry 
imports. T hese new measures appear to restrict the quantity of imports and limit time for which a 
permit is valid.   
a. Please explain which of Ghana 's laws, regulations, or other relevant policy directives have 
been added or modified to reflect these changes.  
b. Where are  these documents published?  
c. Please describe how this new measure is being implemented.  
1.23  India's pulses policies  
1.23.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90032)  
Further to Australia 's previous questions at the last Committee meeting ( 89th CoA), Australia has a 
series of follow -up questions regarding Indian measures relating to pulses.  
 G/AG/W/194  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Australia notes that India's quantitative restriction (QR) of 100,000 tonnes of peas (including Yellow 
Peas, Green Peas, Dun Peas and Kaspa Peas) in Notification No. 4/2015 -2020 of 25 April 2018 for a 
period of three months (1 April to 30 June 2018) has now been extended three times.  
a. Australia requests India to advise whether any additional volume was included as part of 
the most recent extension from 1 January 2019 to 31 March 2019?  
In a previous response to this Committee (ID 89057), India stated 466,000 metric tonnes of peas 
were imported against a QR of 100,000 metric tonnes in the 12 months to September 2018.  
b. Australia requests India to advise which countries these peas were import ed from?  
c. Of the 466,000 metric tonnes, how many peas were imported after 1 April 2018?  
d. Could India please indicate the total quantity of peas imported (by country) between 
1 October 2018 and 31 December 2018?  
1.23.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90088)  
On 25 Apr il 2018, India introduced a quantitative restriction, which imposes a 100,000 tonne s limit 
on the volume of dry peas that can be imported from all countries. This import limit on dry peas has 
been extended multiple times and on 31 December 2018, India anno unced that this restriction is 
being extended for a period of three months until 31 March 2019.  
a. Could India indicate if the quantitative restrictions (QR) on dry peas will be renewed after 
31 March  2019?  
b. Considering that the QR have been in place for almost a year could India indicate under 
which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements that is being used to support this 
restriction?  
c. Please provide updated monthly numbers for the wholesale price index (WPI ) for pulses 
since August 2018.  
1.23.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90029)  
In November 2017 the government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas up to 50%. 
In addition to this measure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a quantitative r estriction on import of 
yellow peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount of import of yellow peas to the 
territory of India shall be 100 000 MT from 1 April to 30 June 2018. After the expiry of this measure 
the quota was extended until 30 September 2018. In late December 2018 the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry of India issued a notice restricting the import of yellow peas from 1 January 2019 until 
31 March 2019.  
  
Could India clarify the following issues:  
a. What is the amount of yellow p eas eligible to be importe d from 01 January 2019 until 
31 March 2019?  
b. Could India provide the amount of yellow peas imported over the periods from 1 April to 
25 April 2018, from 1 April to 30 June 2018, and from 2 July to 30 September 2018?  
c. How these mea sures (quantitative restrictions and import b an) are consistent with 
Article  XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.23.4   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90004)  
India has put in place quantitative restrictions on dry pea imports since A pril 2018. As Ukraine 
currently understands, these restrictions elapsed on 31 December 2018. According to the media, 
India is expecting a drop in domestic production of pulses output in 2019.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 15 - 
 
  a. Could India please confirm that quantitative restrictions for d ry peas are no longer in place 
as of 1 January 2019?  
b. Does India have preliminary 2019 production estimates for pulses, and what factors are 
deemed critical for India 's 2019 production level of dry peas?  
c. Does India have any intention to reinstitute quanti tative or other restrictions on any pulse 
imports in 2019?  
1.23.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90043)  
The United States notes that India has again extended the quantitati ve restriction for peas 
through  31 March 2019.   
 
a. India has indicated that  the quantitative restrictions, which were first implemented starting 
in April 2017, are temporary.  When does India intend to end the restriction?  
b. What are the criteria India uses to determine whether the quantitative restrictions will 
remain in place or b e removed?  
c. India has previously agreed to provide an explanation for the restrictions in other 
WTO Committees.  When and in which committee will India provide a full explanation?  
1.24  India's sugar policies  
1.24.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90033)  
Further to Aus tralia's previous questions regarding sugar measures implemented by the Government 
of India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions.  
a. Could India please indicate whether it will increase the current mandatory minimum selling 
price for sugar from Rs 2 9 per kg?  
b. Will the g overnment of India increase the level of buffer stocks of sugar fr om the current 
level of three  million tonnes? In addition, does the Government of India intend to increase 
the current carrying cost reimbursement from Rs .1175 crore?  
1.25  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.25.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90002)  
a. In reply to questions AG -IMS ID 89026 and AG-IMS ID 88070 in previous meetings India 
promised to give figures on:    
• the total quantity  of SMP exported with subsidy ; 
• total value of subsidies and ; 
• total costs of these subsidies as promised.  
However this data is not yet available in AG -IMS. Could India deliver this data as soon as possible, 
covering both the federal government level and subsidy granted by the states of Guja rat and 
Maharashtra respectively.  
 
b. India also indicated in the last meeting that it intended to forward a notification of its 
export subsidies. Can India indicate a possible timeframe for this notification?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.26  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.26.1   Question  by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90027)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094 and ID 88104:  
  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and milk. In late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of 
Mongolia established an import prohibition on wheat flour. In May 2018 Mongolia put in place a 
quota for import of wheat flour for the rest of the year 2018. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and 
Light Industry of  Mongolia published a notice for importers to submit the applications for allocation 
of quota volume only in July 2018. Despite the fact that the deadline for submitting applications for 
quota allocation was 19 July 2018, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia 
failed to allocate the quota volume among the importers of wheat flour in 2018. As a result, imports 
were restricted even within the quota volume; and, a de facto import ban on wheat flour prevailed 
throughout the whole last year. On 18 January 2019 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light 
Industry of Mongolia issued a decree that opens the import of certain amounts of agricultural 
products, including wheat flour and milk. The Russian Federation welcomes the intention of Mo ngolia 
to introduce a quota for import of wheat flour in 2019. However, the Russia n Federation  is seeking 
further clarification from Mongolia regarding its quota regime, in particular:  
  
a. Could Mongolia explain the reasons for not allocating the wheat flou r quota volume among 
the importers in 2018?  
b. Whether Mongolia is going to allocate the quota volume among the importers of wheat 
flour for 2019 quota year? When Mongolia is going to issue a decision allocating the quota 
volume among the importers?  
c. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
1.27  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90045)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 88072, Pakistan claimed it is only providing freight and marketing support 
for exports.  According to Agreement on Agriculture Article 9.1(d), this would include items such as: 
handling, upgrading and other processing, an d international transport and freight, as well as 
favourable  internal transport and freight charges.  Note that a) the support price in Pakistan is 
Rs 1300 per 40 kg, or about $265 per MT at August 2018 exchange rates, and b) that Pakistan 
authorized the export subsidy price of up to $159 per metric ton ne. By USDA estimates, if all other 
costs were covered and wheat was sold at that price FOB, Pakistan would still be one of the highest 
price origins in the world.  
 
a. Please provide additional information and data that would clarify that the subsidy is only 
being provided for the internal transport and freight charges on export shipments.  
According to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, "Members shall seek not to raise their export subsidies 
beyond the average level of the pas t five years on a product basis ". Pakistan announced a subsidy 
for wheat exports early in 2018, which expired on 30 June 2018.  Pakistan reportedly announced 
additional funding for subsidizing wheat exports in November 2018.  
 
b. Please provide an update on the wheat export subsidy programmes, including the quantity 
of wheat exported under these program mes during 2018.   
c. Please provide any details on how this measure differs from the previous measure 
governing the programme that expired in June.  
d. Does Pakistan plan to provide increased levels or extend its current support levels for 
wheat exports going forward?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.28  Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  
1.28.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90068)  
New Zealand refers to its question at the November 2018 Co mmittee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 89064) when New Zealand noted that Sri Lanka was applying a Value Added Tax  (VAT) 
on imported milk powder while exempting domestic producers.  
 
a. New Zealand again ask s Sri Lanka to explain how its application of VAT on impo rted 
product and not on domestically produced goods complies Article III of the GATT 1947?  
At the time of the last Committee on Agriculture meeting, New Zealand's  understanding was the 
tariff on milk powder would be removed for two weeks to enable importe rs of milk powder to clear 
product. After the two weeks a lower tariff would be re -imposed and a review of the tariff settings 
on milk powder was scheduled to occur in January 2019.  
 
b. Can Sri Lanka update the Membership on its progress with a review of its  tariff settings?  
1.29  Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  
1.29.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90009)  
According to the latest available export statistics, Turkey has increased the export of flour from 
2.1 million tonnes in 2013 to nearly 3.5  millio n tonnes in 2017 (Source GTA), which is an increase 
of 63% in four  years.  
 
Year Customs code  Exported quantity ton ne 
2013 11 01 00  2.142.367  
2014 11 01 00  2.207.218  
2015 11 01 00  2.796.517  
2016 11 01 00  3.532.690  
2017 11 01 00  3.489.624  
a.  Can Turkey indicate the share of this quantity which has been exported under inward 
processing?  
Further, the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) has been buying common wheat on the internal market and 
releasing it on the internal market at a lower price. For instan ce, in 2013 the buying -in price was 
between 296  $/tonne and 386  $/tonne, while it was released on the Turkish market for 223  $/tonne. 
b. Can Turkey explain in more detail about this scheme for buying -in and release of wheat 
by the TMO in the years since 2013,  including prices?  
c.  How does Turkey intend to notify this support in its future DS:1 notifications?  
1.30  U.S. proposed domestic support measures  
1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90035)  
Australia thanks the United States for its update to Australia's questions at the 89th CoA regarding 
the implementation of the assistance package for farmers impacted by trade retaliation. Australia is 
seeking an update from the Unite States  on the second and final round of trade mitigation payments 
announced in December 2018.  
a. With applications for the Market Facilitation Program closing on 14 February, could the 
United States please indicate the total amount of expenditure under the programme?  
b. How many applications were received (by commodity)?  
c. If total expenditure is less than the $9.6 billion estimated by USDA, will excess funding 
(remainder of $12 billion) be used for other agricultural programmes?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.31  U.S. support to cotton sector  
1.31.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90036)  
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 made cotton producers eligible for Title I farm program mes by 
designating seed cotton, i.e. a combination of both cotton lint and cottonseed, a covered commodity, 
effective for the 2018/19 marketing year. United States is requested to explain the foll owing:  
a. What factors were taken into consideration while determining the reference price for seed 
cotton at 36.7 cents per pound?  
b. Why was there a need to include seed cotton under covered commodity to make it eligible 
for PLC/ARC program mes? 
c. It is understoo d that for seed cotton, PLC payments will be made if the marketing year 
average price falls below the reference price. How will the marketing year average price 
be calculated?  
d. In case marketing year average price is based on the weighted prices of upland cotton and 
cottonseed, what weights would be used?  
e. Please provide the data on total area covered under cotton crop during years 2014 to 
2019. Since the introduction of cotton as a covered commodity under the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2018, how many generic acres have been reallocated to plant cotton?  
f. Please provide data indicating the number of cotton farmers who have opted for PLC and 
ARC program mes since 2018 till date.  
The Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program, 2016 was a programme of the USDA to provide one -time 
payment to producers of cotton to cover ginning costs. A simil ar programme introduced in 
year 2018, right after the Bipartisan Budget Act, 2018 included "seed cotton " in the covered 
commodity list, thereby making the cotton producers eligible for Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or 
Agriculture Revenue Coverage (ARC) program mes.  
g. In this context, could the United States clarify if a cotton producer covered under the PLC 
or ARC  programmes will also be eligible for the CGCS Program, 2018.  
1.32  Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  
1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90046)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89033 and AG-IMS ID 88076, the United States would like to reiterate 
the following question, for which Zimbabwe has not provided a written answer:  
  
The United States understands the government of Zimbabwe 's Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe ( which is 
the central bank ) is providing tobacco growers a performance export bonus as an incenti ve to grow 
the country 's production and increase exports.  For the 2018 marketing season, the central bank, 
has increased the export incentive from 5 % to 12% and up to 17.5 % for top exporters.  
a. Please explain these agriculture support measures implemented b y Zimbabwe 's central 
bank during the marketing periods 2017 and 2018.  
b. What is the legal basis under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision that 
allows for this kind of agriculture support measure?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 19 - 
 
  2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.1.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  
AG-IMS ID 90072: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes India's notification concerning imports under tar iff quotas (Table MA:2) for 
the 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 marketing years.   
a. Can India explain the reason for the under -fill for the maize (corn) tariff quota for 
MY 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17?  
i. Can India explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, the 
existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
ii. Can India explain the reason behind the lack of applications in MY 2010/11, 2012/13, 
2014/15 and 2016/17 ? 
b. Can India explain what it i s doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quota, as 
per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
2.1.2   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/70)  
AG-IMS ID 90030: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Notified "in-quota  imports during period " for all tariff rate quotas significantly exceed "tariff quota 
quantity for period " levels while fill -rate equals 100%. Is it correct that volumes specified in column 
"In-quota imports during period " represent total imports (includin g out-of-quota import) under the 
tariff line(s) for which TRQs were opened?  
2.1.3   The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/22, G/AG/N/MKD/24)  
AG-IMS ID 90048: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The fill -rate of tariff rate quota for "other spelt, other than common wheat and meslin seed " have 
fallen by almost 20% (from 28% to 9,4%) resulting in quite low fill -in rate as it was notified by the 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in G/AG/N/MKD/22 and G/AG/MKD/24. Could the FYR of 
Maced onia clarify the reasons for the decrease and low fill -rates of the mentioned tariff rate quota?  
AG-IMS ID 90073: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's notification concerning imports 
under  tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for the 2018 marketing year  (G/AG/N/MKD/24).  
a. Can the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia explain the reason for the under -fill for 
the spelt tariff quota for MY 2018?  
i. Can the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia explain wheth er the under -fill was due 
to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?  
b. Can the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia explain what it is doing to increase 
utilisation of its under -filled tariff quota, a s per the objective of the review of the Bali 
Decision on TRQ Administration?  
AG-IMS ID 90090: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 's (FYROM) most recent 
MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/MKD/24), w hich covers the 2018 marketing year, the fill rate for its sole 
tariff-rate quota (wheat, other than durum wheat or seeds) is low (9.4%). Looking at the FYROM 's 
previous notifications (G/AG/N/MKD/19 and G/AG/N/MKD/22), covering the 2013 -2017 marketing G/AG/W/194  
 
- 20 - 
 
  years, Canada notes that the fill rate for the same tariff -rate quota (TRQ) has remained at or 
under  30%.  
a. Could the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia explain why the fill rate for its wheat 
TRQ remains low?  
b. Has the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia considered putting in place a TRQ 
administration policy that is conducive to TRQ utilization?  
2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/32)  
AG-IMS ID 90074: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Ukraine's not ification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for 
the calendar year 2017.  
a. Can Ukraine explain the reason for the under -fill for the raw cane sugar tariff quota 
for 2017?  
i. Can Ukraine explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, the 
existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. Can Ukraine explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quota, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administ ration?  
2.2  Special Agricultural Safeguard s (Tables MA:3  to MA:5)  
2.2.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/168, G/AG/N/TPKM/169, G/AG/N/TPKM/171)  
AG-IMS ID 90049: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 8907 3: 
  
The volume -based  special safeguard for garlic applied since 14 December 2018 was notified on 
3 January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/168). The volume -based special agricultural safeguard on dried 
shiitake applied since 21 December 2018 was notified on 17 January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/169 ). The 
volume -based special agricultural safeguard for peanuts which was in force since 25 December 2018 
was notified on 22 January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/171). The volume -based special agricultural 
safeguard for red beans applied since 21 December 2018 was not ified on 24 January 2019 
(G/AG/N/TPKM/172).  
  
Paragraph 7 of Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that "Any Member taking action 
under subparagraph 1(a) above shall give notice…in any event within 10 days of the implementation 
of such action ". Could please Chinese Taipei please kindly clarify the reasons for this delay?  
2.3  Domestic Support commitments (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/117, G/AG/N/AUS/118)  
AG-IMS ID 90050: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:9 : 
  
The United States understands the "Package Assisting Small Exporters (PASE) " provides rebates to 
small exporters to cover 50 % of export registration charges.  The package funded projects to help 
reduce barriers and/or assist with marketing str ategies for small exporters with grant payments over 
a number of years out to 2021 -2022.  
  
Please specify the eligibility criteria for this measure, including a) whether there are any commodities 
or products not eligible to receive payments, and b) whether  there is any requirement to export.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 21 - 
 
  2.3.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 90059: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Australia 's response to India 's question AG -IMS ID 88050 regarding support provided by the 
Australian gov ernment for live cattle exports to Indonesia, Australia states that "…the support was 
eligible only for those primary producers involved in the live cattle export trade to Indonesia during 
the 2011 -12 financial year ". On the basis of this statement, it app ears that the Australian 
government provided incentives to primary producers on the basis of export performance. How does 
Australia justify the notification of the above -mentioned  support as domestic support and not export 
subsidy?  
 
2.3.3   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  
AG-IMS ID 90014: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
a. For the marketing credit measures  
i. Can Brazil indicate the total credit amount and the average subsidised rate for these 
loans/credits?  
ii. Can Brazil indicate the commercial rate for bank loans for such types of loans?  
b. For the  debt resche duling programmes, can Brazil explain more in detail how these 
programmes work, the  eligibility criteria and the types of farms that benefit the most from 
these programmes?  
2.3.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/ N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47)  
AG-IMS ID 90077: Question by Australia - - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia is seeking further information from China regarding the following aspects of its recently 
submitted domestic support notifications for the period 2011 -2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/42 - 
G/AG/N/CHN/47).  
a. Over the period from 2011 -2016, were all farmers eligible to receive both the minimum 
purchase price and to access temporary reserve measures for the followi ng commodities?  
• Corn (2011 -2016) ; 
• Soybean (2011 -2014) ; 
• Cotton (2011 -2014) ; 
• Rapeseed (2011 -2015) ; 
• Sugar (2011 -2013) ; 
• Wheat (2011 -2016) ; 
• Rice (2011 -2016) . 
b. In addition, Australia would appreciate further information on the design and structure of 
the Temporar y Reserve Programme. Are there any other agricultural commodities that are 
currently eligible to access the Programme?  
c. Australia would appreciate further information clarifying why eligible production and the 
administered price for Indica and Japonica rice  were converted to those of milled rice? 
What is the basis of the 70% conversion rate stated in these notifications?  
d. Australia seeks further details of what programmes or measures are included in "other 
non-exempt direct payments " for soybean and cotton ov er the period 2014 -2016?  
e. Could China please provide further examples of programmes included under "general 
subsidies for agricultural production supplies " across 2011 -2016?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 22 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90021: Question by European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU notice that several Chinese media report s refer  to the active crop insurance policy.  
 
a. Can China explore more in detail the instruments China use in this context, including the 
level of loss needed to become eligible for such support?  
b. Can China indicate how these measures have been included the DS:1 notifications for the 
years 2011 -2016?  
AG-IMS ID 90061: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Current Total AMS for corn in 2015 is a sum of support from "Temporary reserve programme " and 
"subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds ". Temporary Reserve programme for corn was 
terminated in 2016 (Note "c" to Supporting Table DS:5 in the notification G/AG/N/CHN/44). 
Supporting Table DS:7 to the notification G/AG/N/CHN/46 states that provision of "target price " and 
"subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds " for soybeans ha s resulted in Total AMS of 
65.8 million hundred CNY. Supporting table DS:4 states that support of 65.8 million hundred CNY 
was included in calculation of Current Total AMS.  
  
Current Total AMS for cotton in 2015 consists of "target price " and "subsidy for improved crop strains 
and seed s", and "cost subsidy for transporting cotton out of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region ". 
Notes from "c" to "f" to Supporting Table DS:5 in the notification G/AG/N/CHN/44 state that the 
following measures were terminated: "c. Temporary Reserve progr amme for corn was terminated 
in 2016. d. Temporary Reserve programme for soybean was terminated in 2014. e. Temporary 
Reserve programme for cotton was terminated in 2014. f. Temporary Reserve programme for 
rapeseed was terminated in 2015."  
  
Note "c" to the Table D S:1 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/46 covering the period of calendar year 2015 
specifies that all measures accumulated in the volume of Current Total AMS in column 3 of Table 
DS:1 were terminated. The above -mentioned measures include support for corn, cotton and 
soybeans. Note "c" to Supporting Table DS:4 in notification  
  
G/AG/N/CHN/46 states that support measures for corn, soybean and cotton were terminated. 
Termination of Temporary Reserve programmes for corn, soybean and cotton is clearly stated while 
for other above -mentioned measures it is not. Notification G/AG/N/CHN/47 covering period of 
calendar year 2016 still includes "subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds " for corn, "target 
price" for soybeans, "target price " for cotton, and "cost subsidy f or transporting cotton out of Xinjiang 
Uygur Autonomous Region " for cotton.  
  
Could China please clarify were "subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds " for corn; "target 
price" for soybeans; "target price " and "subsidy for improved crop strains and seeds " for cotton; and 
"cost subsidy for transporting cotton out of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region " terminated? If 
terminated, then, please, specify when.  
AG-IMS ID 90056: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The Russian Federation welcomes notifications on Domestic Suppo rt covering calendar years 
from 2011 to 2016 submitted by China on 11 December 2018.  
 
a. Could China please provide the reasons for the delay of notifications starting from 2011?  
b. When does China pla n to notify its domestic support measures for 2017 calendar year?  
In notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47 "domestic food aid ", "decoupled income support " and "regional 
assistance programme " are mentioned among the measures for which exemption from reduction 
commitments is claimed.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 23 - 
 
  c. Could China provide more details on "domestic food aid " including eligibility criteria and 
prices at which food purchases by the government are made?  
d. Could China please provide more details on eligibility criteria for receiving "decoupled 
income support "?  
e. Could China please specify criteria to classify a region as disadvantaged one?  
AG-IMS ID 90055: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(inclu ding Table DS:2)  
From 2016 to present, China implemented a "Deep Processing " subsidy (3 billion RMB in 2016) for 
corn processors that is provincially managed and administered using central government funds in 
Northeast China.  On 25 February 2017, three pro vinces in Northeast China announced "Procedures 
for the Administration of Financial Subsidies for Feed Processing Enterprises in Jilin, Lia oning and 
Heilongjiang Province ". Please explain when and where China will notify this policy.  
AG-IMS ID 90051: Quest ion by United States of America - General services: research  
In G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/ 43, G/AG/N/CHN/ 44, G/AG/N/CHN/ 45, G/AG/N/CHN/ 46, and 
G/AG/N/CHN/ 47, Supporting Table DS:1, China reports annual government outlays for agriculture 
research of less t han 138 to 223 hundred million RMB per year ($21 -33 billion).  Please explain what 
research activities are included in this calculation.  
AG-IMS ID 90052: Question by United States of America - General services: inspection 
services  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1, Item 2(e), in 2015, China implemented its "Food and Hygiene 
Law of the People's Republic of China " elaborated in G/SPS/N/CHN/1055, which includes rigorous 
quarantine and inspection requirements.  In G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN /43, G/AG/N/CHN/ 44, 
G/AG/N/CHN/ 45, G/AG/N/CHN/ 46, and G/AG/N/CHN/ 47, Supporting Table DS:1, China 's reported 
outlays for inspection services from 2011 -2016 of 60 -94 hundred million RMB ($10 -15 billion) 
annually.  Please explain what these outlays include. F or example, do these outlays include diagnostic 
equipment purchases to implement the "Food and Hygiene Law of the People's Republic of China? " 
AG-IMS ID 90112: Question by Japan - General services: other  
In the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47), the expenditure on the other 
General Services is more than 50% of the expenditure on the General Service. Japan appreciates 
that China shows some examples of the other general services such as operating expenditure related 
to buildings, fa cilities and so on. However, could China give more detailed explanation on what kind 
of the services China provides and how much China spends on their services?  
AG-IMS ID 90058: Question by Russian Federation - General services: other  
The category "Other general services " in Green Box (notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47) contains "operating 
expenditures related to buildings, facilities, salaries and expenses of agricultural administrative and 
service agencies as well as pensions to retired employees of these government agencies ". Could 
China provide more information regarding the building and facilities which are supported under the 
category "Other general services ". Which operating expendi tures are covered under this subsidy?  
AG-IMS ID 90093: Question by Brazil - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/ 47, Supporting tables DS:1, the volume of 
measures exempt from reduction commit ments in the form of public stockholding for food security 
purposes has surged.  
a. Could China provide data on the amount of support each of the benefited crops received 
from 2011 to 2016?  
i. Where applicable, could China elucidate the management mechanism of these stocks, 
the variation of these stocks since 2011 and their current state?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 24 - 
 
  b. Could China provide official and updated data on the exports of crops that benefited the 
most from such programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 90113: Question by Japan - Public stockholding fo r food security purposes  
According to the DS:1 notifications from 2011 to 2016, China stockpiles wheat, corn, rice, vegetable 
oils and sugar for food security. Japan appreciates if China explains the targeted amount and the 
actual amount of stockpiles by p roduct.  
AG-IMS ID 90001: Question by European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
China – G/AG/CHN/47 – Decoupled income support  
Decoupled income support show increases from CNY  21.7 billion in 2015 to CNY  162 billion in 2016.  
 
a. Can China pl ease explain more in detail for this increase? If it includes new measures, can 
China explain in detail the criteria for these new support measures and in particular the 
eligibility criteria and how these payments are paid out to farmers? Which type of far mers 
is eligible to this support and are there any regional differentiations for these payments?  
b. Can China explain more in detail the expected future annual expenditure related to this 
decoupled income support for the years 2017 to 2019?  
c. Does China intend  to make a DS:2 notification for these measures as it has done for the 
Blue Box measures related to cotton and corn in G/AG/N/CHN/48 and G/AG/N/CHN/ 49 
respectively, as foreseen in Article 18?  
AG-IMS ID 90114: Question by Japan - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
China implements the decoupled income support.  
a. Could China explain in detail what kind of measures China implements?   
b. Article 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture prescribes eligibility for decoupled 
income support. For example, the  amount of payments shall not be based on the volume 
of production in any year after the base period. Could China explain in detail if the 
abovementioned measures meet such eligibility?  
c. Could China explain the reason why China drastically increases the exp enditure from 2015 
to 2016?  
AG-IMS ID 90053: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters  
Noting the category entitled "payments for relief from natural disasters " in Supporting Table DS:1, 
please expla in how China classifies its agriculture -related crop insurance premium subsidy 
expenditures in the following notifications: G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/ 43, G/AG/N/CHN/ 44, 
G/AG/N/CHN/ 45, G/AG/N/CHN/ 46, and G/AG/N/CHN/ 47? What was the total value of China's an nual 
premium subsidy payments from 2011 to 2016?  
AG-IMS ID 90016: Question by European Union - Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes  
The European Union notes that China increased the use of certain types of Green Box support 
dramat ically between 2015 and 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47). Support in the form of regional assistance 
programmes increased from 117.857 billion CNY to 220.378 billion CNY (87 %). Can China explain 
more in detail the policy changes behind this substantive increase?  
AG-IMS ID 90115: Question by Japan - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes  
China implements regional assistance programmes.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 25 - 
 
  a. Could China explain in detail what kind of programmes China implements?   
b. Article 13 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture prescribes eligibility for regional 
assistance programmes. Could China explain in detail if the abovementioned 
programmes  meet such eligibility?  
AG-IMS ID 90122: Question by Australia - Payments based on fixed areas or yields  
Australia is se eking further information from China regarding its recently submitted 2016 domestic 
support notification. China has included corn producer subsidies as a direct payment under 
production -limiting programmes (Blue Box). Australia seeks further details regard ing the application 
and accessibility for these subsidies.  
a. Were the producer subsidies introduced to eventually replace the Temporary Reserve 
Programme for corn?  
b. Furthermore, have these producer subsidies been continued into 2017 and 2018?  
AG-IMS ID 9006 2: Question by Russian Federation - Payments based on fixed areas or 
yields  
Notification G/AG/N/CHN/47 includes payments based on fixed a rea and yields under 
production -limiting programmes. Could China provide more details on the functioning of such 
progra mme for corn?  
AG-IMS ID 90076: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Further to Australia 's question at 88th and 89th CoA ( AG-IMS ID 88009/  AG-IMS ID 89083), Australia 
thanks China for submitting domestic support notifications for the period 2 011-2016 
(G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47).  
 
During the 2011 -2016 period, China has acknowledged a number of de minimis  breaches for key 
agricultural commodities. Could China please indicate what measures it has introduced or reforms it 
has implemented to ensure it complies with its WTO obligations?  
AG-IMS ID 90091: Question by Brazil - Scheduled commitment level  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47, Supporting Tables DS:4, support as a % of value of 
production was above 8,5% for cotton from 2011  to 2016; for corn from 2013 to  2016; for soybeans 
from 2012 to 2016, except in 2013; and for colza in 2011 and su gar in 2012.  
a. How does China justify such level of domestic support under its WTO commitments?  
b. Could China indicate the evolution of domestic prices of these five crops between 2011 
and 2016?  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47, every domestic su pport programme that led China to 
surpass its de minimis  level of support, hence breaching its accession commitments, was terminated 
in or before 2016.  
c. Does "termination" mean that such programmes were not continued under the aegis of 
the same rule and th at similar programs did not replace them? Or does "termination" have 
a different meaning here? If so, which one?  
d. Could China specify the projected and the real impact (quantities, cultivated area and 
government outlays) of the termination of said domestic  support programmes on the three 
aforementioned crops?  
AG-IMS ID 90096: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
China indicated that product -specific market price support over de minimis  levels to producers of 
cotton, corn, rapeseed, soybeans, and  sugar was provided through temporary reserve programmes. 
These were terminated at different stages, as per the footnotes to supporting table DS:5 in the G/AG/W/194  
 
- 26 - 
 
  aforementioned notifications. For example, the temporary reserve programmes for soybeans and 
cotton we re both terminated in 2014, while the temporary reserve programmes for rapeseed and 
corn were terminated in 2015 and 2016, respectively. In addition, Canada sees that China did not 
indicate that the temporary reserve programme for wheat was terminated, and  understands that 
China expects it would still be in effect beyond 2016. Canada would appreciate if China could provide 
further details on these temporary reserve programmes, including those for which support was 
provided under de minimis  levels (e.g., whe at):  
a. What circumstances, including market conditions, gave rise to these temporary reserve 
programmes?  
b. What was the legislative or regulatory basis for those programmes? How were they 
different, for example, than the minimum procurement price programmes notified by 
China during the 2011 -2016 period for wheat and japonica/indica rice?  
c. How did these programmes operate? Did China purchase the stocks at the applied 
administered price to resell them at market prices? Was a state -owned enterprise, 
monopoly or state-trading enterprise involved in the buying and selling of stocks? If so, 
which ones?  
d. How were applied administered prices determined?  
e. For wheat: i. Can China confirm whether the temporary reserve programme for wheat is 
still in force? What are the e ligibility criteria? Could any producer of those commodities 
benefit from the administered price?  
f. For terminated programmes:  
i. What were the eligibility criteria? Could any producer of those commodities benef it 
from the administered price?  
ii. Was the terminat ion of these programmes announced publically? If so, when?  
g. While these programmes were 'temporary ' and most of them terminated, except for 
wheat, does China expect it will resort to such programmes in the future? How will China 
ensure that temporary reser ve programmes do not bring its support levels above its bound 
total aggregate measure of support in the future?  
AG-IMS ID 90117: Question by Japan - Scheduled commitment level  
According to the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016  (G/AG/N/CHN/47), China implemented 
the support for cotton, soybeans and corn, and the support exceeded the de minimis  percentage. 
Could China explain in detail the method and the schedule to reduce the support not to exceed the 
de minimis  percentage?  
AG-IMS ID 90057: Quest ion by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment level  
The domestic support notifications for the years from 2011 to 2016 reflect Current Total AMS 
provided in excess of that incorporated in China 's Schedule of commitments. What measures does 
China intend to undertake in order to prevent the possible inconsistency with its obligations under 
paragraph 2 (b) of Article 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture in the 
future?  
AG-IMS ID 90097: Question by Thailand - Scheduled commitment level  
From documents G/AG/N/CHN/42 – G/AG/N/CHN/ 47, China has provided AMS supports exceeded 
the de minimis  between 2011 – 2016, but has also indicated that those supports exceeding 
de minimis  have been terminated. Please provide details of China 's future plans for domestic support 
spending after these notifications.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 27 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90094: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Canada appreciates China submitting more recent domestic support notifications to the Committee 
on Agriculture. Canada notes that Chin a has provided domestic support over its domestic support 
commitment (i.e., nil) over the years notified in G/AG/N/CHN/42 (2011 – Table DS:1) to 
G/AG/N/CHN/47 (2016 – Table DS:1). China notified that, during t his period, it provided 
product -specific market  price support over de minimis  levels for cotton, corn, rapeseed, soybeans, 
and sugar, automatically bringing China over its commitment. China also notified that it had provided 
market price support for wheat and rice (japonica and indica cultivars) under the 8.5% of the product 
value of production.  
  
For any product where market price support was notified during the period covered by the above 
notifications, including cotton, corn, rapeseed, rice, soybeans, sugar and wheat, Canada requests 
additional info rmation:  
 
a. Could China clarify whether the quantities notified in column 6 of Supporting Table DS:5 
were quantities procured by China at the applied administered price?  
b. For each year in 2011 -2016, and for each commodity listed above:  
i. Could any producer o f those commodities qualify to receive the applied administered 
price? If not, what were the criteria that excluded a producer from such a qualification?  
ii. For those producers whose production could qualify for the applied administered 
prices, what quantiti es did they produce (total in tonnes on an annual basis)?  
c. Was a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or state -trading enterprise involved in the buying 
and selling of stocks at administered prices? If so, which ones?  
AG-IMS ID 90118: Question by Japan - Mark et price support  
China has implemented the Minimum Price Purchase, the Minimum Procurement Price and the 
Temporary Reserve Programme as Market Price Support.  
a. Could China explain the difference among these three programmes?  
b. Are these three programmes under taken as a part of public stockholding for food security?  
AG-IMS ID 90098: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
From Table DS:5 of documents G/AG/N/CHN/42 – 47, China has indicated various "temporary 
reserve " programmes for various products such as corn, soy bean, cotton, rapeseed, and sugar. 
Please provide details of temporary reserve programmes and whether they are still used at present 
and for which products.  
AG-IMS ID 90092: Question by Brazil - Market price support: Eligible production  
Accordin g to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47, Supporting Tables DS:5, column 6, the eligible 
production entitled to receive the administered price varied greatly even during the term of a single 
programme. For instance, Temporary Reserve programme for corn was term inated in 2016, but the 
eligible production was 290.7 ten thousand tonnes in 2011; 321.6 ten thousand tonnes in 2012; 
124.6 ten thousand tonnes in 2013; 245.3 ten thousand tonnes in 2014; 46.7 ten thousand tonnes 
in 2015 and 7,136.2 ten thousand tonnes in 2016.  
a. Could China describe the functioning of the Temporary Reserve programmes for corn, 
cotton and soybeans?  
b. If applicable, could China provide information on farmer's eligibility, government outlays 
and the government regulation applicable to those dom estic support programmes?  
c. Could China explain the eligible production calculation method it has used for cotton, corn 
and soybeans?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90095: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. In G/AG/N/CHN/42 through G/AG/N/CHN/47, China notified product specific support 
measures that were not market price support measures, including for wheat, rapeseed, 
soybean and corn. For example, China notified that it provided subsidies for improved crop 
strains and seeds for all four of those commodities. Could China confirm if there were 
other programmes that specifically targeted wheat, rapeseed, soybean and corn 
producers?  
b. In G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46 and G/AG/N/CHN/47, China notified under 
Support ing Table DS:6 other non -exempt direct payments for soybean and cotton during 
the 2014 -2016 period, i.e., through the last notified year. Canada notes that these 
payments were provided through a 'target price ' type of measure.  
i. What circumstances, including market conditions, gave rise to these target price 
programmes?  
ii. How were target prices established and what were those target prices? How are these 
different than an applied administered price?  
iii. How many producers could apply to receive these target price payments? How much 
of their production (in tonnes) could have benefitted from these payments?  
iv. Was a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or state -trading enterprise involved in the 
buying and selling of stocks? If so, which ones?   
AG-IMS ID 90054: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
a. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, "subsidies for breeding 
sows" in China abruptly dropped to 0.73 hundred million RMB in 2016, whereas in 
notifications G/AG/N/CHN/43, 44, 45, and 46, total expenditure for "subsidies for breeding 
sows" was significantly greater.  Please explain why budgetary outlays for "subsidies for 
breeding sows " in 2016 are lower than the preceding four notifications for t he years 2012 
through 2015.  
b. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, the United States notes 
that China has only notified a corn measure for "subsidies for improved crop strains and 
seeds " for corn in 2016.  However, the United States understands China 's north eastern  
provinces reportedly announced a subsidy for purchase of corn by processors for the 
2016 crop, which ranged from 100 -300 yuan per metric ton ne. Please explain why these 
measures have not been notified.  
c. Regarding Supporting  Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, while the United States 
welcomes China submitting domestic support notifications for a number of years, the 
United States remains concerned with the overall level of transparency provided within 
these notification s. In particular, the United States is concerned with the lack of notifying 
of a number of measures that the United States is aware of.  For each of the below 
references, the United States understands that China implements one or more measures 
that do not a ppear to have been notified.  For each, please provide relevant regulations, 
legislation, or other official government documentation, and in addition, an explanation as 
to why each has not been notified.  
i. Temporary Reserve Program for corn, soybeans, and wh eat in Xinjiang province 
from 2007-2009 
ii. Payments to major gain, oilseed, and hog marketing counties and other regional 
program mes. The United States understands these program mes annually determine 
which countries get payments based on production, area, and/ or swine 
inventory/marketing with funding often earmarked for use to support producers.  
iii. Support to agricultural product export demonstration bases.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90099: Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
From Table DS:9 of documents G/AG/N/CHN/42 – 47, China has used "General Subsidies for 
Agricultural Production Supplies " for non -product -specific AMS and in 2016, China has substantially 
reduced non -product -specific  support. Please deliberate how:  
a. China was able to significantly reduce support for 2016. 
b. Please provide details on "General Subsidies for Agricultural Production Supplies " and how 
it is provided and administered.  
AG-IMS ID 90017: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes a substantial decrease in Non -Product -Specific support in the form of 
"general subsidies for agricultural production supplies ", from 10 7.996 billion CNY 2015 to 
0.097  billion CNY 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47). Can China explain more in detail the policy changes 
behind this substantive decrease and which types of support that has been eliminated?  
AG-IMS ID 90119: Question by Japan - Non-product -specific AMS  
According to the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016, China implements the general 
subsidies for agricultural production supplies.  
a. Could China explain in detail on what kind of services China provides?  
b. Why does China decrease the expenditure in 2016 drastically?  
2.3.5   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG/N/TPKM/175)  
AG-IMS ID 90101: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Under Supporting Table DS:5 of documents G/AG/N/TPKM/173 – 175, Chinese Taipei has indicated 
the use of "Government Supplement Purchase " "Government Additional Purchase " and "Government 
Planed Purchase ". Please provide details  for each measure and indicate the difference between the 
said measures.  
2.3.6   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  
AG-IMS ID 90123: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Israel for the inclusion of an explanatory note in its DS:1, outlining to other 
Members the reason domestic support for milk and eggs exceeded both de minimis  and Israel 's Total 
Bound AMS in CY2017. While this adds to a worrying trend, whereby a number of Members have 
reported breaches of their de minimis  and/or Total AMS limits , Australia does  acknowledge 
that Israel has put in some effort to explain the reason behind the breach and the efforts to ensure 
it does not see a similar situation occur from 2019 onwards.   
a. Will Israel advise if it is likely to again notify a breach in t he milk and egg sector in CY2018?  
b. Furthermore, would Israel advise if negotiations are likely to take an extended period of 
time, pushing out the aim to implement reforms to ensure a breach does  not occur 
in 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 90023: Question by European Unio n - Scheduled commitment level  
The DS:1 notification shows a non -respect of limits for the egg and da iry sector during calendar 
year 2017. This is not the first time that a notification from Israel show a non -respect of the limits 
for domestic support in I srael.  
 
Can Israel indicate which steps Israel has taken to change its agricultural support policy to ensure 
that it fully respect its WTO commitments for AMS?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 30 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90102: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment level  
In G/AG/N/ISR/66,  Israel notified that it exceeded its Final Bound Total AMS for 2017. Israel noted 
that additional reform measures are expected to decrease the total AMS back below the commitment 
level from 2019 on. The situation is similar to what Israel faced in 2011 -2014. As Israel noted in 
G/AG/N/ISR/50 it has an ongoing reform related mainly to domestic support and market access for 
various agricultural products. The reform would minimize price support and promote the move of 
Israel's agriculture to more Green Box mea sures, thus reducing its AMS support. In this context, 
how Israel will be able to ensure it does not exceed its WTO commitments in 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 90103: Question by Ukraine - Scheduled commitment level  
Ukraine notes that according to G/AG/N/ISR/66, in Is rael's 2017 domestic support the entire AMS 
of $612,437,000 is exclusively in favour of egg and milk producers. The current AMS exceeds Israel 's 
Final Bound Total AMS commitment level of 569,980,000 USD. In addition, Israel 's level of support 
in terms of V alue of Production for eggs (66%) and milk (53%) is very high.  
  
Ukraine appreciates the explanatory note in G/AG/N/ISR/66, in which Israel delineates the nature 
of the policy concerned and the steps regarding past and additional reform efforts in the dai ry and 
egg sectors. These reforms are intended to bring Israel 's current total AMS within its WTO bound 
commitment level.  
 
Back in October 2017 (AG -IMS ID 85084) Israel responded that regulatory reform in the egg sector 
was under negotiation between the M inistry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of 
Finance and Israel's Farmers' Federation and Poultry Board due to the same issue of breaching the 
bound WTO commitment level.   
a. Could Israel please provide more background information on what types of possible 
structural adjustments are under consideration in the eggs sector?  
b. Could Israel explain whether currency fluctuations ha ve been a factor which caused the 
breach of its WTO bound commitment level (taking into account that the commitment is 
in U.S. dollars and not in local currency)?  
AG-IMS ID 90067: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
a. Regarding S upporting Table 5, the United States welcomes Israel 's transparency on the 
issue of breaching its Total AMS commitment level in 2017.  Israel has cited the ongoing 
reforms taking place in the egg and dairy sectors since April 2016, when Israel notified 
breaches of its Total AMS commitment levels for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 
(G/AG/N/ISR/55).  The United States remains concerned and asks Israel to provide:  
i. An update on reforms in the egg and dairy sectors that have taken place since notifying 
in December 2018 . 
ii. Why Israel believes that these ongoing policy changes will ensure Israel is consistent 
with its Total AMS commitments, given that population growth was cited as the reason 
for breaching its commitment levels for 2017.  
iii. A timeframe for when Israel 's Curren t Total AMS is e xpected to fall below the Total  AMS 
commitment again.  
AG-IMS ID 90066: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
It is noted that Israel adjusted its applied administered price for milk, as explained in the explanatory 
notes which notes the quality differences between the two stated time periods.  It is noted that Israel 
provided in response to AG -IMS ID 85023 the unadjusted rates for 2015 -2016. However, the US is  
unable to replicate the quality improvement data provided in the response and are therefore unable 
to determine whether the unadjusted rates for 2017 would leave Israel in breach of its Total AMS 
commitments.  
  
a. Please provide the adjustment factor used to report the modified applied administered 
price in 2017.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 31 - 
 
  b. Please further elaborate on how the exact price adjustment factors were determined, as it 
is unclear from the response provided to AG -IMS ID 85023.  
c. What is the reason Israel did not provide this adjustment factor in its notification?  
AG-IMS ID 90065: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Regarding Supporting Table 6, the United States notes a nearly 600 % increase in expenditures for 
the 'investment programme ' for poultry from 2016.  Please explain the reason for this increase.  
2.3.7   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44, G/AG/N/MYS/45)  
AG-IMS ID 90124: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Malaysia for the effort to submit a number of outstanding Domestic Support 
notifications,  for 2012, 2013 and 2014. The submission of these notifications is an important 
demonstration of Malaysia 's commitment to transparency and to the provision of responses to 
questions r egarding the concerns of other M embers on long -overdue notifications.   
a. Could Malaysi a please inform Members when they expect to submit domestic support 
notifications from 2015 onwards?  
b. Australia notes Malaysia 's 'Paddy Price Subsidy ', which is in all three notifications (2012, 
2013, 2014), and requests Malaysia provide further information  regarding the subsidy 
available to each producer and the eligibility requirements to receive the subsidy?  
AG-IMS ID 90104: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Canada notes that the description and information provided for the P addy Price Subsidy for rice does 
not clearly indicate how this "subsidy " meets the criteria of Paragraph 6, Annex for decoupled income 
support.  
a. Could Malaysia provide information on the defined and fixed base period used to determine 
the direct payment?  
b. How is the size of the payment determined?  
c. How many rice producers subscribe to the Paddy Price Subsidy?  
2.3.8   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/101)  
AG-IMS ID 90107: Question by Canada - Payments based on 85 per cent or less of the 
base level of production  
Canada notes that, at the 86th Regular session of the Committee on Agriculture (February 2018), 
Ukraine asked Norway about Norway 's "Quality Incentive Support Programme for Beef ", a Blue Box 
measure notified in 2015, and the 40% increase over 2014 -2016 (from 135.9 mill ion NOK in 2014 
to 191.5 million NOK in 2016) in Blue Box support. Norway explained that the increase in support 
from 2014 to 2016 was due to the fact that support was only provided for 10 months in the first 
year, rather than 12 months, even though a two -month gap only represents 16.7% of a year.  
  
In Norway 's most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/NOR/101), Norway notified another substantial 
increase in the amount of blue box support provided through this programme to beef producers, 
from 191.5 million N OK in 2016 to 260.6 million NOK in 2017 (i.e., approx. 36% in one year). 
Considering the first year of the programme, support has almost doubled over the course of 4 years 
(from 135.9 million NOK in 2014 to 260.6 million NOK in 2017).  
a. Could Norway expand on the circumstances that led to this sharp increase over one year?  
b. How does this relate to the production -limiting nature of this beef support programme, 
given the fixed base level for the eligible quantity of beef? Have payments increased? If 
so, by how much, and why?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.3.9   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/17, G/AG/N/TUR/18, G/AG/N/TUR/19, G/AG/N/TUR/20, 
G/AG/N/TUR/21)  
AG-IMS ID 90125: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Turkey for the effort to submit a number of outstanding Domestic Support 
notifications – for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 (G/AG/N/TUR/17 - G/AG/N/TUR/21). The 
submission of these notifications is an important demonstration of Turkey 's commitment to 
transparency and to the provision of responses r egarding the  concerns of other M embers on long -
overdue notifications.   
Could Turkey provide an update on preparations to submit domestic support notifications for 2010 
and onwards?   
AG-IMS ID 90025: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally 
available  to agriculture  
Supporting Table 2  (G/AG/N/TUR/21) : 
a. Can Turkey explain more in the functioning and eligibility criteria of the investment in the 
framework of the development of animal husbandry scheme?  
b. Can Turkey indicate the budgetary outlay for this sch eme in 2009?  
AG-IMS ID 90126: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia notes that in Turkey 's recently submitted notifications, it has reported Current Total AMS 
of approximately (USD) $1.5 million in 2005; $1.7 million in 2006; $490.5  million in 2007; 
$2.3 million in 2008; and $2.6 million in 2009. Furthermore, as Turkey has noted in these 
notifications, it does not have Final Bound Total AMS in its schedule. Having considered these, can 
Turkey respond to the following questions:  
a. With regards to the de minimis  'breach ' for Soybeans in each year (amounting to 11% of 
VoP in 2005 and 2006, 46% of VoP in 2007 and 14% of Vop in 2008 and 2009), can Turkey 
explain what measures it has introduced or what reforms it has implemented to avoid what  
seems to be a systematic breach of de minimis  for Soybean support?  
b. In addition, does Turkey expect its DS notifications for 2010 and onwards to have similar, 
systematic breaches for soybeans?   
c. With regards to the de minimis  'breach ' for Rapeseed in 2005 (amounting to 49% of VoP), 
can Turkey please explain what measures it has introduced or what reforms it has 
implemented to avoid a breach of de minimis  for Rapeseed support in 2009 and onwards?  
d.  With regards to the de minimis  'breach ' for cotton in 2007 (amounting to 15% of VoP), 
can Turkey please explain what measures it has introduced or what reforms it has 
implemented to avoid what in monetary terms is quite a significant breach?  
AG-IMS ID 90110: Question by Canada - Scheduled commi tment level  
Canada appreciates Turkey providing more recent domestic support notifications to this Committee 
which brings Turkey up to 2009. Canada encourages Turkey to continue its work to submit its 
domestic support notifications. Canada is concerned tha t Turkey has exceeded its domestic support 
commitment levels (i.e., nil) for all the years notified (2005 -2009), due to product -specific support 
being provided over de minimis  levels. With the exception of 2007, where product -specific support 
for cotton br ought current total aggregate measurement of support (CTAMS) to $490.5 million (of 
which $5.6 million went to soybean producers), the amount of CTAMS inc reased from $1.5 million 
in 2005 to $2.6 million in 2009, mainly to soybean producers. Turkey also noti fied support to 
rapeseed producers in 2005 over de minimis  levels ( $247,729). Furthermore, the current situation 
of Turkey 's domestic support measures as well as their compliance with the obligations contained in 
the Agreement on Agriculture remains hard t o assess, given that the last year notified refers to 
programmes that were in force almost a decade ago.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 33 - 
 
  a. What concrete, meaningful steps has Turkey taken to ensur e that it complies with its 
WTO domestic support commitment?  
b. What is the current situation of Turkey 's domestic support measures? Are support levels 
in excess of Turkey 's commitments? If not, when does Turkey expect to conform to the 
obligations contained in the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. When will Turkey provide more up -to-date domestic support  notifications, so that other 
Members may be able to understand how Turkey 's current domestic support policies 
function, as well as their potential impacts on trade or production?  
AG-IMS ID 90106: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment leve l 
When some Members asked about breach of domestic support commitments in 2003 and 2004 
Turkey reported in response to AG -IMS ID 85044 and AG-IMS ID 85062 that  Turkey noted "its 
importer position with high amounts (for rapeseed) and therefore the level of domestic support has 
no trade distorting effect. " In fact, Turkey exceeded the de minimis  level for rapeseed in 2004 so 
Turkey breached or exceeded its domestic support commitments. Moreover, Turkey did not mention 
exceeding de minimis  level for the soybea ns in 2003 and 2004. According to the information of DS:1 
notifications for 2005 -2009 Turkey continues to breach its domestic support commitments exceeding 
its de minimis  levels for soybeans and rapeseed, as well as for cotton in 2007. Which measures has 
Turkey taken to ensure that it respects its domestic support commitments for the following years?  
AG-IMS ID 90108: Question by Thailand - Scheduled commitment level  
Turkey does not have bound AMS commitment but has provided AMS supports exceeded the de 
minimis level during 2005 -2009. Please clarify regarding the consistency with Turkey 's obligations 
under the WTO. Please provide details on how Turkey plans to reduce/eliminate domestic support 
spending that exceed de minimis  level.  
AG-IMS ID 90064: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States thanks Turkey for submitting domestic support notifications for 2005 -2009. The 
United States notes the continued elimination of market price supports in Turkey 's most recent 
notifications . In response to AG -IMS 85031, the US was referred to Turkey 's replies to its last Trade 
Policy Review (TPR) for additional information on the state -owned Turkish Grain Board (TMO) in 
regard to  its role in the applied administered prices for certain commod ities. In reviewing the latest 
Secretariat Report of Turkey 's TPR of 2016 (WT/TPR/S/331/Rev.1), the report defines TMO as a 
state-owned enterprise with 100 % public ownership. In response to question 37 of the TPR 
(WT/TPR/S/331, page 136, paragraph 4.37), T urkey states "Turkish Grain Board (TMO) is a fully 
autonomous entity and operates on the grounds of profitability. " In response to EU question No.  44, 
Turkey states that "[p]urchasing prices announced by the TMO are not administered but 
market -based prices . Thus, Turkey does not include TMOs purchasing prices in the calculation of its 
domestic supports. " 
a. Please clarify how the board maintains full autonomy while being a state -owned enterprise 
with 100 % public ownership.  
b.  Please explain how TMO 's announcemen t and implementation of market -based prices for 
commodities does not qualify it as providing market price support when it is a 100 percent 
state-owned enterprise.  
AG-IMS ID 90109: Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
Please provide details for non-product specific AMS programmes such as the Hybrid seed 
programme.  
AG-IMS ID 90015: Question by European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Cotton support - Supporting Table DS:6  - G/AG/N/TUR/21 : G/AG/W/194  
 
- 34 - 
 
  a. Can Turkey explain more in detail the support measur es in place for cotton in 2009 
regarding the functioning of the support measures and the eligibility criteria for this 
support.  
b. Can Turkey indicate the quantity of cotton supported in 2009 as well as total production 
of cotton in 2009?  
AG-IMS ID 90024: Qu estion by European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Wheat Support - Supporting Table DS:6  - G/AG/N/TUR/21 : 
a. Can Turkey explain more in detail the support measures in place for wheat in 2009, about 
the functioning of the support measure and the eligibi lity criteria for this support?  
b. Can Turkey indicate the quantity of wheat supported in 2009 as well as total production 
of wheat in the year 2009?  
2.4  New or modified Domestic Support measures  (DS:2)  
2.4.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 90070: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to notification G/AG/N/CHN/49, since 2016, a "Blue Box" domestic support program for 
corn is in place for production in Northeast China.  
a. Could China provide information on the corn production (quantities, cultivated area and 
fixed yield) from 2011 to 2018, in the target region of the programme?  
b. Could China identify how the "Corn producer subsidy" limits China`s corn production in 
Northeast China under the requirements of Article 6.5  of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 90069: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to notification G/AG/N/CHN/48, from 2017 to 2019, a measure aimed at limiting cotton 
production is in place, taking the 2012 -2014 triennium as base period.  
  
a. Could China provide information on the cotton production (quantities and cultivated area) 
from 2011 to 2018?  
b. Could China identify how the "Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton" limits 
China`s cotton production un der the requirements of article 6.5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
c. If possible, could China also explain the entitlement requirements for the support 
programme and how limitation of production is assessed?  
AG-IMS ID 90086: Question by Canada - Transpar ency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that in G/AG/N/CHN/49 China notified a new domestic support programme for corn. 
According to China, this new programme meets the criteria of Article 6, paragraph 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Canada woul d be grateful if China could provide further details on the 
"Corn Producer Subsidy System ". 
a. What is the objective of this programme?  
b. How does this programme compare to previous market price support programmes for 
corn, including the one managed through te mporary reserves from 2011 -2016?  
c. How does this programme operate? Is a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or state -
trading enterprise involved in the buying and selling of stock at the target price?  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 35 - 
 
  d. How is eligibility determined? Are producers from Northea st China exclusively eligible for 
this programme? If not, why were planting area and fixed yield data in Northeast China 
used?  
e. Is there a requirement to be a corn producer during the period of application (2016 2018)?  
f. How are the payments determined year -on-year? How was the adjusted payment rate 
established?  
g. How was the 2014 base period determined? How does this relate to the period of 
application of the programme, which was set to begin in 2016?  
h. As the programme ended in 2018, has this programme been replaced, or will it be replaced 
by another programme that would use a more recent base period?  
AG-IMS ID 90085: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that, in G/AG/N/CHN/48 China notified a new domestic support programme for cotton. 
According to China, this new programme meets the criteria of Article 6, paragraph 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Canada would be grateful if China could provide further details o n the 
"Deepening the Target Price Policy reform of Cotton ":  
a. What is the objective of this programme?  
b. How does this programme compare to previous market price support programmes for 
cotton, including the one managed through temporary reserves from 2011 -2014 and the 
target price programme from 2015 -2016?  
c. How was the target price of 18,600/tonne determined?  How does this price relate to the 
programme notified as 'target price ' for cotton under Supporting Table DS:6 of 
G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46 and G/AG/N/CHN/47?  
d. How does China ensure that only 85% of the average production of cotton in the base 
period is  eligible to receive a payment? Is the payment automatically granted to a 
producer?  
e. How was the 2012 -2014 base period determined? How does this relate to the period of 
application of the programme, which is set to begin in 2017?  
f. As the programme is set t o end in 2019, does China expect this programme to be replaced 
by another programme that would use a more recent base period?  
AG-IMS ID 90116: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China notified DS:2 notifications for corn and co tton measures (G/AG/N/CHN/48 and 49). Japan 
understands that China formulates production -limiting programmes for these products. How does 
China limit the production based on the programmes?  
a. Regarding the corn measure, the notification says "payments are pa id on a fixed area and 
yields. The subsidy amount is calculated according to the 2014 (base period) corn planting 
area and fixe d yield data in Northeast China ". Does this measure subsidize only farmers 
in Northeast China? In addition, could China explain i n detail on the method to decide "the 
adjusted payment rate "? Furthermore, how does China estimate the market effect brought 
by this measure?  
b. Regarding the cotton measure, the notification says, "subsidy is made only to the amount 
of cotton within 85% of t he average cotton production in the base period (2012 -2014) ". 
Could China explain the reason why China sets such a term as the base period? In addition, 
Japan appreciates if China tell the average cotton production in the base period.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 36 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90100: Ques tion by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China has notified a new measure of domestic support, which is Deepening the Target Price reform 
price of Cotton  (G/AG/N/CHN/48 ). China indicated that "According to Article 6, paragraph 5 (b) of  
the Agreement on Agriculture, to limit production. The subsidy is based on the difference between 
the market price and the target price. The subsidy is made only to the amount of cotton within 85% 
of the average cotton production with period of applicatio n between 2017 - 2019. Please provide 
further details regarding the "Deepening the Target Price reform price of Cotton " programme.  
AG-IMS ID 90075: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
a. In the "Notice on Deepenin g Cotton Target Price Reform " (NDRC JIA [2017] No. 416) 
published by the Ministry of Finance and National Development and Reform Commission, 
it states that the measure relates to the target price reform of cotton in Xinjiang.  
Please confirm whether cotton production in other parts of China are eligible to receive 
the benefits of this measure.  
b. In G/AG/N/CHN/48, China states the "subsidy is made only to the amount of cotton within 
85% of the average cotton production  in the base period (2012 -2014) ". However, it is the 
U.S. understanding in reading the "Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform " that 
the base period production is based on all cotton production in China rather than the 
production only within Xinjiang where the target price is in effect.  As a result, a larger 
percentage of Xinjiang cotton may be eligible to receive payment under the measure 
without hitting the limits specified in Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
i. Please confirm how the base period average cotton production is deter mined, including 
whether the base period production is limited only to the production relevant to the 
target price policy reform.  
ii. Please provide the volume of cotton production for both Xinjiang and for China 
nationally for each year since 2012, including in 2017.  
c. It is also noted that the "Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform " also notes, in 
addition to the cotton target price subsidy, "the central government 's subsidy for the 
Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and the Xinjiang Production and Cons truction Corps 
are still implemented in accordance with existing regulations. " 
i. Please provide the referenced regulations.  
ii. Please indicate if and how these measures are notified in notifications 
G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47. If not, please explain the basis for this.  
iii. Please identify volume of cotton produced and area planted to cotton by the Xinjiang 
Production and Construction Corps for each year since 2012.  
d. While the measure notified by China in G/AG/N/CHN/49 refers only to a subsidy 
programme in Xinjiang, the United  States notes no similar programmes have been 
referenced either in this notification or in notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47 with regard to 
target price subsidies that are implemented in other provinces.   
Please confirm whether such measures were implemented in other provinces and, if so, 
why they have not been notified.  
e. According to G/AG/N/CHN/49, it is stated that the payments for the corn producer subsidy 
"are paid on a fixed area and yields, " while the "subsidy amount is calculated according to 
the 2014 (base period) corn planting area and fixed yield data in Northeast 
China. " However, the United States understands from the "Implementation Opinions of 
the Ministry of Finance on Establishing a Maize Producer Subsidy System " (Cai Jain [2016] 
No. 869) that m any aspects of how the payment is determined for corn producers is the G/AG/W/194  
 
- 37 - 
 
  responsibility of provinces (districts), including determining the "sub-provincial subsidy 
standards, which allow for difference for the central financial subsidies. " 
i. Please explain wha t steps are taken to ensure sub -provincial standards comply with 
the rules set out in Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
ii. Please provide specific examples, including relevant provincial or sub -provincial 
legislation, regulations, or official notic es where sub -provincial standards differ from 
the central financial subsidies.  
2.5  Export Subsidy notifications  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
2.5.1   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/67)  
AG-IMS ID 90127: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
In G/AG/N/ISR/67, Israel notified e xport subsidies for fruits (other than citrus fruits), and fresh 
vegetables.  Noting the  Nairobi Decision, under which M embers agreed to not raise their export 
subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis, can Israel provide 
Members with information on:  
 
Why its exports subsidies for fruits other than citrus fruits in 2017 were around 65 % higher than the 
average level of the past five years for that specific product?  
2.5.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/230, G/AG/N/JPN/231, G/AG/N/JPN/232, 
G/AG/ N/JPN/233)  
AG-IMS ID 90012: Question by European Union - International food aid  
Japan notifies food aid in fully grant form.  
a. Could Japan specify if these in -kind amounts have been provided under emergency or 
non-emergency programmes?  
Japan started to pro vide sorghum/millet as food aid in 2015.  
b. Could Japan provide the reasons for this?  
The amount of oil food aid increased substantially in 2015 going from 2 ,364 tonnes in  2014 to 
967,773 tonnes in 2015.  
c.  Could Japan please provide details on this signific ant increase in oil food aid?  
d. Has this aid been provided under emergency or non -emergency programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 90105: Question by Thailand - International food aid  
In Table ES:3 of documents G/AG/N/JPN/230 – G/AG/N/JPN/ 233, regarding the Notification of the 
total volume of food aid, Japan indicated providing food aid between 2013 – 2017 for maize, wheat, 
wheat flour, processed food, pulses and rice. Thailand notes that these food aids exceed Japan 's 
commercial exports during the same period. Please provid e the quantity and destination of the food 
aid provided in rice.  
2.6  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.6.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/119)  
AG-IMS ID 90079: Question by United States of America - Quantity and concessionality 
of food aid  
Australia provided AUD  377 million in 2017/18 for overseas aid programmes through various 
channels, including multilateral, regional and bilateral channels, humanitarian/emergency G/AG/W/194  
 
- 38 - 
 
  assistance, non -government organizations (NGOs), ACIAR, a nd other government 
departments  (OGDs). What are the criteria for overseas aid programmes to receive food assistance 
grants?  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
3.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 90047: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Ecuador has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United States in AG -IMS ID 89034.  The 
United States resubmits the questions:  
 
a. Ecuador registers n o imports coming under TRQ commitments. The United States is the 
holder of first -negotiator rights for these quotas.  Please explain how do Ecuador 's TRQ in -
quota tariff rates compare to the MFN current applied rates to these products that would 
otherwise b e eligible under Ecuador 's TRQs?  
b. Please explain why Ecuador has not opened or allocated quotas to interested parties.  
c. The United States also notes that Ecuador 's import permit system is complex and obscure, 
and therefore, difficult for exporters to comply with. Please explain your process for issuing 
import licenses for foods.  Please describe the specific steps, including those relating to 
sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, necessary to obtain an import license.  Please 
explain if the process varies de pending on the product.  That is, are there additional steps 
required for some products and not others?  If so, please explain.  
3.2  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
3.2.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  
AG-IMS ID 90063: Question by Unit ed States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 89036, for which Ecuador has not yet provided a written 
response:  
a. The United States thanks Ecuador for its most recent Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications  
and the notification of several Green Box measures. However, the United States 
understands that Ecuador's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries, 
according to its website, subsidized a share of the cost of inputs, such as urea and 
potassium fertilizer, seeds, and other supplies for farmers of several commodities including 
corn and rice. Since 2014, preferential attention has been paid to bananas and pasture 
crops for livestock. However, beneficiaries also include sugar cane, cocoa, c ereals, 
vegetables, potatoes, and other commodities. Farmers receive preferential prices, below 
cost, for inputs.   
i. Please provide additional details with regard to how the input subsidies measure was 
implemented and the time period under which the subsidy was available to producers.  
ii. Are these input subsidies notified in Ecuador's current domestic support notifications?   
iii. If so, please explain how they reportedly meet the green box criteria under which they 
are notified.   
iv. If not, please explain the basis for not notifying them, including whether Ecuador will 
notify these measures for past years.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 39 - 
 
  b.  
i. According to the Ministry's website, input packages or "kits" purchased by producers 
also included agricultural insurance covering losses.  
ii. Please provide additional details with regard to how the agricultural insurance 
programme was implemented, including what losses are covered and what years the 
measure was available.  
iii. Was the insurance included in these kits the same as the support notified for 2011 
in G/AG/N/ECU/11 ? 
c.  
i. The United States notes that, in 2015, it was reported that a diesel subsidy provided 
by the government had been eliminated, which resulted in higher diesel cost for 
producers.  
ii. Please confirm that this diesel subsidy was eliminated and clarify whether E cuador has 
notified this measure – and if not, the basis for not notifying.  
3.3  Export Subsidy notifications  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3 ) 
3.3.1   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 90078: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article  9.4) 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89043 and AG-IMS ID 88115, the United States would like to reiterate 
the following question, for which Panama has not provided a written answer:  
  
The United States notes that in G/AG/N/PAN/44 Panama notifies that no expor t subsidies were 
provided from 2004 through 2017. However, the measure Certificados de Fomento a la 
Agroexportación (CEFA), in accordance to Panamanian law (Annex 1 law No. 82 31 December 2009), 
was started in calendar year 2010, and provides agricultural producers with an export subsidy for 
marketing costs incurred in concepts of handling, packaging and inland and ocean freight costs.   
  
Please explain the basis for not notifying this measure in Supporting Table ES:2.  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1  China  
AG-IMS ID  90080: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88082, the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which China has not provided a written answer:  
a. The United States notes that China has never notified Tabl e ES:3 (showing the total 
volume of food aid provided).   
According to press reports, China in prior years, provided bilateral in -kind food aid – in particular, 
rice and wheat, among other commodities - in response to emergency appeals.  In addition, China 
has reported food aid donations in its Export Competition Questionnaire and in response to questions 
from the United States in AG IMS ID 87048.  
b. Does China plan to submit a Table ES:3 for all relevant years? If not, please explain why 
not.   G/AG/W/194  
 
- 40 - 
 
  4.2  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 90081: Questio n by United States of America  
Egypt has not provided a written response to the questions posed  by the United States 
in AG-IMG ID 88083. Thus, the United States repeats them here:  
  
The United States notes that Egypt 's last notification (G /AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export subsidy 
commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1998 and has not yet responded to the export competition 
questionnaire.  
  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, including Supporting Table ES:2, and respond 
to the export competition questionnaire.  
4.3  Republic of Korea  
AG-IMS ID  90060: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia's questions ( AG-IMS ID  88008, AG-IMS ID  89084) at 88th and 89th CoA, Australia 
notes the Republic of Korea's latest domestic support notifi cation (G/AG/N/KOR/53) covers the 
reporting period 2009 -2011.  
a. Can the Republic of Korea please update Members on its efforts to compile data to submit 
domestic support notifications from 2012 onwards?  
b. Will the Republic of Korea be in a position to submit  these notifications at the next 
Committee meeting ( 91th CoA)?  
4.4  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 900 11: Question by European Union  
Turkey's Domestic Support and ES:1 and ES:2 notifications:  
 
The EU appreciates the effort made by Turkey with its latest forwarded notifica tions. However, these 
are still covering the period more than 10 years ago. Can Turkey indicate any timeframe for when 
the missing notifications will be forwarded to the WTO?  
5  OTHER  
5.1  India  
AG-IMS ID 90082: Questio n by United States of America  
As a follow u p to AG -IMS ID 89045, India stated that the Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre and 
Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit for eligible exporters of agricultural products is "in the nature of 
working capital support ". 
  
a. Please explain the basis for considering the Scheme a working capital support program, 
including providing specific language from relevant official government document that 
supports this claim.   
It is the United States ' understanding the Interest Equalization Scheme is an interest rate support 
programme.  The Interest Equalization Scheme directly provides a 3% rebate in the rate of interest 
on export credits, which incentives and is contingent upon export.  
b. Please provide the total value of export of agricultural products by HS code covered by the 
Interest Equalization program from 2015 to 2018.  G/AG/W/194  
 
- 41 - 
 
  5.2  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 90083: Questio n by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88094:  
  
The United States understands Thailand to be expressing its view that the export financing support 
programmes administered by the Export -Import Bank of Thailand are consistent with the Nairobi 
Decision.  The United States does not consider Thailand 's statement of this position to be a substitute 
for the provision of information about such programs in res ponse to questionnaires.  
  
The United States requests Thailand provide information on programs operated by the Export -Import 
Bank of Thailand for years 2016, 2017, and 2018in a response to the WTO Secretariat 's annual 
export competition questionnaire.  
5.3  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 90084: Questio n by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89046 and AG-IMS ID 88116, the United States would like to reiterate 
the following question, for which Turkey has not provided a written answer:  
  
In the export competit ion questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided food aid.  What is the basis 
for not reporting this food aid in Table ES:3?  
 
 
__________