G/AG/W/173  
 
6 April 2018  
(18-2116) Page: 1/60 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UN DER THE REVIEW PROCE SS 
COMPILATION OF RESPO NSES TO QUESTIONS RA ISED DURING THE COMM ITTEE  
ON AGRICULTURE MEETI NG ON 20 FEBRUARY 20181 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/ 172 as well as follow -up comments made during the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 28 March 2018:  
 
ID Answer by  Question by  Reference  Repeat 
question  
86060  Egypt  Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86005  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
86006  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
86037  India United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
860652 India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86066  India European Union  I. Article 18.6   
86074  India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86048  Indonesia  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
86001  Mongolia  Russian Federation  I. Article 18.6   
86049  Suriname  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
86106  Thailand  European Union  I. Article 18.6  85039  
86029  Turkey  Russian Federation  I. Article 18.6   
860843 United States of America  Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86017  Egypt  Australia  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86087  Egypt  Canada  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86088  Egypt  Canada  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86089  Egypt  Canada  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86090  Egypt  Canada  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86075  Egypt  European Union  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86041  Egypt  Ukraine  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86012  Egypt  Australia  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86053  Egypt  United States of America  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86011  Egypt  Australia  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86091  Egypt  Canada  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86092  Egypt  Canada  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86076  Egypt  European Union  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86054  Egypt  United States of America  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
86055  Iceland  United States of America  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86093  Iceland  Canada  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86044  Iceland  Thailand  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86013  Iceland  Australia  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86019  India Australia  G/AG/N/IND/11   
86095  India Canada  G/AG/N/IND/11   
86014  India Australia  G/AG/N/IND/11   
                                                
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.  
2 India answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  
3 United States answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 2 - 
 
  ID Answer by  Question by  Reference  Repeat 
question  
86108  India United States of America  G/AG/N/IND/11   
86096  Jordan  Canada  G/AG/N/JOR/19/REV.1, 
G/AG/N/JOR/20/REV.1   
86022  Jordan  Australia  G/AG/N/JOR/19/REV.1, 
G/AG/N/JOR/20/REV.1   
86097  Jordan  Canada  G/AG/N/JOR/20/REV.1, 
G/AG/N/JOR/19/REV.1   
86056  Moldova, Republic of  United States of America  G/AG/N/MDA/11   
86057  Moldova, Republic of  United States of America  G/AG/N/MDA/11   
86058  Thailand  United States of America  G/AG/N/THA/85   
86059  Thailand  United States of America  G/AG/N/THA/85   
86109  India United States of America  III. Deferred replies to 
questions on notifications  85021  
86110  India United States of America  II. Deferred replies to 
questions on notifications  84071, 
85029  
86078  Mali European Union  II. Deferred replies to 
questions on notifications  85001  
86105  Thailand  United States of America  IV. Overdue notification   
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 3 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 
18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 
1.1   Argentina's export subsidies to pork meat  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.1.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86064)  ................................ ....................  6 
1.2   Egypt's domestic  support for wheat  ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
1.2.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86060)  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.3   Indonesia's soybean imports  ................................ ................................ .........................  7 
1.3.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86048)  ................................ ........  7 
1.4   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ .........  7 
1.4.1    Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86001)  ................................ ................  7 
1.5   Suriname's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ .............................  7 
1.5.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86049)  ................................ ........  7 
1.6   U.S. support to cotton sector  ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
1.6.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86069)  ................................ ....................  8 
1.7   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
1.7.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86031)  ................................ ........  8 
1.8   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ .............. 10 
1.8.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86002), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 86030) and 
the United States (AG -IMS ID 86033)  ................................ ................................ ................... 10 
1.9   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 
1.9.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86034)  ................................ .......14 
1.10   EU intervention stocks of skim milk power  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS I D 86003) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 86032)  ........... 15 
1.11   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 
1.11.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86061)  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.11.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86062)  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.11.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86063)  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.11.4    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86065)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.11.5    Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86039)  ................................ ............. 16 
1.11.6    Question by Ukraine ( AG-IMS ID 86035)  ................................ ................................ ...17 
1.11.7    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86004)  ................................ ................................ .17 
1.12   India's minimum support prices  ................................ ................................ .................. 18 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86005)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.12.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86074)  ................................ ................................ ...18 
1.12.3    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86066)  ................................ .................. 19 
1.13   India's quantitative restrictions  ................................ ................................ ................... 19 
1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86006)  ................................ ................................ .19 
1.13.2    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86037)  ................................ .....20 
1.14   Indonesia's dairy import system  ................................ ................................ ................. 20 
1.14.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86046)  ................................ .....20 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.15   Korea's rice imports  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..22 
1.15.1    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 86036)  ................................ ................................ .22 
1.16   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............................ 22 
1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86007)  ................................ ................................ .22 
1.16.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 86009) ................................ ................................ ......23 
1.17   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86008)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.18   Russian Federation's railway subsidy fo r exports  ................................ ........................... 24 
1.18.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86010)  ................................ ................................ .24 
1.18.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86068)  ................................ ................................ ...24 
1.18.3    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86067)  ................................ .................. 25 
1.18.4    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 86038)  ................................ ................................ ...25 
1.18.5    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86047)  ................................ .....25 
1.19   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  ................................ ................................ .....26 
1.19.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86106)  ................................ .................. 26 
1.20   Turkey's IPR programme  ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 
1.20.1    Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86029)  ................................ ............. 27 
1.21   U.S. dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....27 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86084)  ................................ ................................ ...27 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  30 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) ................................ ..30 
2.1.1    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/48)  ................................ ................................ .................... 30 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .....30 
2.2.1    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/62)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 30 
2.3   Special safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ................................ .....31 
2.3.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/221)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 
2.4   Domestic Support commitments (table DS:1 ) ................................ ................................ 32 
2.4.1    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/51, G/AG/N/COL/51/CORR.1, G/AG/N/COL/54)  ......................... 32 
2.4.2    Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  ................................ ................................ ............................. 33 
2.4.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/34)  ................................ ................................ ............... 37 
2.4.4    Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/41)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 
2.4.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 39 
2.4.6    Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19/REV.1, G/AG/N/JOR/20/REV.1)  ................................ ............... 42 
2.4.7    Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/7)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 
2.4.8    Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MDA/11)  ................................ ................................ .....45 
2.4.9    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/94)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 45 
2.4.10    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 
2.4.11    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109) ................................ ............................. 51 
2.5   Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............. 53 
2.5.1    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/95)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 53 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.5.2    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/82)  ................................ ................................ ................... 53 
2.5.3    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/118)  ................................ .............................. 54 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  54 
3.1   India (G/AG/N/IN D/11)  ................................ ................................ ............................... 54 
3.2   Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...57 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  57 
4.1.1   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 57 
4.1.2    Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58 
4.1.3    Mauritius  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 58 
4.1.4    Nigeria  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 58 
4.1.5    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 59 
4.1.6    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 59 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  59 
5.1.1    Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 59 
 
 
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1  Argentina's export subsidies to pork meat  
1.1.1   Question by  the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86064)  
Media reports state that Argentina aims at achieving an annual US$7billion meat exports 
and to that end Argentina has increased export r efunds for pig meat by 0.5 – 
2.3 percentage points, depending on the product. For shoulders and legs (with bones) 
this represents a subsidy rate of around 5.8% of the market value. Could Argentina 
confirm the above information and if affirmative, explain h ow these measures comply 
with the Nairobi commitments on export subsidies.  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
To answer the EU's question on export refunds for pig meat products, with Decree 853/2017 
published on 23  October  2017, Argentina modified the rates in force u nder the export refund 
system for the sector. This update took account of the indirect internal taxes in the value of the 
product cumulated through the different phas es of the production process. Argentina  recall s that 
for each product, Argentina calculate d the value of indirect taxes levied during its production and 
distribution. However, it is important to bear in mind that a number of tax limitations have meant 
that in many cases, the rates have had to be established below the value that would have resul ted 
from the calculations made, and hence, for certain products amounts refunded had to be less than 
the amounts paid as indirect taxes. As Argentina  pointed out at the 85th session of the Committee 
on Agriculture last October, Decree 853/2017 is entirely consistent with both the Decision on 
Export Competition adopted at the Nairobi Ministerial Conference as well as the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the Agreement on Agriculture. In no event does the 
value of the indirect taxes refun ded exceed the amount of the taxes levied in respect of the 
production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption.  
 
Follow -up: Argentina, New Zealand and Ukraine indicated interest in this topic. As a major pork 
exporter, Canada wanted  to understand how Argentina would define indirect taxation and export 
refund. New Zealand underlined the importance of implementing the Nairobi outcome and also 
noted interest in the concept of export refund s.  
 
1.2  Egypt's domestic support for wheat  
1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86060)  
Wheat Egypt – Wheat Sector Review, a 2015 report by the FAO provides information on 
Egypt 's domestic support for wheat. In that report, it is mentioned that "the main 
instrument used by the government to encourage domestic  wheat production is setting 
high domestic procurement prices. " Furthermore the report mentions that "the total 
volume of domestically produced wheat purchased by the government in 2014 was 
estimated to be around 4.25 million tonnes. This means that the government has spent 
about USD 357 million on subsidizing the price of domestic wheat this year. Along this 
chain, intermediaries who, according to government sources, buy whe at from producers 
at a price 14%  lower than the government one, make a profit of about USD  55 per 
tonne. "  
 
Could Egypt indicate why it hasn 't included any product specific support for wheat in 
2014 or any other year in it last domestic support notification (G/AG/N/EGY/3)?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.3  Indonesia's soybean imports  
1.3.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86048)  
a. The United States understands that the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture is 
actively considering a draft regu lation that would favor domestically produced 
soybeans and restrict imported product.  The draft regulation would require an 
import recommendation from the Ministry of Agriculture, restrict imports to 
when domestic supply is deemed insufficient, require tha t all imports be 
conducted by a state -owned enterprise, and prohibit imports one month prior 
to and after the domestic harvest period. Please provide an update on the 
implementation status of this draft regulation.  
b. The United States also understands that I ndonesia is considering raising tariffs 
on soybeans from its current applied rate and instituting a genetically 
engineered (GE) labelling requirement on bulk soybeans. Please provide an 
update on these potential changes as well.   
c. What steps is Indonesia ta king to ensure that any regulation impacting imports 
of soybeans is consistent with its WTO commitments?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia would like to inform the Committee that this issue is still in a very preliminary discussion 
in Jakarta and will not me an to restrict trade. At this juncture Indonesia was not in a position to 
give complete response s to the questions posed by the US  delegation.   
 
Follow -up: The United States sought further information regarding Indonesia's  soybean  import  
policies. The European Union flagged concern regarding the compatibility of the measure with WTO 
agreements. Argentina as a soybean exporter noted interest in the subject and flagged systematic 
concern on all non -tariff barriers that would have an impact on trade.  
 
1.4  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.4.1   Question by  the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86001)  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quota regime for importation of certain agricultural 
products, including wheat flour and milk. According to Government R esolution No.  77 as 
of 2 March 2013 the responsible authority determines the volumes of corresponding 
quotas on an annual basis. The importation outside these quotas is prohibited. 
Moreover, in late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry  of Mongolia 
established an import prohibition on wheat flour which is still in force. The Russian 
Federation raised these issues through our bilateral contacts, but unfortunately has not 
received a comprehensive response. Please explain how Mongolia 's imp ort restrictions, 
both quotas and import prohibitions, are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
Mongolia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.5  Suriname's poultry tarif fs  
1.5.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86049)  
The United States notes that Suriname began applying a 40% tariff on imports of 
poultry products in September 2017.  This duty is twice of the rate of Suriname 's 20% 
bound rate for poultry produ cts.  
 
Please provide a reason for increasing tariffs on poultry imports from 20% to 40%.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 8 - 
 
  a. Please explain how a 40% tariff for poultry imports is in compliance with 
Suriname 's final bound rate of 20%.  
b. Please explain if and when Suriname will initiate Article XXVIII negotiations to 
adjust its bound rate.  
c. Will Suriname consider refraining from applying the above -bound 40% duty 
rate until the Article XXVIII process has concluded?  
Answer by Suriname  
 
Suriname undertook to provide a response at a later stag e. 
 
1.6  U.S. support to cotton sector  
1.6.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86069)  
The US Disaster Bill amounting to $81 billion, proposed by the House in December 2017, 
includes a provision to amend the 2014 Farm Bill and designate seed cotton as a covered 
commodity. In relation to that, could the US clarify:  
 
a. How does the United States sees this initiative complying with the Panel's 
finding on dispute DS267 - US–Upland Cotton, that the effect of the U.S. 
subsidy programmes, including marketing loan programme payments, market 
loss assistance payments and counter -cyclical payments, is significant price 
suppression within the meaning of Art. 6.3(c) of the ASCM?  
b. How would this initiative affect product -specific Amber Box support to U.S. 
cotton?  
Answer by  the United States of America  
 
a. There is no longer an issue of compliance with the DSB  recommendations and rulings 
in WT/DS267 since the parties to that dispute notified the DSB of a mutually agreed 
solution to the dispute.  
b. Expenditures, if any, will be in cluded in the 2018 DS:1 notification. As with other 
covered commodities, ARC and PLC payments are made on historical base acres and 
yields and do not require production of the covered commodity in order to receive a 
payment.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil expressed c oncern on the U.S. initiative. Brazil noted its intention to closely 
monitor the initiative's  impact  on the international cotton market and to assess whether the United 
States had fulfilled their commitments in the mutually agreed solution to the cotton di spute (DS 
267).  
 
1.7  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.7.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86031)  
a. The United States, along with several other Members, has expressed concern at 
previous meetings of the COA over the effects of PEP and PEPRO  programmes 
as a potential export subsidy.   
In its response to AG -IMS ID 84073, Brazil indicated regarding PEP and PEPRO 
that "both program mes allow exports, but they are not contingent on exports." 
As noted in the question by the United States, 9.6.5 of the PEPRO regulations 
(http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1173&amp;t=2 ) requires: 
"Quando o produto não se destinar ao mercado interno, a Nota Fiscal de 
Escoamento deverá ser acompan hada do respectivo Registro de Exportação 
(RE) Averbado e Declaração de Despacho de Exportação." "When the product is G/AG/W/173  
 
- 9 - 
 
  not destined to the domestic market, the Shipping Invoice shall be 
accompanied by the respective Registered Export Record (RE) and Export 
Dispatch Statement ". In other words, proof of export is required under the 
program for exported products.  
This was a relevant issue in the Appellate Body 's conclusion in DS 267 
regarding the U.S.  Step 2 programme for cotton.  
Please clarify how PEP and PEP RO are not export contingent in light of the 
statement in the PEPRO Regulation.  
b. Publicly available Brazilian government data from the Companhia Nacional de 
Abastecimento (CONAB) and the Ministry of Development, Industry and 
Commerce (MDIC) indicate that co rn and wheat producers have benefited from 
PEP and PEPRO support intermittently since 2010, and particularly in  2016 
and 2017.  It appears that in 2017, through September, nearly 9 million tonnes 
of corn and 1 million ton nes of wheat were supported through the PEP and 
PEPRO  programmes. The United States has requested several years of data and 
documentation – including invoices and product destinations – from Brazil at 
various COA meetings, but has not yet been provided with detailed information 
with which to  make a fully informed assessment of PEP/PEPRO usage.   
The United States again requests that Brazil provide data on these 
programmes, clarifying what funds are used to support domestic versus 
exported sales.  In addition, please identify the steps the Gover nment of Brazil 
takes to ensure affected products do not end up on the export market.  
c. On 30 January 2017, the Brazilian Ministry of Ag riculture, Livestock and 
Supply  (MAPA) announced it would hold PEP/PEPRO auctions for rice, with an 
authorized amount of u p to $100 million reis. For more details please 
see: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/governo -fara-leiloes -de-pep-e-
pepro -para-arroz   
i. Please explain  why MAPA is now offering PEP/PEPRO support to rice.   
ii. Does MAPA have plans to expand PEP/PEPRO to include other agricultural 
products, in addition to corn, wheat, and rice?   
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Domestic support provided under PEP and PEPRO  are related to the production from 
areas where the market prices of the product are (or were) below minimum prices. In 
this light, Brazilian authorities require documentation proof of the outflow of production 
from these designated areas. The documents me ntioned on item 9.4.6.5 of the 
PEPRO  regulations are requested as proof of the transport of production. Items 9.4.6.1 
to 9.4.6.4 also outline documentation required as proof of transport. PEPRO program me 
does not prohibit exports, qualifying as a domestic support programme not contingent 
on export performance.  
b. The information requested (destination) by the US is not available, since there is no data 
for quantities of products shipped to specific destinations under the program me. The 
government requires inf ormation regarding proof of outflow of the production, but no 
data is retrieved regarding final destinations.  
c. The Brazilian agricultural policy for minimum prices remains unchanged. The PEP and 
PEPRO are domestic support program mes designed to carry out t he PGPM (Policy of 
Guaranteed Minimum Prices). The recent inclusion of Brazilian support to rice is related 
to the low level of price in southern states observed during the last months.  
Follow -up: Canada and Ukraine requested Brazil to provide further info rmation, in particular on the 
products supported by PEP and PEPRO which they were exporting – wheat for Canada and corn G/AG/W/173  
 
- 10 - 
 
  and wheat for Ukraine. New Zealand was interested in receiving more information on products to 
which support was not technically conting ent on export but a large quantity of which were 
exported.  
1.8  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.8.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86002) , New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 86030) and 
the United States (AG -IMS ID 86033)  
a. In Canada 's responses to AG -IMS ID 85011, Canada s tates "Some provinces are 
still in the process of implementing milk class 7 through their respective 
regulatory processes. " 
i. Please provide a list of provinces in which Class 7 is implemented.  
ii. For any provinces that have not fully implemented Class 7, pleas e explain 
where they are at in each regulatory process.  
b. In previous response to U.S. questions, Canada has indicated that details of the 
National Ingredient Strategy related to billing ratios are still under discussion.   
i. Is this still the case?  
ii. What are the billing ratios now?  
iii. Where are the billing ratios publicly available?  
iv. Please provide an update on Class  7 auditing, tracking, and reporting 
rules/guidelines, and further details relating to billing ratios.  
c. According to a BC Milk Marketing Board Notice t o Industry published on 
1 February 2017: "On 7 July 2016, a negotiating committee consisting of 
producers and processors reached an agreement in principle on a National 
Ingredients Strategy. This agreement was developed over an 18 -month period 
and was appr oved by ten provinces at the P5 Supervisory Body 
(P5 SB)/Western Milk Pool Coordinating Committee (WMP CC)/ Canadian Milk 
Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) on 29 July 2016 and by the Canadian 
Dairy Commission (CDC) on 20 January 2017. " 
i. Please confirm tha t this information is correct regarding the approval by the 
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) and the Canadian Milk Supply 
Management Committee (CMSMC).  
d. Has Class 6 been revoked in Ontario?  Please provide a copy of the 
documentation or measures revoking Class 6.  
e. Please provide monthly volumes of milk components (i.e., butterfat, proteins, 
other solids) for which processors are paying Class 7 prices, as well as total 
utilization for all classes.  The United States notes that while Canada is no 
longer publis hing this information on the Canadian Dairy Information Centre, 
according to the Dairy Farmers of Canada annual report for 2016 -2017, 
information on milk utilization and sales is available through "dashboards " 
designed for market analysis.  
f. Have the rules f or whole milk powder utilization of Class 7 prices been 
determined?  If so, please describe the rules under which processors can 
receive Class 7 prices for all milk components used in the processing of whole 
milk powder.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 11 - 
 
  g. In Canada 's responses to AG -IMS ID 8 5011, Canada states, "[h]ow this 
processor margin for milk classes is calculated is not publically available ".  
i. Please describe which entities are responsible for calculating the processor 
margin.  
ii. What is the process for reviewing and/or changing the proce ssor margin?  
h. Please provide an update on the CDC 's development of the National 
Registration System and the Provincial Billing Mechanism Certification 
Program.  
i. The United States requests specific responses to the following questions the 
United States asked in AG -IMS ID 85011.   
In the example provided in AGIMS 84107 question "j", where Class 2(a) has a 
within - class end -use price adjustment of "70% of Protein priced at Class 2(a) 
price and 30% of protein priced at Class 7 Price ", would a processor be eligible  
for any proteins at Class 7 prices if:  
i. 10% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements 
for a minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were 
from imported ultrafiltered (UF) milk and the remaining proteins used in  the 
product were Canadian -sourced proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices.  
If so, what percentage of Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for 
Class 7 prices?  
ii. 30% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements 
for a minimu m percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were 
from imported UF milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were 
Canadian -sourced proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices.  If so, what 
percentage of Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class  7 
prices?  
iii. 50% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements 
for a minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were 
from imported UF milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were 
Canadi an-sourced proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices.  If so, what 
percentage of Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class  7 
prices?   
j. Has Class 4(m) been revoked in each Canadian province?  If not, which 
provinces still operate Class 4(m)?  
k. Has the methodology changed for calculating the butter or skim milk powder 
support price since 2015?  If so, how?  
l. Will the Canadian Dairy Commission continue to buy and sell Canadian skim 
milk powder following the implementation of Class 7?  
m. Will Canada conti nue to have and/or use a support price for skim milk 
powder?  If so, how will the support price be calculated?  
n. Trade data indicates that year -to-date unit prices of Canadian SMP are well 
below year -to-date unit prices for SMP exporters such as the EU, New Zealand, 
and the United States.  How does Canada explain this persistent price 
difference?  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
a.  
i. See answer in ii.  
ii. Milk class pricing is a provincial responsibility that can be delegated to the respective 
milk marketing boards or agencies, which are run by the dairy industry. It is the 
responsibility of the boards to implement milk classes and milk class prices, and of  
the provinces to update any associated regulations necessary for its implementation. 
As such, Canada is not in a position to advise what would constitute full 
implementation of class 7 in all instances. However, Canada understands that milk 
class 7 is bei ng used across Canada.  
b.  
i. See answer in iii.  
ii. See answer in iii.  
iii. Any elements negotiated under the National Ingredient Strategy by dairy producers 
and processors have been shared with the Canadian industry and stakeholders who 
require the information to ca rry out the relevant activities. Some elements of the 
National Ingredient Strategy continue to be under discussion. Canada also cannot 
confirm where, or if, any information will be made p ublic by the Canadian industry.   
iv. The Canadian Dairy Commission is cu rrently working towards developing the 
National Centralized Registration System and the Provincial Billing Mechanism 
Certification Program. There is no definitive timeline for its implementation.  
c.  
i. The National Ingredient Strategy is an agreement reached a mongst dairy producer 
and processor representatives. The Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee 
adopted some elements in January 2017 (such as class 7 and billing ratios for 
industrial products). The Canadian Dairy Commission acts as chair for the Canad ian 
Milk Supply Management Committee.  
d. Canada understands that milk class 6 will be revoked upon full implementation of milk 
class 7 and the National Ingredient Strategy. Canada notes that Ontario has not notified 
any amendment to milk class 6 through Regu lation 753: Grades, Standards, 
Designations, Classes, Packing and Marking of the Milk Act of 1990. That being said, 
Canada understands that milk class 7 is being used across Canada.  
e. The information was removed from the Canadian Dairy Information Centre we bsite as it 
was inaccurate and not comparable to past data. Canada is currently working towards 
updating the reporting system in order to be as transparent as possible.  
f. Some elements of the National Ingredient Strategy continue to be under discussion 
between dairy producer and processors. Canada also cannot confirm where, or if, any 
information will be made public by the Canadian industry.  
g.  
i. The Canadian Dairy Commission is responsible for determining an assumed 
processor margin. The assumed processor marg in represents the estimated costs of 
processing one hectolitre of milk into butter and skim milk powder.  
ii. The processor margin is determined by the Canadian Dairy Commission based on 
commissioned studies, as well as through consultations with dairy stakeho lders.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 13 - 
 
  h. The Canadian Dairy Commission is currently working towards developing the National 
Centralized Registration System and the Provincial Billing Mechanism Certification 
Program, and is currently working with provinces and awaiting decisions from the d airy 
industry in order to implement them. There is no definitive timeline for its full 
implementation.  
i. Canada notes that cheese is reported in classes 3 (a) to 3(d), and not 2(a). Canada 
re-iterates its response from AG -IMS 85011 that the eligibility for a processor to be 
billed at milk class 7 prices is not determined by the source, either imported or domestic, 
of dairy ingredients. Under milk class 7, all sources of milk protein count towards the 
amount of protein that can be derived from ingredients at the class  7 price. Canada 
would also like to re -iterate that milk prices are administered by provincial milk 
marketing boards. They are administered independently from Canadian regulations on 
cheese compositional standards. Under Canada 's cheese compositio nal standards, only 
milk can account for the milk portion of cheese. Any other substance, including milk 
protein concentrates, cannot account for the milk portion of cheese, regardless of its 
price or source.  
j. Utilization is no longer declared in any provi nce (other than for retroactive audit 
adjustments), and permits are no longer issued for milk class 4(m).  
k. The Commissioners of the Canadian Dairy Commission continue to base support prices 
on the following elements: results of the cost of production study , arguments presented 
by various stakeholders, an evaluation of the processors' margin, economic indicators 
such as the consumer price index, as well as their own experience and knowledge of the 
industry.  
l. As of 1 February 2017, the Canadian Dairy Commissi on no longer purchased skim milk 
powder under either the Canadian Dairy Commission 's domestic seasonality or the 
surplus removal programs. The remaining inventory of skim milk powder will be sold on 
the domestic market.  
m. The Canadian Dairy Commission maint ains a support price for skim milk powder. The 
latest support prices for both skim milk powder and butter for 2018 are listed on the 
Canadian Dairy Commission website available here: http://www.cdc -
ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index -eng.php  . The Commissioners of the Canadian Dairy Commission 
continue to base support prices on the following elements: results of the cost of 
production study, arguments presented by various stakeholders, an evaluation of the 
processo rs' margin, economic indicators such as the consumer price index, as well as 
their own experience and knowledge of the industry.  
n. Canada 's exports of skim milk powder are determined by market conditions, with the 
exception of any exports under milk class 5 (d), which are subject to set limits under 
Canada 's WTO export subsidy commitments. Thus, Canada 's exports of skim milk 
powder fluctuate in volume and value year -over-year. Using a simple ratio of the USD$ 
value of exports over the volume in tonnes using official government statistics collected 
by Global Trade Tracker, Canada notes that both Canada 's and the United States ' export 
prices for skim milk powder of HS 040210 have been consistently below that of the 
European Union (not including internal EU -28 trade) and New Zealand (with the 
exceptio n the year 2008) for the past ten  years. It is also interesting to note that the 
United States ' as well as the European Union 's (not including internal EU -28 trade) 
exports of skim milk powder to the world in 2017 (J anuary to December) have actually 
increased by volume from the year before, as well as from 2015. Finally, Canada would 
like to note that it is a very small world producer and exporter of skim milk powder. 
According to the USDA -FAS estimates for 2017, Cana da's production as a percentage of 
world production of skim milk powder was at 2.7%, while the EU 's was 35.4%, 
the U.S: 22.7%, and New Zealand: 8%.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia  and New Zealand noted their concern with Canada's polices given the large 
world stocks of skim milk powder and Canada's role as a significant global supplier. The European 
Union asked Canada to be transpar ent on how this scheme operated  and asked Members to verify 
whether the scheme complied with WTO rules.  
1.9  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.9.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86034)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by  the United States in 
AG-IMS ID 85012.  As such, the United Sta tes repeats these 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 gro cers 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?  
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 boutique inside the store , wine offered for sale in the 
boutique)?   
New questions : 
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product 
call that Canada provided in AGIMS 82002 
(http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%2
0Box %20Tender.pdf ) specifying different retail price parameters and size 
parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the category of existing 
Ontario bag in box wine?  
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to 4 stock 
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.  
Answer by Canada  
 
Given formal processes underway at the WTO and elsewhere, Canada is of the view that it would 
be inappropriate to further comment on this issue at this time.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.10  EU intervention stocks of skim milk power  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86003)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 86032)  
New Zealand understands that the European Uni on has recently tendered 1,864 MT of 
Skim Milk Powder from its intervention stocks which now total 370,000 MT. New 
Zealand recognises the gradual release of these stocks onto the market. What steps is 
the European Union taking to avoid the sale of this pro duct impacting markets?  
 
Answer by the European Union  
 
The Commission will continue to fulfil its legal obligations as regards the disposal of public 
intervention stocks. See Article 16 of Regulation(EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament 
and the Council requires that disposal '… be in compliance with the  commitments resulting from 
international agreements' …). In this respect, it will continue to operate cautiously the tenders for 
the sale of SMP in public intervention stocks as has been the case since the procedure was opened 
in November 2016.  
 
Follow -up: The United States noted interest in skim milk powder trade. Australia flagged concern 
regarding the large stocks of skim milk powder and the resulting distortion to the market.  
 
1.11  India's pulses policies  
1.11.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86061)  
In light of th e significant share of imported pulses in India 's total consumption of this 
staple food and projections that demand for pulses will continue to exceed domestic 
supply, could India please explain how the recent tariff increases for certain pulses are 
compat ible with its long -term food security objectives?  
 
Answer by India 
 
The recent increase in applied tariffs, which are well within the WTO bound tariffs, is based on the 
domestic demand and supply situation of pulses in India. The objective of Indian agric ultural policy 
is to balance the interest of consumers and producers. The long term food security objectives also 
includes food and livelihood security of the most vulnerable sections of society (; i.e. small and 
marginal farmers) seriously affected by the  situation.  
 
1.11.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86062)  
Could India explain what types of circumstances led to recent increases in India 's 
applied tariffs for pulse commodities in November and December 2017?  
 
Answer by India 
 
The recent decision to increase ap plied tariffs for pulses was based on the domestic demand and 
supply situation of pulses in India. It is aimed at alleviating the distress caused to small and 
marginal farmers by the influx of cheap imported pulses and the consequent impact on their food 
and livelihood security. The objective of Indian agricultural policy is to balance the interests of 
consumers and producers. The current applied tariffs are well within the bound tariff limits.  
 
1.11.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86063)  
A September 2016, report  from the Indian Ministry of Finance entitled "Incentivising 
Pulses Production through Minimum Support Price (MSP) and Related Policies " 
promotes pulse production so that domestic supply can better meet demand. The report 
claims that by doing so, it would protect the purchasing power of consumers all over 
India and promote food security through access to cheap protein.  
 
a. Can India indicate  how the recent increase in tariffs for peas (50%) and other 
pulses (30%) helps to protect the purchasing power of consumers all over 
India and promote food security through the access of affordable protein?  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 16 - 
 
  b. The report also mentions that the government sh ould increase minimum price 
support for pulses to take into account positive externality from pulse 
production. Could India indicate how this proposition would help the 
purchasing power of consumers all over India and promote food security?  
Answer by Indi a 
 
The objective of Indian agricultural policy is to balance the interests of both consumers and 
producers. The decision to increase the applied tariffs for pulses was taken to stabilize the falling 
domestic prices of these commodities in the local markets, in order to protect the interests of 
small and marginal farmers. The whole sale price index (WPI) for pulses in the country has come 
down from 205.2 (December 2016) to  134.2 (December 2017) showing a decline of 35%. This 
reflects the fact that the  current prices of pulses in domestic markets are below the prices of the 
corresponding period of the previous year, indicating that the measures taken have been in the 
overall interests of both consumers and producers, as intended.  
 
1.11.4   Question by Canada (A G-IMS ID 86065)  
India has built up a buffer stock of 20 Lah k MT for pulses and in November  2017, 
announced that Central Government Schemes could now draw from this stock, in 
addition to disposal through open market sales and supply to States.  
  
a. Could Indi a provide details as to the volumes of pulses that were disposed of 
through:  
i. Central Government Schemes;  
ii. Open market sales;  
iii. Supply to States.  
b. What prices were used to dispose of these pulses?  
Answer by India  
 
a. As of 15 February 2018, a total 4.91 lakh MT of pulses has been disposed of from buffer 
stocks through open market sale (OMS) and release to States/Central agencies.  
b. India will reply in due course.  
Follow -up: Australia requested India to provide details concerning how much of the 4.91 lakh 
tonnes of  pulses were disposed through the central government schemes, open market sales and 
supply to states respectively.  
 
1.11.5   Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86039)  
The Russian Federation has received signals from its trade business that new import 
duties on pulses established by India in late 2017 lead to substantial economic losses 
due to the fact that there was no time for traders to get acquainted with the measure  
beforehand and to adapt to new circumstances. In fact, some of the shipments have 
already been in transit at the time the changes took place. The substantial increase of 
import duties effectively restricts Russian export of pulses to India.  
 
Meanwhile, I ndia increases domestic support for its own producers of pulses. The 
Russian Federation has learned from various media sources that India is going to 
increase its market price support for pulses in 2018.  
 
Could India provide the rationale for such trade po licy? 
 
Answer by India  
 
The objective of Indian agricultural policy is to balance the interests of consumers and producers. 
The measure had to be taken to help the small and marginal farmers acutely distressed by the G/AG/W/173  
 
- 17 - 
 
  influx of cheap imported pulses and is based on domestic demand and supply situation of pulses in 
India. The increase in applied tariff is within the bound rates of tariffs of the commodities in 
question.  
 
1.11.6   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 86035)  
The India 's recent increase in import tariffs for peas of 50% and other pulses of 30% 
has influenced the Ukrainian market of pulses. As a result the supply of pulses from 
Ukraine to India will be significantly reduced this year. In this context, Ukraine looks 
forward  to informative discussion on repercussions forced India to increase the applied 
tariffs for pulses and on the future policy in this sector.  
 
a. Can India please indicate how the applied import tariff to diverse pulses 
changed over the past 12 months (includ ing as a percentage of the respective 
bound rate)?  
b. Could India inform on the primary policy objective, and clarify whether the 
objective is primarily directed to assist consumer (food security) or agricultural 
producers (income support)?  
Answer by India 
 
a. India has made some changes in its import duty structure on some varieties of pulses as 
indicated below. All the changes are within the bound rates of tariffs.  
HS Code  Commodity  Bound Duty  Current Applied Duty  
0713 10 00  Peas (Pisum Sativum)  50% 50% 
0713 20 00  Chickpeas (Garbanzos)  100%  40% 
0713 31 00  Beans of the species Vigna mungo , 
Hepper or Vigna radiate Wilczek  100%  Nil 
0713 40 00  Lentil (Mosur)  100%  30% 
0713 60 00  Pigeon Peas (Tur)  100%  10% 
 
The following changes were effected in import tariffs on pulses in the last 12 months:  
i. current applied duty on pigeon pea has bee n raised from nil to 10% 
w.e.f.  28.03.2017 ; 
ii. current applied duty on peas has been raised  from 0% to 50% w.e.f. 8.11.2017 ; 
iii. current applied duty on gram has been raised  from 0 % to 30% w.e.f. 21.12.2017 
and then from 30% to 40% w.e.f. 6.02.2018 ; 
iv. current applied duty on lentil (masur) has been raised  from 0% to 30% 
w.e.f.  21.12.2017.  
b. The objective of Indian agricultural policy is to balance the interests of consumers and 
producer s. 
1.11.7   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86004)  
Australia notes that since 2010 -11, minimum support prices have increased 82% for 
Ahar (Tur or Pigeon Peas), 76% for Moong (Mung Beans), 86% for Urad ( "Black 
lentils "), 110% for Gram (Chickpeas), and 89% for Masur  (Red Lentils).  
The Government of India 's Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices notes in 
paragraph 2.8 of its Price Policy for Rabi Crops – the Marketing Season 2018 -19 that:  
"In order to incentivize pulses production and encourage farmers to grow 
pulses, [the] government significantly increas ed MSPs of both kharif and 
rabi pulses in 2016 -17. As a result of which there was a record increase in G/AG/W/173  
 
- 18 - 
 
  area and production of pulses in the country, which had an adverse impact on 
market prices (Chart 2.4). " 
Given that the policy of Pulse "Incentivization " has been noted by the Government of 
India to have led to a record increase in production and an adverse impact on market 
prices, will India now consider reducing its minimum support prices for pulses to help  
restore stability in the market?  
Answer by India  
 
India is a net importer of pulses. Government intervention is based on domestic demand and 
supply situation of pulses in India. The Minimum Support Price (MSP) is fixed to protect farmers 
from distress sal e of their produce and to protect them from exploitation. Minimum Support Prices 
(MSPs) are announced by the Government following the recommendations of the Commission for 
Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). The CACP takes into account various factors in cluding the 
cost of cultivation/production, changes in input prices, input/output price parity, inter -crop price 
parity, effects on the cost of living, effects on general price level, parity between prices paid and 
prices received by farmers, etc. The obje ctive of Indian agricultural policy is to balance the interest 
of consumers and producers. There is no proposal under consid eration of Government to 
reduce  MSP. 
 
Follow -up: Australia, Canada, the European Union and the United States raised concern regardin g 
the impact of India's policies on the global pulses market. Australia noted that India's policy 
change on tariffs  would influence  future planting decisions in many countries including Australia, 
particularly given the sudden implementation of such policy . Australia invited India to rethink the 
balance between consumers and producers which India had referred to in its response . In 
Australia's view the policies may favour producers more than consumers.  As the largest pulses 
supplier to India, Canada echoed  the concern on the policy's effect on planting decisions and on 
the stability of global supplies of pulses which may ultimately impact global food security.  
1.12  India's minimum support prices  
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86005)  
Australia understands that the Indian Government is planning to launch a Market 
Assurance Scheme to provide minimum support price to farmers for crops not covered 
by the Minimum Support Price. In the 2017 -18 Budget Speech (1 February 2018), 
Finance Ministe r Arun Jaitley announced that all crops will realize one and a half times 
of the cost of their production.  
 
Can India provide the following information:  
a. the objectives of this policy ; 
b. the status of this policy proposal and intended launch date ; 
c. the crops c overed under this scheme ; 
d. how this policy will be administered ; 
e. how prices will be set ; 
f. how States will dispose of these procured crops . 
Answer by India  
 
These are budget proposals for 2018 -19. Details are not available at this stage.   
 
1.12.2   Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 86074)  
In February 2018 India 's Minister of Finance presented the Union Budget, which 
includes a measure to expand minimum support prices to all crops and increase them to 
cost of production, plus 50%.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. To better assess the expected impact of increasing the minimum support price 
of all crops, could India provide most recent cost of production data for all 
crops under India 's domestic support commitment and all other crops that are 
expected to receive minimum price support.  
b. Could India indicate  how much this measure will increase the applied 
administered prices for pulses, rice, wheat, coarse cereals, cotton, groundnuts 
and sunflower?  
c. This new budget also introduced a 10% social welfare surcharge to finance 
education, health care and social pro grams. Could India indicate which 
agricultural imports would be covered by this new surcharge?  
Answer by India  
 
These are budget proposals for 2018 -19. Details are not available at this stage.   
 
1.12.3   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86066)  
Press repor ts indicate that PM Modi has announced that his government will increase 
minimum prices for grains for farmers to 150% of cost of production.  
a. Could India indicate which types of grains that could become subject for this 
change? Will it include common whea t, rice, maize, pulses (and if so which 
ones), soya bean, rapeseed?  
b. Could India indicate the levels to which prices for common wheat, rice and 
maize would be increased compared to prices applicable for 2016 and 
2017 crop year for these products?  
Answer by India 
 
These are budget proposals for 2018 -19. Details are not available at this stage.   
 
Follow -up: Australia and the European Union registered strong concern over the measure's impact 
to the international markets and sought further details on exactly  which crop would  be subject to 
minimum price support and how this could  impact India's DS commitments at the WTO. Ukraine 
flagged interest in the topic. Canada asked India to confirm whether the 10% social  welfare 
surcharge  mentioned in question c under A G-IMS ID 86074 had already been implemented. India 
noted that no further information was available at this stage. The United States  noted that India 
had experience d high growth rate in ag riculture production and  had an increasing  role as a major 
agricultur e exporter. This was particularly true for commodities that had receive d high level s of 
support , particularly market price support , by the Indian government. The United States noted 
that in 2016 India had been the largest exporter  of rice and ground nuts, accounting  for nearly 
40% and 33% of global exports  respectively . The United States also pointed out that India was 
among the largest exporters for several commodities ;  such as c otton (the second largest 
exporter), sugar (the third largest exporter ), sorghum and Mustard seed  (the 4th larges t exporter) 
and millet (the 5th largest  exporter).The United States asked whether India had consider ed the 
impact of further rais ing minimum  support prices for these and other commodities on the  global 
markets p articu lar given the increasing role India played in the global market . 
1.13  India's quantitative restrictions  
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86006)  
At the WTO Committee on Agriculture meeting on 17 October 2017, Australia raised the 
announcement by India 's Ministr y of Commerce and Industry on 21 August 2017 of a 
quantitative restriction on beans of the species Vigna mungo Hepper or Vigna radiata 
Wilczek. In particular, Australia asked:  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 20 - 
 
  a. What were the circumstances behind the imposition of the quantitative 
restricti on and had India notified the quantitative restriction to the WTO? If so, 
to which committee?  
b. Has India applied quantitative restrictions to any other agricultural 
commodities?  India replied that it would "submit the notification and relevant 
information to the appropriate Committee in due course."  
Australia would be grateful for an update on what information India has submitted to 
the WTO on this quantitative restriction since it provided the above response.  
 
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.13.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86037)  
The United States understands that in August 2017, the Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry notified quantitative restrictions (QRs) on imports of pigeon peas (07136000, 
07139010 and 07139090) and established an Indian fiscal year (April - March) annual 
import quota of 200,000 MT.  Further, later that month, the Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry notified QRs on imports of black matpae/mung beans (07133100) and 
established an Indian fiscal year (April - March) annual import quota of 300,000 MT.  
 
a. Are these QRs still in place?  
b. Please explain how such quantitative restrictions are consistent with India 's 
WTO commitments.  
c. Does India have further plans to institute more QRs  on imports of agricultural 
products? If so, for which products?  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Australia requested India  to specify  at which Committee India would notify the 
measure and when such noti fication could be expected. The European Union echoed Australia's 
comments.  
1.14  Indonesia's dairy import system  
1.14.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 86046)  
a. In the October 2017 COA, Indonesia responded to questions about its Ministry 
of Agricult ure (MOA) Regulation No. 26/2017 on Milk Supply and Distribution 
with statements regarding the regulation 's aim to ensure the availability and 
quality of fresh milk required by the processing industry.   
Please clarify what history of availability and/or qu ality problems Indonesia 
has had with imported milk products.  
b. With regard to the same regulation, MOA Regulation No.  26/2017 on Milk 
Supply and Distribution:  
i. Please clarify whether Indonesia will allow dairy imports without the 
importer supporting Indone sia's domestic dairy industry in some manner.  
ii. Please clarify whether businesses that do not own "milk processing units " 
within three years will be allowed to import dairy products after the 
deadline is reached.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 21 - 
 
  iii. Please explain how the Directorate General for Livestock and Animal Health 
Services (DGLAHS) intends to administer its request to industry for formal 
partnership proposals under MOA Regulation 26/2017 (MOA 26/2017).  
iv. In light of the significance of milk powder as an ingredient for further 
processin g due to shelf life and ease of transport, we question the 
down -chain impact of limiting the availability of imported milk powder.  For 
example, infant formula manufacturers import powder not produced in 
Indonesia.  Further, nearly all retail cheese in Indon esia is imported by 
traders.  In light of MOA Regulation 26/2017, how would these businesses 
be able to get their products / raw materials into Indonesia?  
c. The United States understands that the MOA is considering additional measures 
affecting dairy imports.  Two examples of these are (1) MOA draft regulation on 
the Import and Export of Food Products of Animal Origin and (2) MOA draft 
regulation on Registration and Certification of Animal Products.   
Please provide an update on the status of the two measures pr ovided as 
examples in this question.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia wishes to thank the US Delegation for their continued interest in Indonesia 's regulation 
on Milk Supply and Distribution, as stipulated in the Minister of Agriculture 's 
Regulation  No.26/20 17. With respect to some questions posed to Indonesia, the responses are as 
follow s:  
a. It is the interests of the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the high quality of milk 
is available for consumers at all time. For that purpose, the provision of high  quality of 
milk for consumers will be fulfilled from domestic productions as well as from 
importation.  
b.  
i. and ii. The Minister of Agriculture 's Regulation does not aim at regulating foreign 
trade activities, including the importation of milk from foreign s uppliers. The 
importations of milk to Indonesia are still allowed under current regulation (Minister 
of Trade Regulation No.59/2016), which will be further regulated by the "draft 
regulation on the import and export of food products of animal origin " and "draft 
regulation on registration and certification of animal products ".  
iii. The Directorate General for Livestock and Animal Health Services, through a 
designated team comprising officials from different agencies and universities  will give 
supervision to the business and small local dairy cattle owners to create a 
partnership, which have to bring benefits to all parties concerned.  
iv. The Minister of Agriculture 's Regulation No.26/2017 does not regulate the 
importation of milk. The importations of powder milk are  still allowed as long as they 
meet requirements stipulated in the current regulation (Minister Trade regulation).  
c. Both drafts are still under consideration and have been notified to the SPS Committee.  
Follow -up: The United States noted that it would likely follow up on the topic in the SPS 
Committee in light of Indonesia's response that the two referenced  draft regulations had been 
submitted to that Committee. The European Union and New Zealand shared an interest in this 
matter.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.15  Korea's rice imports  
1.15.1   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 86036)  
Thailand thanks the Republic of Korea for the response provided at the 78th CoA meeting 
in September 2015 regarding the Rectification and Modification of Schedules for Rice, 
and the subsequent consultations held with concerned Members. In this regard, could 
Korea please provide an update on its efforts to resolve issues regarding the 
rectification and modification of Korea 's Schedule for rice products.  
 
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
From January 2015 Korea discontinued special treatment on rice by following tarrification. Rice 
TRQ administrations and fulfilment  have been notified to the WTO. Korean government had 
bilateral consultations including Thailand and exchanged views through t he embassy in Korea or 
capital based agencies. Korea  will continue its effort to resolve this issue.  
 
1.16  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86007)  
Pakistan 's Ministry of Commerce on 14 September 2017 announced a 0.5 MMT sugar 
freight s upport subsidy to its sugar millers where the sugar was conditional on export. 
This quantity was subsequently increased to 1.5 MMT by Pakistan 's Ministry of 
Commerce and Textile on 7 December 2017 (links below).  
 
Australia seeks to better understand the ba sis for Pakistan 's domestic subsidies for 
sugar.  
 
Can Pakistan please provide the following information:  
a. How are these subsidies consistent with WTO agreements?  
b. How much of this subsidy has already been outlayed?  
c. What is the value of the amount that has been outlayed?  
d. Who has received this support?  
e. When will this subsidy be removed?  
http://www.sbp.org.pk/epd/2017/FECL23.htm  (accessed 7 February 2018) . 
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
a. Government of Pakistan is providing freight support to th e sugar producers under 
article  9.4 read with 9.1 (d) and (e) of Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) as allowed under 
Nairobi Decision, being a Net Food Importing Country.  
b. No amount has been outlayed till now.  
c. No amount has been  outlayed till now.  
d. Sugar producers are eligible to avail this support.  
e. It is a temporary measure to address the grievances of poor sugar cane growers to 
enable sugar millers to clear outstanding dues of cane farmers. However, freight support 
will be sto pped after crushing season 2017 -18.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.16.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 86009)  
Follow up to question by Brazil AG -IMS ID 85069,  
 
Brazil appreciates and thanks Pakistan 's response regarding support for the export of 
sugar by Pakistan. In light of Pakistan 's responses Brazil notes several regulations and 
public notices regarding the export of sugar for the c rop years of 2014 -2015 
and 2016 -2017 that have not been notified by Pakistan, including a Public Notice on 
"Export and  Import of Sugar ", issued in February  2015 by the Ministry of Commerce of 
the Government of Pakistan under Memorandum No: 7(2)/2012 -E.III, that implements 
a cash support on sugar exports of 8.00 Rs per kg, for exports under the export quota of 
650,000 metric ton nes of sugar, as well as an inl and freight support of 2.00 Rs per kg.  
Given that there are no commitment levels concern ing sugar specified in Pakistan' s 
Schedule, and in light of the provisions of Articles 3.3, 8 and 9.1(a), (b) and (c) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, please provide t he methodologies and calculations for the 
cash support not related to inland freight support, particularly the support of 8.00 Rs per 
kg, for sugar exports under the export quota of 650,000 metric ton nes of sugar. " 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
Government of Pakistan has provided freight support to th e sugar producers under A rticle 9.4 read 
with Article 9.1 (d) and (e) of AoA to cover the costs of freight and incidental costs like handling 
and other processing in order to address lack of infrastructure and con ditions of market failure. It 
was a temporary measure to address the grievances of poor sugar cane producers to enable sugar 
millers to clear outstanding dues of cane farmers.  
 
Follow -up: Australia and Brazil requested Pakistan to provide further informat ion concerning the 
cash support not r elated to inland freight support. Brazil noted its deep concern on the policy's 
influence on international sugar prices and indicated willingness to engage in a bilateral discussion 
with Pakistan. The European Union ech oed the concern.  
 
1.17  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86008)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its questions at the October  2017 
CoA regarding the 30 June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO Genera l 
Council 's waiver decision of 24 July 2014 (WT/L/932). Australia seeks an update on the 
Philippines ' tariffication efforts to date.  
 
Answer by Philippines  
 
Further to Philippines' last report on the ongoing rice tariffication initiativ e in the Philippines  during 
the 85th Regular Session o f the Committee on Agriculture in October 2017, Philippines  is pleased to 
update the Committee that the country 's two chamb ers of the Legislative Branch ( the Philippine 
Senate and the House of Representatives ) have been fa st-tracking and prioritiz ing the enactment 
of a law amending Republic Act (RA) No. 8178, as amended by RA 9496 and RA 10848, to 
specifically remove the quantitative restrictions on rice provision therein.  
 
It will be noted that no less than President Rodr igo Roa Duterte ordered the passage of the rice 
tariffication law to be expedited. Thus, the Executive Branch has been working closely with both 
Houses of Congress in the finalisation of the final bill.  
 
After the Philippine Senate and the House of Repres entatives have finalised their respective 
versions of the bill, the two chambers shall transmit their versions to bicameral conference 
committee to consolidate their versions and reconcile the divergent provisions of their bills.  
 
The Philippines is expec ting the final bill enacted into law by the next (87th) Regular Session of 
the COA in June 2018.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Whist the enactment of the law has been delayed, it will be noted that the Philippines ( through 
Executive Order (EO) No. 23 of 27 April 2017 ) has been exten ding the concessions to all 
WTO Members under the General Council Decision on Rice Waiver (WT/ L/932) since its expiration 
on 1 July 2017. It will be noted as well, however, that the continuation of the concessions shall 
finally cease once the rice tariffic ation law is enacted according to EO 23.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union noted  its systemic interest in the subject  and underlined the  
importance  of Members implementing  decision s taken within the  WTO.  
 
1.18  Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  
1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86010)  
Australia notes decree No. 1595 issued by the Russian Government on the rules for 
providing grain transportation subsidies on 20 December 2017. Australia further notes 
reports that the Russian Government has said tha t this measure was introduced in order 
to stimulate grain exports from a number of Russian regions.  
 
Can the Russia n Federation  respond to the following questions:  
 
a. Can the Russia n Federation  confirm if the purpose of the measure is to 
stimulate grain expo rts?  
b. Could the Russia n Federation  explain how  the measure is consistent 
with Article 9(e) of the Agreement on A griculture and with the 
Nairobi  Ministerial Decision on Export Competition?  
c. What is the value of the amount that has been outlayed?  
d. Who has received this support?  
e. When will this subsidy be removed?  
Answer by the Russian Federation  
 
The measure at issue contributes to proportional distribution of grain resources among the regions 
of the Russian Federation and has a positive effect on prices wit hin the framework of seasonal 
production. T he measure has been  developed as a temporary instrument and is assumed to be 
effective until July 2018. The main recipient of this subsidy is the Joint Stock Company 
"Russian  Railways ". The Government Resolution N o. 1595 does not determine agricultural 
producers as the recipients of this subsidy. The amount of support provided through the 
Government Resolution No. 1595 will be submitted by the Russian Federation in domestic support 
notification for corresponding re porting periods. The measure does not constitute an export 
subsidy due to the fact that it is not contingent upon export performance and provides equal terms 
for grain shipments regardless of the course of such shipments.  
 
1.18.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 860 68) 
On 20 December 2017, the Russian Government issued decree No. 1595 "On Approval of 
the Rules for the Provision of Subsidies from the Federal Budget in 2017 and 2018 to 
Open Joint Stock Company (OAO) "Russian Railways " for the Recovery of Revenue 
Losses  Arising from the Establishing of Reduced Grain Transportation Rates ". The 
measure came into force on 21st December 2017. It is reported that the amount 
allocated from the federal budget for these export subsidies is 2.99 billion rubles. The 
subsidies will  apply to railway transportation of wheat, barley, and corn from 13  regions 
of the Central, Volga, Ural, and Siberia Federal Districts. The measure, in force 
through  30th June 2018, is expected to stimulate grain exports from the involved 
regions, stabilize domestic grain prices, and support profit margins of agricultural 
producers.   
  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Could the Russian Federation elaborate as to how the use of these export subsidies is 
consistent with its WTO export subsidy commitment of "nil"?  
 
Answer by the Russian Federation  
 
The measure at issue does not constitute an export subsidy due to the fact that it is not contingent 
upon export performance and provides equal terms for grain shipments regardless of the course of 
such shipments.  
 
1.18.3   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86067)  
Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 85036  
a. Could the Russia n Federation  indicate the criteria for the products to be eligible 
for these subsidies?  
b. Could the Russia n Federation  specify if the measure in question is contingent in 
any way upon export performance, i.e. is the discount on railway tariffs 
applicable on exported grains only.  
c. Could the Russia n Federation  specify if preferential railway tariffs apply on 
transportation of grain to ports where the product is exported or on 
transpor tation to other destinations as well.  
Answer by the Russian Federation  
 
The subsidy at issue is not contingent upon export performance and provides equal terms for grain 
shipments regardless of the course of such shipments. The scope of the subsidy is of limited 
product coverage – it applies only to wheat, barley and corn shipments. The criteria for products to 
be eligible to receive this subsidy are the prices at which these products are sold. The prices shall 
be no less than prices specified in the Gover nment Resolution No. 1595.  
 
1.18.4   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 86038)  
The Russian Federation 's adoption of decree 1595 on 20 December 2017 provides 
compensation for reduced grain transportation rates. As a result, agriculture producers 
of grain are to benefit from lowered rail transportation rates for grain. Moreover, grain 
from designated regions could be more attractive to export.  
 
Russian Federation officials opined the media that these subsidies are not agricultural 
export subsidies because "We are not subsidising exporters, we are subsidising 
producers ". In addition, the Russian Federation replied to the European Union in the 
85th meeting that these subsidies in Russia's view are not export subsidies in the 
context of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
a. Could the Russian Federation confirm that agriculture producer benefit from 
these subsides?  
b. Does the Russian Federation confirm that due to the benefit of these subsidies 
grain is exported?  
Answer by the Russian Federation  
 
The Government Resolution No.  1595 does not determine agricultural producers as the 
beneficiaries of this subsidy. The subsidy at issue is not contingent upon export performance and 
provides equal terms for grain shipments regardless of the course of such shipments.  
1.18.5   Question by the United  States of America (AG -IMS ID 86047)  
The United States understands that the Russian Federation has issued two decrees - 
Decree No.  1595, which is specific for grains (wheat, b arley and corn), and Decree G/AG/W/173  
 
- 26 - 
 
  No. 1104, which is for a number of food and agricultu ral products. Both decrees grant 
internal transportation subsidies to compensate for the cost of transporting agricultural 
products by rail to ports where the pr oduct may be exported. Further, the 
United  States  understand that the explanatory note of Decre e 1595 notes that it is 
necessary to take such measures for the stimulation of export of grain from the 
domestic market and to maintain the profitability of agricultural producers. Media 
reports quote Minister of Agriculture Alexander Tkachev as saying the  Agriculture 
Ministry has proposed to offer state subsidies for grain supplies by rail to the exporting 
ports of Russia 's southern regions.  
 
a. Please explain the criteria and process for receiving these transportation 
subsidies and/or for receiving rail tran sportation at reduced rates.  
b. Can you confirm that these transportation subsidies are being offered to 
facilitate delivery to exporting ports in southern Russia, as suggested by the 
Minister of Agriculture?  
c. What is the reason for the Minister of Agricultu re intent to facilitate shipments 
to Russia 's port territory other than to export those shipments?  
d. Why would subsidies be provided on shipments bound for Russia 's ports, other 
than to stimulate exports?  
e. Please explain how these subsidies comport with Russia 's WTO commitments.  
Answer by the Russian Federation  
 
JSC "Russian Railways " is the recipient of the subsidy concerned. In order to receive a subsidy JSC 
"Russian Railway " submits to the Federal Railway Transport Agency a report on revenue losses 
resulting from transportation of grain cargo at reduced railway transportation rates. Thus, the 
amount of subsidy is based upon the amount of revenue losses resulting from applicat ion of 
reduced railway transportation rates. The measure at issue contributes to proportional distribution 
of grain resources among the regions of the Russian Federation and has a positive effect on prices 
within the framework of seasonal production. The G overnment Resolution No.  1595 does not 
determine ports as the final destination of grain transportation. The measure does not constitute 
an export subsidy due to the fact that it is not contingent upon export performance and provides 
equal terms for grain shipments regardless of the course of such shipments.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union noted that at this stage it could not determine whether the policy 
constituted an export subsid y and would likely follow up on the question. Ukraine looked forward 
to the Russian Federation's actions to ensure that no export subsidies were provided directly or 
indirectly. Canada would like to receive information regarding the value of the export subsidies.  
1.19  Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
1.19.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86106)  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 85039  
 
Can Thailand give an update on developments regarding import permits for feed wheat 
since the last CoA meeting?  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
The internal consultations are still ongoing in order to fi nd a suitable solution. Thailand will update 
Members in due course.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 27 - 
 
  1.20  Turkey's IPR programme  
1.20.1   Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86029)  
Follow  up to question AG -IMS ID 84113  
 
The Russian Federation would like to repeat its questions originally posed at the 
Committee on  Agriculture in June 2017 which have not been answered yet:  
 
a. What amount of wheat has been imported under IPR since 2010?  
b. What amount of flour has been exported by Turkey under IPR since 2010?  
c. Under IPR  what index is applied for an equivalent duty -free import of wheat 
when exporting one tonne of flour?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.21  U.S. dairy policies  
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86084)  
Canada Follow -up Que stions to the United States (AG -IMS ID 85079)  
 
1. In response to Canada 's question on California milk clas s prices (AG -IMS ID 
85079), the  United States responded at the October 2017 Committee on 
Agriculture that what Canada was describing was an updated desc ription of 
California 's milk classes.  
a. Could the United States please confirm that processors/manufacturers are able 
to pay a lower price for milk to make yogurt in California contingent on the 
export of that product?  
b. Could the United States please explai n why there are two different minimum 
prices that processors/manufacturers are required to pay for the production of 
the same product - one being a lower price if the yogurt is exported, and the 
other a higher price if the product remains on the domestic ma rket?  
2. The following questions are in response to the United States answers on the 
subject of federal milk marketing orders (FMMOs) (AG -IMS ID 85079):  
a. In regards to the end use milk classes in FMMOs:  
i. What is the milk class that milk handlers pay  for the disposal of milk 
(i.e. waste, milk not used at processing/manufacturing plant)?  
ii. Alternatively, how do milk handlers pay producers for milk that they were 
not able to use due to spoilage or other reasons?  
iii. How are milk producers paid or compensated for mil k that is dumped at the 
farm?  
b. In response to Canada, the United States has replied that "Liquid ultrafiltered 
milk would be classified according to its end -use." What would be the milk 
class price that a milk handler would pay if the end -use is to produce  
ultrafiltered milk for export to manufacture a cheese in that export market?  
c. In follow -up to the S.S. response on the role of USDA market administrators:  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 28 - 
 
  i. Do market administrators bill processors (who are required to be regulated) 
and manufacturers (who chose to be regulated) the end -use milk class for 
the purchases of milk from producers?  
ii. If not, who bills these milk processors and manufacturers (handlers)?  
iii. How does the billing for milk handlers work? How do handlers know what to 
pay into the pool? Do USDA Market Administrators bill or pay handlers from 
the producer settlement fund?  
iv.  Do market administrators ever pay milk producers (i.e. send cheques at any 
point to producers)? Or do milk handlers pay producers based on market 
administrator calculations?  
d. In a response, the U.S. mentioned that "FMMOs regulate plants according to 
where they have sales, not plant location. "  
i. How would milk handlers be regulated if they process and sell fluid milk 
(class I) solely for the export market? What about if they manufacture and 
sell dairy products (classes II -IV) solely for the export market?  
ii. How and where (under which FMMO) would mi lk handlers be regulated if a 
portion of either fluid milk or dairy products that they produce are 
exported?  
iii. For example, if a milk handler that chooses to pool is usually regulated in 
the Northeast FMMO (since most of their dairy products are currently s old 
there) and exports cheese that they manufactured, would they be regulated 
under the Northeast FMMO class III price for the cheese? Where (under 
which FMMO) would a handler be regulated if it produces fluid milk (class  I) 
that is exported?  
e. For Canada 's question on the Dairy Forward Pricing Program, the United 
States  responded that "The programme allows regulated handlers to pay 
farmers in accordance with the terms of a forward contract instead of paying 
the applicable FMMO uniform price for pooled milk . Handlers still account to 
the FMMO market wide pool for the classified use value of that milk. USDA does 
not calculate a "usage rate" among dairy producers for this programme. "  
i. Could the  United States  please explain the purpose of the Dairy Forward 
Pricing Program? How does it benefit producers, and how does it benefit 
milk handlers?  
ii. Does the programme have an effect on the amount of the blend price paid to 
producers, or the blend price paid by milk handlers? If so, how, and by what 
amount?  
iii. Why do handl ers still account to the FMMO market wide pool if they are 
using the Dairy Forward Pricing Program?  
iv. As handlers still 'account ' to the FMMO pool, there may be statistics or 
information available to the USDA on the usage rates of milk handlers for 
the Dair y Forward Pricing Program. If so, could the  United States  please 
provide them?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
1.  
a. The United States undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 29 - 
 
  b. The United States undertook to provide a response at a later stage .  
2.  
a.  
i. FMMOs only require the pooling and pricing of milk that is commercially marketed 
and received at a plant. Pooled milk not used in a product for sale for human uses, is 
classified as the lowest classified -use value for the month. Normal in -plant losses  are 
limited to 1.5 %. Farm -to-plant losses are limited to 0.5 % and are also priced at the 
lowest price class. Normal in -plant and normal farm -to-plant losses beyond these 
limits are classified at the highest use -value of that plant for that month.  
ii. Answer covered in 2(a)(i). Producers or their cooperative are paid the uniform price 
in the market for pooled milk, regardless of use.  
iii. Typically, milk not marketed commercially and not received at a plant (ie. dumped at 
farms) is not priced or pooled by the FMMO.  There have been exceptions due to 
limited plant capacity. In those instances, documentation is provided and the milk is 
pooled if authorized by the Market Administrator.  
b. Milk that is pooled and used to make ultrafiltered (UF ) milk is classified based upon how 
the UF is used, e.g., UF milk exported to make cheese would be Class III.  
c. In follow -up to the S.S. response on the role of USDA market administrators:  
i. Market Administrators serve as a clearing house for marketwide pool  monies through 
the producer settlement fund (PSF). Each month the Market Administrator gives each 
plant an accounting of its individual use -value of pooled milk and the plant is notified 
of its obligation or credit from the PSF.  
ii. FMMOs do not require a bi lling to handlers. Handlers are obligated to pay their 
producer suppliers in accordance with FMMO minimum values.  
iii. Market Administrators do not bill handlers. Each month the Market Administrator 
gives each plant an accounting of their individual use -value of pooled milk and the 
amount (blend price) they owe to their suppliers of the milk and the plant is notified 
of its obligation or credit from the Producer Settlement Fund (PSF). Handlers who 
have an obligation remit that money to the PSF. Handlers who hav e a credit to the 
PSF are paid that money.  
iv. Payments to producers are made by handlers based on the Market Administrator 's 
calculations.  
d.  
i. Handlers producing conventional fluid milk for the export market, and having no 
sales into any FMMO  marketing area, would not be regulated by a FMMO, just as a 
handler selling such milk solely into an unregulated area within the United States 
would be unregulated. A handler manufacturing and selling only Class II, III, or IV 
products does not have to po ol. A manufacturing handler can have their milk receipts 
pooled, if they meet the pooling requirements of an order.  
ii. If a handler is fully regulated by a FMMO, all their plant milk receipts are regulated 
by the FMMO, including fluid milk that may be export ed and milk used in exported 
dairy products.  
iii. If the handler is fully regulated by a FMMO, all of their milk receipts are regulated by 
that FMMO, including milk used in exported dairy products or sold in an unregulated 
area in the United States. Manufacture d dairy products would be valued at Class II, 
III and IV prices that are uniform across all FMMOs, irrespective of where they sell G/AG/W/173  
 
- 30 - 
 
  their manufactured products. Fluid milk processors are regulated by FMMOs based on 
the location of their milk sales; if they are fully regulated by an order, all of the 
plant's milk receipts are regulated on that FMMO.  
e.  
i. The Forward Pricing Program is a voluntary program me that allows dairy farmers and 
handlers buying their milk to enter into forward contracts for that portion o f milk that 
the handler uses for nonfluid milk products. A forward contract is a type of risk 
management instrument that allows producers and handlers to "lock in " prices, 
thereby reducing risk associated with price and income volatility and enhancing thei r 
ability to obtain new or continued financing.  
ii. Producers in a forward contract are paid according to the terms of the forward 
contract. Handlers still account to the FMMO pool for the classified use value of the 
milk, but handlers are not required to pay  the applicable FMMO uniform price for 
pooled milk.  
iii. The Dairy Forward Pricing Program is authorized by t he Agriculture Agreement Act 
of 1937, as amended. The authorizing legislation exempts handlers who enter into 
forward contacts from paying minimum prod ucer blend prices; it does not exempt 
handlers from accounting to the FMMO pool for their classified use value.  
iv. Market Administrators review forward contracts to ensure they comply with the 
regulations. Terms of the forward contracts vary and forward cont racts are not 
enforced by the FMMO program. USDA does not calculate usage rate statistics.  
Follow -up: In relation to the exceptions mentioned in the  U.S. responses to question a.( iii), 
Canada asked the United States to elaborate on the numbe r of exception s and what those 
conditions  were. The United States  noted that no information was available  at this stage.   
 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  
2.1.1   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV /48)  
AG-IMS ID 86072: Question by the European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The EU notes that in recent years, the fill rates for this tariff rate quota on cheddar 
cheese are less than 35%. Could El Salvador explain any reasons for these low fill rates? 
Notably, the EU is concerned about any potential negative impact that TRQ mana gement 
by auctioning could have in inhibiting a better use of this market access concession.  
 
Answer by El Salvador  
 
The quota fill rate for cheddar cheese reflects the interests of domestic buyers of the product, and 
is a function of the market forc es of supply and demand. When Members  look at the import levels 
for this product Members  must also bear in mind the small size of the Salvadoran market.  El 
Salvador  notes that the process of opening and allocating the quota continues to be transparent, 
and has n ot changed with respect to previous years when the fill rates were higher.  
 
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/62)  
AG-IMS ID 86040: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues  
Under table MA:2 Year 2016, Cos ta Rica notified that numerous TRQ products were not 
opened.  
a. Please clarify why the TRQ were not opened for those products?  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 31 - 
 
  b. Please provide information on how the TRQs for these products are 
administered.  
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica thanks the deleg ation of Thailand for its question on the specific subject of the 
administration of import tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). The reason why certain TRQ s are not opened is 
that the in -quota tariff for these products is equal to or greater than the MFN import tarif f. This 
applies to the tariff quotas for pig meat, white and yellow maize, rice, sugar, eggs, lard, sausages 
and preparations of pig or bovine meat, and tobacco. In the case of Costa Rica, the reason why 
the WTO import tariff –rate quotas are seldom or neve r used has to do chiefly with the market, and 
with the fact that access conditions for bilateral tariff quotas are more advantages to importers. 
The fill rate of TRQs is unrelated to their regulation, since the same procedure is applied to 
bilateral quotas  as to multilateral quotas. Costa Rica  notes that the fill rate for bilateral tariff 
quotas is above 90% for many products.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86043: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
In its answer to Switzerland 's question at 79th CoA meeting ( AG-IMS ID 79078) 
Costa  Rica mentioned an amendment to its "General Regulations on the Distribution and 
Allocation of Import Tariff Quotas " with an aim to raising its tariff quota fill rates. We 
noted however that for tariff item numbers 0401 (milk and cream, not concentrated nor 
containing added sugar or other sweetening matter) and 0403 (buttermilk, curdled milk 
and cream, yoghurt, kephir and other fermented or acidified milk and cream, whether or 
not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening mat ter or flavoured or 
containing added fruit, nuts or cocoa) the quota fill rates have decreased.  
Can Costa Rica please give an update on the implementation of the amendment that 
they have announced and on its effectiveness in increasing the quota fill rate s? 
 
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica thanks the delegation of Switzerland for its question on the specific subject of the 
administration of import tariff quotas. As the result of the negotiations on bilateral free trade 
agreements, Costa Rica opened tariff  quotas for products that largely coincide with those 
authorized under its multilateral commitments at the WTO. The conditions of access for bilateral 
tariff q uotas involve an in quota tariff of 0%, and in many cases higher volumes. Such is the case 
for da iry products, where Costa Rica applies an MFN tariff of 66%, with a WTO in –quota tariff 
of 35%. In the case of t he bilateral agreements, the in quota tariff is 0%. Consequently, applicants 
applying for tariff quotas granted under the WTO use them as a supp lement to their product 
needs, and when the trade transaction and market conditions are attractive. Costa Rica  notes that 
Costa  Rica applies the same regulations to WTO import tariff quotas as to bilateral tariff quotas. 
These regulations can be found in E xecutive Decree No.  39938 COMEX.  
 
2.3  Special safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/221)  
AG-IMS ID 86073: Question by the European Union - Trigger calculations  
Japan indicates in its notification that the trigger price calculated was not based on a 
simple average. Could Japan explain how it calculated the trigger price in question?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
The trigger price is calculated by the weighted average of the data of 1986 and 1987, as no import 
was recorded in 1988.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.4  Domestic Support commitments ( table  DS:1)  
2.4.1   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/51, G/AG/N/COL/51/CORR.1, G/AG/N/COL/54)  
AG-IMS ID 86051: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
a. It is noted that in both G/AG/N/COL/51 and G/AG/N/COL/54 there have been 
signif icant fluctuations in expenditures for various measures. In response to 
AG-IMS ID 81078 and 81079 Colombia provided details with regard to the 
reasons for these changes, such as significantly increased budget allocations 
and institutional reforms.  
b. Does Colombia plan to submit any Table DS:2 notifications with regards to 
these changes to the various measures exempt from reduction commitments?  
Answer by Colombia  
 
In Table DS:2 Columbia notifies measures that are exempt from reduction in accordance with the  
commitments contained in the Agreement on Agriculture. Columbia  have asked for certain 
clarifications regarding this question, and Columbia  will transmit the additional information 
Columbia receive s to its  capital.  
 
Follow -up: The United States noted that  the last Table DS:2 from Colombia was circ ulated in 2000 
and asked Colombia to submit a new DS:2 to reflect the changes  to the measures exempt from 
reduction  commitments.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86086: Question by Canada - General services: inspection services  
Canada notes that Inspection services outlays were reduced to zero in 2015. Could 
Colombia elaborate on the specific policy changes that reduced spending for inspection 
services to zero?  
 
Answer by Colombia  
 
The budget for inspection services had, in previous ye ars, been allocated to the construction of a 
diagnostic laboratory that has not entered into service. Hence, no outlays for 2015. These outlays 
will be resumed when the laboratory enters into service.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86085: Question by Canada - General services: marketing and promotion 
services  
Canada notes that Marketing and promotion services outla ys were significantly higher 
in 2014 (amounting to USD $274  millions) than in 2 013 (USD $44  millions) and 
2015  (USD $77  millions). Could Colombia explain why  the outlays vary significantly 
between these three years?  
 
Answer by Colombia  
 
As stated by Columbia in its replies to the WTO questionnaires in 2016, as part of its peace 
strategy, the Government gave priority to investment in public goods and programme s of general 
benefit to the rural sector as the basis for improving conditions in the Columbian countryside. 
In 2014, the budget for programmes and projects in the agricultural sector was increased 
significantly compared to the budget allocations in the pa st, thanks to the economic growth under 
way in the country at the time. The sectoral investment budget recorded an annual increase 
of 28.6% in 2013 and of 49% in 2014. This increase in resources helped to strengthen the 
institutional capacity of the existi ng programmes, extending their coverage and boosting the 
development of the rural sector. The sectoral budget allocations for 2014 also gave priority to 
stimulating the agricultural economy by enhancing marketing through initiatives aimed at 
strengthening production chains. In 2015, the investment budget for the agricultural sector 
decreased by 35.4% because of the fall in oil income, depriving the country of the resources that 
would otherwise have been invested in agriculture.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 33 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 86050: Question by  the United States of America - General services: 
marketing and promotion services  
In relation to G/AG/N/COL/51/Corr.1, i t is noted that Colombia 's notified values for 
marketing and promotions were corrected downwards significantly for 2012 and 2013.  
 
What was the reason for this?  
 
Answer by Colombia  
 
The revised version contains an amendment to Supporting Table DS:1: "Measures exempt from 
the reduction commitment" which involves deducting from "General Services – Marketing and 
promotion services" the valu e of the support provided for cotton for each year, since it had already 
been included in the calculation of Current Total AMS.  
 
2.4.2   Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  
AG-IMS ID 86017: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Egypt  for its DS:1 notification contained in G/AG/N/EGY/3 covering the 
years 2005/2006 to 2016/17. Australia asks the following questions:  
 
a. Does Egypt incur any Green Box expenditure other than the Pest Control 
Subsidy, for instance for Agricultural research, f or training services, or for 
disaster relief?  
b. Australia notes that Egypt has not notified any market price support programs 
in its notification. However in Egypt 's Trade Policy Review, the Secretariat 
report (WT/TPR/S/367) notes that the General Authority for Supply 
Commodities (GASC) "buys a share of the wheat crop at administered prices so 
as to guarantee a revenue to farmers and orient planting decisions, as well as 
to build up public stocks of basic foodstuff to be processed and sold to the 
general popu lation at subsidized prices. The State fixes the guaranteed price 
and purchases the crop from farmers before the planting date, so that the 
farmer can make a decision on whether or not to produce wheat. " 
Table 4.8 of the Secretariat report (reproduced belo w) shows that Egypt 's GASC 
procured between 1.8 and 5.3 million tonnes of wheat over the period covered 
by Egypt 's notification. Australia asks that Egypt:  
i. Explain why it has not notified this program as m arket price support in its 
DS:1  notification?  
ii. Update its notification in G/AG/N/EGY/3 to incorporate the support 
provided through this market price support program, and to update Egypt 's 
calculation of its current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Table.1 - Evolution of farm gate (guaranteed) a nd import prices of wheat and quantities 
purchased from domestic farmers by the GASC, 2005 -16 
Years  Farm gate price 
(LE/ton ne) Import price 
(LE/ton ne) Quantity purchased from 
farmers by the GASC  
(million tonnes ) 
2005  1,120.0  941.0  2.8 
2006  1,126.7  954.1  1.8 
2007  1,153.3  1,493.4  2.3 
2008  2,553.3  2,822.6  2.5 
2009  1,613.3  2,159.5  3.2 
2010  1,813.3  1,264.6  2.1 
2011  2,346.7  1,946.9  2.6 
2012  2,520.0  3,292.0  3.7 
2013  2,586.7  2,328.8  2.7 
2014  2,740.0  2,816.3  3.7 
2015  2,760.0  2,160.5  5.3 
2016  2,773.3  2,080.2  4.9 
Source:  Information provided by the authorities.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86087: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Egypt made important methodological changes to its recent domestic 
support notification; namely, Egypt has changed from calendar year to marketing years 
and from notifying in US dollars to the Egyptian pound.  
 
a. Could Egypt explain why it changed from notifying in EGP (G/AG/N/EGY/1) to 
US dollars in G/AG/N/EGY/3?  
b. Could Egypt explain why it changed from notifying in calendar years 
(G/AG/N/EGY/1) to marketing years in G/AG/N/EGY/3?  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86088: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada recognizes the efforts undertaken by Egypt to prepare and submit its annual 
domestic support notification for the years 2005/2006 to 2016/2017. Canada notes that 
Egypt 's previous domestic support notification was submitted to the Committee on 
7 May 1999 and covered the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. While Canada 
appreciates the opportunity to review Egypt 's most recent notification, we do wonder 
about the missing years. Could Egypt provide an update on the status of these 
notifications?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86089: Question by Canada - Transpa rency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Egypt 's notification no longer includes measures related to "General 
Services ", and "Relief from irrigation difficulties ". According to the website of the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (M ALR), its activities include the Central 
Laboratory for Agricultural Expert Systems which provides extension/training services 
to farmers in Egypt. Canada would consider this type of activity as falling under the 
category of "General Services " Could Egypt explain where these expenditures are 
reported in its notification?  
 
Answer by Egypt  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 35 - 
 
   
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86090: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The FAO Farming Systems indicat es that irrigation is common in Egypt. Could Egypt 
confirm that domestic support related to irrigation is no longer provided?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86075: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU thanks Egypt for its notification covering the years 2005 to 2016.  
 
Having examined the upcoming secretariat report on Egypt's Trade Policy Review, it 
seems that Egypt may have other forms for subsidy than those notified in the 
notification G/AG/N/EGY/3, such as support for wheat through guaranteed farm gate 
price (point 4.19 and table 4.8 of the secretariat TPR report).  
 
Does Egypt intend to present an addendum with this subsidy and others mentioned in 
the secretariat TPR report?  
  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86041: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (includi ng Table DS:2)  
Ukraine first wishes to thank Egypt for the effort to provide the recent Table  DS:1 
notification. At the same time we note that certain discrepancies appear between the 
agricultural policy information provide in the forthcoming Egypt's Trade  Policy Review 
(see para 5.8 of the Report by Egypt (WT/TPR/G/367), para 4.19 and para 4.27 of the 
Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/367)) and the limited information in Table  DS:1 
notification (G/AG/N/EGY/3). Could Egypt please clarify these discrepancies?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86012: Question by Australia - General services: pest and disease control  
Egypt lists a Pest Control Subsidy as a measure exempt from the reduction commitment 
– "Green Box ". Could Egypt provide further detail on the eligibility criteria to receive 
such subsidy; how the subsidy level per producer is calculated; and how payments under 
this subsidy are made to producers?   
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86053: Question by the United States of America - General services: pest and 
disease control  
It is noted that expenditures on the Pest Control Subs idy have trended downwards 
from  2005 through 2016 with some fluctuations.  
 
a. What is the reason for this downward trend?  
b. What is the impact of the trend currently and expected to be going forward?  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 36 - 
 
  c. Since 1995, has Egypt modified the Pest Control Subsidy in any manner? If so, 
will Egypt notify such modifications in a Table DS:2 notification?  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86011: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia notes that Egypt has notified investment subsidie s under Supporting Table 2 
(measures exempt from the reduction commitment ) "Development Programmes ". Could 
Egypt please provide details on the eligibility criteria for producers to access this 
subsidy, the amount of subsidy on offer to individual producers , and any further 
information regarding how the subsidy is allocated and delivered to producers?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86091: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Canada noted that Egypt no longer reports any support in fertilizer and seeds subsidies. 
Could Egypt confirm that these two measures, reported in G/AG/N/EGY/1, no longer 
exist?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response a t a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86092: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Could Egypt provide information on the type of investments that are permitted under its 
new investment subsidies to low -income produ cers program? Are investments in 
fertilizer and seeds allowed under that program? Could Egypt elaborate as to how it 
defines "low-income producers "?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86076: Question by the European Union - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
a. Could Egypt explain in more detail the types of subsidies included in Supporting 
table DS:2?  
b. Could Egypt explain whether any subsidy to fertiliser, diesel/electricity o r 
irrigation is included is these amounts in Supporting table DS:2?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86054: Question by the United States of America - Input subsidies available 
to low -income or resource -poor producers  
Supporting Table DS:2  
 
a. The United States understands the Egyptian Agricultural Bank (EAB), formerly 
known as the Principal Bank for Development and Agricultural Credit (PBDAC), G/AG/W/173  
 
- 37 - 
 
  has provided funds worth EGP 5.5 billion for about 800,000 custo mers working 
in plant production (Jan  - Dec 2016). These loans were offered at a subsidized 
yield rate of 5% per year, with the aim of supporting Egyptian farmers.  
i. Please confirm if this is accurate.  
ii. Is this the measure notified under Supporting Table DS: 2: "investment 
subsidies to low -income producers (Agricultural credit and loan schemes) "? 
iii. If so, please explain the discrepancy in the value notified by Egypt under 
this measure and the funds noted above.  
iv. If not, please explain how these funds are notified  or why they are not 
notified.  
b. In November 2016, the parliament passed a law replacing the Principal Bank 
for Development and Agricultural Credit (PBDAC), which was founded in the 
1930s, with the new Egyptian Agricultural Bank (EAB) to be under the 
supervi sion of the Central Bank rather than the Ministry of Agriculture.]  
i. Please  explain how this legal change affects support provided to agricultural 
producers.  
ii. Please  explain how this legal change affects the general operation of the 
EAB, including how the bank received funding or its involvement in 
financing trade now or in the future?  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Australia expressed disappointment regarding Egypt's non -response. Australia 
highlighted the importance of transparency in this Committee and asked Egypt to answer the 
questions and bring their notifications up to date. Other questioning Members , including Canada, 
the European Union, Ukraine and the United States , encoura ged Egypt to submit replies to all 
questions as soon as possible. New Zealand raised systemic concern on the issue of changing 
reporting currency and encouraged all Members to  refrain from changing notifying currency from 
year to year so that it would be easier for the Committee to review and compare notifications  for 
different reporting years.  
2.4.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/34)  
AG-IMS ID 86025: Question by India - De minimis  
Could European Union provide the value of production (VoP) data for Skimmed Milk 
Powder  and Butter listed in Supporting Table DS: 4 for 2005 to 2013?  
 
Answer by the European Union  
 
The EU in its DS:1 notification uses EUROSTAT as source for its VoP figures. The EUROSTAT 
databases for VoP for primary agricultural products do not include SMP  (or butter) but only milk, 
as it measures the value of the products leaving the farm. The EU includes the entire support 
granted to SMP in current total AMS.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.4.4   Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/41)  
AG-IMS ID 86055: Question by the United States of America - Transparenc y issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Supporting Table DS:4  
 
The United States notes notified product -specific AMS for sheep meat as 1,761 million 
ISK and notified product -specific AMS for horticulture as 277 million ISK in 2016 (both 
values unadjusted for infl ation). Iceland 's 2016 Financial Statement of the State 
Treasury (Ríkisreikningur 2016) lists support for sheep production as 4.9 billion ISK and 
support for vegetable production as 626.6 million ISK. The data source in both 
documents is listed as Statisti cs Iceland.  
 
Please explain the differences in the data for both commodities, including any 
differences in categorization in both documents.  
 
Answer by Iceland  
 
Iceland undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86093: Question by Canad a - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that the current total AMS of Iceland has increased significantly over the 
past years to reach 98% of its total AMS commitment level in 2016. Since the Current 
Total AMS is very close to Iceland 's domestic support commitment, could Iceland 
elaborate on its actions or plan to remain within its annual limit?  
 
Answer by Iceland  
 
Iceland undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86044: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5, Iceland indicates that Market Price Support was applicable to 
several products such as Beef Sheepmeat and Eggs, however, it was also listed as "Not 
Applicable " under column 4 (administered price) of the table. Could Iceland please 
clarify whether Market Price Support was used for all products listed under ST DS:5 and 
if so, please provide the relevant values.  
 
Answer by Iceland  
 
Iceland undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86013: Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
Australia thanks Iceland for its Domestic Support not ification for 2016 contained 
in G/AG/N/ISL/41.  
 
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:5, Iceland lists eligible  production for Milk of 
134,884  tonnes, referencing 'Statistics Iceland ' as the Data Source. Given Statistics 
Iceland ( https://www.statice.is/  accessed 29 January) lists total milk production for 
Iceland of 150,322 ton nes in 2016, could Iceland please explain how eligible production 
for Milk has been calculated in Supporting Table DS:5?  
 
Answer by Iceland  
 
Iceland undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.4.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  
AG-IMS ID 86019: Question by Aust ralia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Follow up questions from 85th CoA 
 
Australia would like to thank India for providing Value of Production data in response to 
questions from Australia, the United States, Canada  and the European Union 
(AG-IMS IDs 85102,  85020, 85093,  85043). Could India provide information on the 
value of production of each of the pulse products listed in G/AG/N/IND/11 – Gram; 
Urad; Moong; Arhar and Lentils?  
 
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86015: Question by Australia - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
In Supporting Table DS.5 India lists the external refer ence price for pulses as 
345.66  USD/tonne in 2012 -13 and 2013 -14. Australia notes that under India 's 
Agriculture Supporting Tables (AGST), India lists external reference prices for Arhar, 
Moong, Urad and Gram as follows:  
 
 External Reference price/ RS/tonne  If converted to USD/Tonne  
– for reference only* 
ARHAR  5243 391.26  
MOONG  4782 356.86  
URAD  4385 327.23  
GRAM  4128 308.05  
* Converted at 1986 -89 exchange rate 1  USD = 13.4 INRs, as per G/AG/N/11 . 
 
Could India please provide answers to the following:  
 
a. Please describe in detail how India calculated an external reference price of 
345.66  USD/tonne for "Pulses " in G/AG/N/11  
b. What External Reference Price does India use to account for support for 
"Lentils ", given this product is not included in India 's AGST, nor referenced in 
India 's first DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/ IND/1)?  
c. Australia notes that in India 's notification for 1995 -96, the external reference 
price for "Pulses " (covering Gram, Ura d, Moong and Arhar) was 
345.66  USD/tonne. In 2004 -05 and 2005 -06 the reference price for "pulses " 
(now covering Gram, Urad, Moong , Arhar and Lentils ) fell to 307.85  USD/tonne; 
and in 2012 -13 and 2013 -14 the reference price for "pulses " (covering all the 
same products as in 2004 -05 and 05 -06) returned to 345.66 USD/tonne.  
Could India explain why it has used different reference price s for pulses in each 
of these three notifications, and how these reference prices were calculated?  
Answer by India 
 
The ERP for pulses is based on the simple average of ERP for Arhar, Moong, Urad and Gram. This 
ERP is used to calculate product specific su pport for pulses.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86095: Question by Canada - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
Canada notes that the methodology used to establish the applied administered price and 
the fixed external reference price for pulse in India 's DS:1 notification is different than 
the methodology used in its agriculture supporting tables (AGST) relating to 
commitments on agricultural products in Part IV of its Schedule. The AGST list the G/AG/W/173  
 
- 40 - 
 
  applied administered prices and fixed external reference prices b y pulse varieties, while 
India 's annual domestic support notification uses an aggregate applied administered 
price and fixed external reference price for pulses. Furthermore, lentil was introduced in 
the aggregate pulse category in India 's notification DS (G/AG/N/IND/7) without the 
appropriate supporting methodology.  
  
a. Could India provide the methodology used to establish the applied 
administered price and the fixed external reference price for the aggregated 
pulse category in Supporting Table DS: 5 of Ind ia's latest DS:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/IND/11)?  
b. Canada 's analysis shows that the applied administered price for India 's latest 
notification was estimated using the simple average prices of the pulses in the 
aggregate category of pulses, including lentils, while the fixed external 
reference price is the simple average price of the pulses listed in the AGST 
relating to commitments on agricultural products in Part IV of the schedule, 
which exclude lentils. Since the price for lentils is significantly less than  the 
four others pulses in this broad category, this had the effect of reducing the 
applied administrated price for the category, while keeping the fixed external 
reference price relatively higher.  
i. Could India explain why market price support for lentils was not reported 
separately, given that the external reference price methodology for Pulses 
does not take into account this type of pulse?  
ii. Why does India report market price support for pulses as an  aggregate 
rather than by individual type of pulses?  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86016: Question by Australia - Market price support  
a. Supporting table DS:5 in G/AG/N/IND/11 for 2012 -13 calculates mar ket price 
support as 31.93  USD million. Using the figures India supplies for  the applied 
administered price  (678.31); External Reference Price (345.66) and Eligible 
Production (0.10), the  MPS should actually be USD  33.265 million. Could India 
please check its calculations?  
b. In G/AG/N/IND/11 India lists eligible production for pulses of 
0.1 million  tonnes in 2012 -13 and 0.05 million tonnes in 2013 -14. Can India 
provide details on how it has calculated eligible production for pulses? Can 
India provide a breakd own of pulses procurement by product type – ie. Gram, 
Urad, Moong, Arhar, and Lentils?  
Answer by India  
 
Data for domestic support notification is provided up  to two decimal points. The actual data is as 
follows: (1) applied administered price (678.30882352 9412), (2) e ligible production (0.096), 
ERP (345.66). Based on this, the market price support for pulses (2012 -13) was 31.93428 USD 
million.  
 
Only a portion of the marketable surplus offered by farmers, and meeting prescribed 
specifications, is procured un der MSP operations. The eligible production is, therefore, the quantity 
which is actually procured at administered prices.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86014: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia notes that India has reported market price support for Puls es in 2012 -13 and 
2013 -14. Could India please provide a response to the following questions:  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 41 - 
 
  a. Australia notes that India maintains separate and distinct Minimum Support 
Prices  (MSPs) for Gram, Arhar, Urad, Moong &  Lentils. Can India explain why it 
has combined these products into one category "Pulses " for the purposes of 
calculating Market Price Support?  
b. Australia notes that the actual Minimum Support Price ( MSP) for pulse products 
in 2013 -14 was as follows  
 MSP 2 013/14  
(INR/quintal)  MSP 2013/14 
(INR/tonne)  USD/Tonne* 
ARHAR  4300 43,000  710.74  
MOONG  4500 45,000  743.80  
URAD  4300 43,000  710.74  
GRAM  3100 31,000  512.39  
MASUR  2950 29,500  487.60  
* Converted at 2013 -14 exchange rate 1USD = 60.5INRs, as per G/AG/N/11 . 
 
c. In Supporting Table DS.5 India lists the administered price for "pulses " as 
678.31 USD/ tonne in 2012 -13 and 633.06 USD/tonne in 2013 -14. Could India 
explain in detail how it calculated these two figures?  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86108: Question by the United States of America - Market price support  
 
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
a. It is noted in G/AG/N/IND/11 that India notified market price support for the 
Tur, Moong, Urad, Gram, and Lentil pulses for all years n otified with the 
exception of  2011/12; however, India announced a Minimum Support Price for 
each commodity for each of the years notified, including 2011/12.  
i. Please confirm whether India procured any of these co mmodities in 
2011/12.   
ii. Please also confirm whether India would have procured the commodities 
that year if market prices had fallen below the administered (announced) 
Minimum Support Prices.  
iii. If India did not procure these commodities in 2011/12, please exp lain how 
the programme was implemented differently in 2012/13 and 2013/14, 
when market price support was also notified, as compared to 2011/12 when 
no market price support was notified.  Please include citations to any 
government decrees, regulations, or ot her communications that explain this 
difference.  
b. It is noted in G/AG/N/IND/11 that India aggregated gram, arhar, urad, 
moong, and lentils as "pulses " in Supporting Table DS:5 as a single market 
price support measure.  However, it is also noted that India announced distinct 
Minimum Support Prices (applied administered prices) for each of the separate 
pulses and are disaggregated in India 's AGST.  For example, in 2012/13, India 
announced the following distinct Minimum Support 
Prices:  Tur: INR 38,500/tonne; Mo ong: INR 44,000/tonne; 
Urad:  INR:  43,000/tonne; Gram: IN R 28,000/tonne; and 
Lentil:  INR 28,000/tonne.  However, the Minimum Support Price /applied G/AG/W/173  
 
- 42 - 
 
  administered pric e notified is approximately INR  36,900/tonne (converted to 
INR using  the notified exchange ra te for  2012/13).  
i. Please explain the reason for aggregating these pulses despite announcing 
distinct applied administered prices for each.   
ii. Please provide market price support calculations for each commodity that 
separately receives a distinct announced app lied administered price for each 
year covered by G/AG/N/IND/11.  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86094: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
Canada notes that in its first domes tic support notification (G/AG/N/IND/1), India used 
total production as eligible production to calculate market price support for 
pulses  (STDS:5) but switched to using the volume acquired under government 
procurement for subsequent notifications.  
 
a. Could India provide information on the change in policy that supported this 
change from total production to procured quantities and the details of the 
specific legislation or regulations that limits the volume of production eligible 
to be procured by the g overnment?  
b. How does India ensure that the minimum support price for pulses does not 
generate market distortions by affecting the price of sales of pulses that are 
not under the government's procurement?  
Answer by India 
 
Only a portion of the marketable s urplus offered by the farmers, and meeting prescribed 
specifications, is procured under MSP operations. The eligible production is, therefore, the quantity 
which is actually procured at administered price. .  
 
Follow -up: The United States stressed its view  that since India announced individual and separate 
value of minimum support prices/administered prices for each type of pulses, India's notification 
should reflect the actual policy.  The United States further noted that disaggregated  reporting  of 
support for each separate pulse  would also be consistent with how India had reported the market 
prices support for each pulse product in its AGST. Australia echoed the U.S. comment s. Canada 
and the European Union regretted India's lack of response to some of the q uestions and underlined 
their commercial and systemic interest in the subject.  
2.4.6   Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19/REV.1, G/AG/N/JOR/20/REV.1)  
AG-IMS ID 86096: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid  
Canada noticed that the description of the food aid measure in the supporting table  DS:1 
changed from "budgetary expenditures on bread, sugar, rice and powdered milk " to 
"Budgetary expenditures on bread " only.  
a. Could Jordan confirm that this program is now only applicable for bread and 
indicate what the reason for this ch ange is?  
b. Could Jordan indicate if a new measure will be brought in related to sugar, rice 
and powdered milk?  
Answer by Jordan  
 
Jordan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 43 - 
 
   
AG-IMS ID 86022: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflatio n 
Australia thanks Jordan for its improved transpar ency in G/AG/N/JOR/20/REV.1 
and G/AG/N/JOR/19/REV.1, where Jordan has included AMS calculations without 
adjustment for inflation.  
 
Australia would like to request further information from Jordan explaining  why it is 
claiming excessive r ates of inflation, and to help M embers better assess Jordan 's claim 
that excessive rates of inflation have impeded Jordan 's ability to abide by its domestic 
support commitments.  
 
a. Can Jordan provide the annual inflation rates for the years covered by the 
notifications – 2013 to 2014?  
b. Jordan claims that the inflation rate in 2013 and 2014 was 77% based on 
average consumer prices from 1997 -2013/2014. Can Jordan provide the annual 
inflation rate for those years (i.e. 1997 -2013, and  1997 -2014)?  
c. Can Jordan explain why it has adjusted the external reference price for inflation 
for Wheat but not for Barley in its DS notifications for 2013 and 2014?  
Answer by Jordan  
 
Jordan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86097: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada appreciates Jordan's commitment to transparency in providing both unadjusted 
and adjusted numbers in its domestic support notification. Canada has noted in previous 
meetings that paragraph 8 o f Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture requires the 
"fixed external reference price " to be fixed or unchanging and thus, does not allow for 
any type of adjustment, including adjustments based on inflation. Canada notes that 
Footnote 1 in STDS:5 in G/AG/ N/JOR/19/Rev. 1 and G/AG/N/JOR/20/Rev.1 references 
a cumulative inflation rate of "77% based on average consumer price from 1997 (2013 " 
and "77% based on average consumer price from 1997 ) 2014 ", respectively. Could 
Jordan provide the annual inflation rate for 2013 and 2014?  
 
Answer by Jordan  
 
Jordan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86077: Question by the European Union - Excessive rates of inflation  
Jordan explains in its Supporting Table DS:5 for Calendar year 2013 that the inflation 
rate in 2013 was 77% based on average consum er price from 1997 -2013. 
The EU understands that this is an aggregated inflation in the period 1997 -2013. The 
average annual inflation during these 17 years would then be 4.52%. According to the 
World B ank data, the average world inflation during the same period was 4.26%. In the 
light of this, could Jordan specify:  
a. How would Jordan define "excessive rate of inflation" in paragraph 18:4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Why does Jordan consider an inflati on rate in Jordan which is very close to the 
world average as being "excessive?"  
Answer by Jordan  
 
Jordan is committed to be in compliance with its domestic suppor t commitments in line with the 
Agreement on A griculture, Article 18, parag raph 4 which stipulates  clearly that M embers shall give 
due consideration to the influence of excessive rate of inflation . G/AG/W/173  
 
- 44 - 
 
  The external fixed reference price depend s on the interval period (94 -96), therefore a huge gap 
exists between actual world market price and ex ternal fixed price. T he subsidy element is grossly 
overstated by comparing present day administered prices with fixed reference price period, which 
is unrealistic.  
Jordan 's inflation rate is  3.60% per year on aver age. The use of inflation rate and avera ge 
consumer price shall give a M ember the ability to abide by its domestic support commitment.  
Without permanen t solution, food security in  developing countries will be adversely affected by the 
present ceiling on domestic support which is pegged at 10% of the v alue of production and i s 
wrongly considered as trade distorting subside, therefore Jordan encourage s WTO M embe sr to 
take practical and serious step in implementing Bali decision on public stock holding.  
According to the World Bank data, over the 19 97-2015 period, Jordan 's inflation rate wa s 4.52% 
per year on average. If Members look precisely at  the cereals sector in Jordan, Members  will notice 
the presence of high accumulative inflation rate (68% -77%) starting from base period year (94 -
96). 
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has been facing population pressure in the form of refugee 's 
influx  from the neighboring countries. A s a country with limited natural and economic resources 
and totally rely on fuel imports, Jordan's  ability to meet basic requirements of the consequent 
population growth has been a challenge.  
Follow -up: The European Union noted that it did not share Jordan's view that the methodology of 
using fixed external reference  prices  in the Agreement on Agriculture was "unrealistic". New 
Zealand emph asized that Article 18.4 did not provide a methodology or legal basis for adjusting 
Members ' fixed external reference  prices . In New Zealand's  view the Agreement on Agriculture 
merely provided that Committee should take excessive inflation, inflation which  was above a trend 
average, into account in considering Members ' compliance with their obligation s. Further, New 
Zealand pointed out that Members had made a deliberate decision on fixed reference prices in 
order to ensure that the level of market price sup port over time was reduced. New Zealand noted 
its firm support of this provision and disagreed with some of Jordan's comments in its responses.  
2.4.7   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/7)  
AG-IMS ID 86021: Question by Australia - Classification of measures  
Australia thanks M auritius for its Domestic Su pport notification contained 
in G/AG/N/MUS/7.  
 
Australia notes that the following programmes have been listed in Supporting Table DS: 
9 as non -product specific AMS in 2015 -16 and 2016 -17: Fruit Growers (Bat net); Cattle 
Breeder s Scheme (Mauritius); Goat Multiplier Farms Scheme; Reproduction Farm 
Cattle/Goat including Rodrigues; Heifer Productivity Scheme; Tea Support Scheme.  
 
Could Mauritius please explain why they have i ncluded these programmes as 
non-product -specific AMS given  they appear to be support provided to specific product 
sectors?  
 
Answer by Mauritius  
 
The issue raised by Australia is much valid and Mauritius shall take necessary action to notify 
these measures henceforth as product -specific AMS. It should be noted tha t for developing 
countries, product -specific policies whose value is less than 10% of the farm gate value of the 
production of that product are exempt from the AMS. As such, these supports  would then be 
exempted for Mauritius under the "de minimis  "concept .  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 45 - 
 
  2.4.8   Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MDA/11)  
AG-IMS ID 86056: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States notes that in Moldova 's first domestic support notification, Moldova 
included the exchange rates for the local currency to SDRs. However, in Moldova 's 
recent notifications, no exchange rates were provided. The United States  does 
appreciate  the reporting of these exchange rates in response to AG -IMS ID 83092.  
 
a. Please provide the annual exchange  rate used to notify support 
in G/AG/N/MDA/11.  
b. Would Moldova consider including the exchange rates in its future notifications 
for transparency purposes?  
Table DS:2  
 
c.  In response to AG -MS ID 83092, Moldova said in March 2017 that a Table  DS:2 
notification would be submitted within a short period; however, no notification 
has been submitted in nearly a year. Please provide an update on when the 
appropriate notifications will be made.  
Answer by the Republic of Moldova  
 
Moldova undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86057: Question by the United States of America - Classification of measures  
 
Supporting Table DS:1  
 
In AG -IMS ID 83092 Moldova explained that the measure notified and related to the 
"payment for relief from natural disasters " met the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2 as 
the embargo on export imposed by the Russian Federation was deemed an emergency 
disaster situation. However, an export ban does not appear to be in line with a "natural 
or like disaster " as explained in paragraph 8(a). Please provide additional details with 
regards to how payments to producers are made.  
 
Answer by Moldova, Republic of  
 
Moldova undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.4.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/94)  
AG-IMS ID 86042: Question by Ukraine - Payments based on 8 5% or less of the base 
level of production  
As of calendar year 2014 Norway introduced a new Blue Box measure "Qualit y Incentive 
Support Programme for Beef ". The monetary value incr eased from NOK 135.9 million 
in 2014 to NOK 191.5 million in 2016. This represents a very noticeable and possibly 
lucrative Blue Box producer support on the order of a 40% increase in just thr ee years. 
We recall that Blue Box measures must demonstrate production limiting policy and that 
Norway has not had the opportunity to respond to Blue Box questions (according to AG -
IMS) since 1999.  
 
Could Norway give useful policy background and understan ding on their new measure 
introduced in CY 2014 and how significantly increased spending correlated to Norway 's 
Blue box policy objective of limiting production?  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Answer by Norway  
 
Norway notified a new DS:2 notifications for the "quality incentive  suppor t programme for beef" 
in 2015. For information concerning the programme, Norway  would like to refer to this notification. 
The objective is to increase the quality of Norwegian beef production.  
 
The maximum eligible quantity was calculated based on historical production during the three year 
period preceding the adoption of this programme. The programme was adopted by the Parliament 
in 2013, and accordingly the base period includes the years 2010 through 2012. The historical 
quantities in these years were 58.8 mill kg, 60.4 mill kg and 59.0 mill kg respectively. Hence, the 
base level of production is 59.4 mill kg and the maximum eligible support quantity of beef is 
therefore 50.49 mill kg (85 % of base level).  
 
The main reason for the increase in support from 2014 to 2016 is that in the first year 2014, 
support was only granted for 10 months, whereas for 12 months in 2015 and 2016.  
 
Follow -up: Argentina and New Zealand indicated systemic concern re garding the expansion of 
Norway's Blue Box support. Argentina would assess Norway’s reply to determine the potential 
effects of the programme and its compatibility with Blue Box. New Zealand called for Members' 
careful consideration of Blue Box in future n egotiating context  in light of Norway's significant 
increase in Blue Box spending.   
AG-IMS ID 86018: Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
Australia thanks Norway for its recent DS:1 notification for 2016 in 
G/AG/N/NOR/94.  Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:5, Norway lists a range of 
eligible production figures that do not match with official statistics from Statistics 
Norway of total production.   
  
 2016 Production  
("000 tonnes/million litres)  
  Statistics Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/94  
Wheat  286 287 
Barley  574 598 
Oats 330 343 
Goat Milk  21.4 20.4 
Milk 1526.2  1,522.80  
Pork 137.7  127.9  
 
Could Norway explain the discrepancy betwe en these two numbers, including:  
 
a. Why has Norway not counted production as reported by Statistics Norway in its 
calculation of eligible production?  
b. Does Norway maintain any quantitative limits on the volume of stock that it will 
offer market price support to?  
c. What is the basis for Norway 's calculation of eligible production for the above 
products in G/AG/N/NOR/94?  
Answer by Norway  
 
a. The figures presented by Australia for wheat, barley and oats are as published by 
Statistics Norway on 19 January 2017, https://www .ssb.no/jord -skog-jakt-og-
fiskeri/statistikker/korn/aar . These figures are preliminary as they are based on 
forecasts. The updated figures from Statistics Norway, https://www.ss b.no/jord -skog-
jakt-og-fiskeri/statistikker/korn , are consistent with the DS:1 notification 
G/AG/N/NOR/94. These updated figures include seed production, which is not eligible to 
receive the applied administered price. This explains the difference between Statistics 
Norways figures and the notified production quantities.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Eligible production for milk is milk delivered to dairies. The volumes consumed or 
processed on farms are not included in the notified volume as these volumes are not 
eligible to receive th e applied administered price, but they are included in the Statistics 
Norway figures.  
Eligible production for pork does not include on farm consumption and sow or boar meat. 
This is included in the Statistics Norway figures.  
b. No. 
c. The basis for  Norway 's calculations of eligible production is Annex  3 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture. All production eligible to receive the applied administered price is included in 
the calculations.  
Follow -up: Australia considered that all production would be eligible  for market price  support 
including the volumes consumed or processed on farms and might  pose follow -up questions on this 
issue in the future . New Zealand echoed Australia's comments and noted that a farmer's choice 
not to sell production to a processing p lant did not mean the product was not  eligible  for support. 
New Zealand encouraged Norway to adjust the notification and resubmit it. The European Union 
supported Australia 's and New Zealand's comments.   
AG-IMS ID 86098: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
In Norway 's supporting table DS: 5, there is noticeable decrease in the amount of 
eligible production reported for wheat in calendar year 2016. As a result, market price 
suppo rt for wheat decreased from  NOK 851.1 millionin 2015 to NOK 600.5 million in 
2016. Could Norway please explain this decrease in eligible production for wheat in 
2016?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
The level of production of wheat in Norway varies depending on the we ather conditions. In 2016 
the conditions for wheat production were worse than the year before, because of low temperatures 
and a lot of rain throughout the production season. The quality of the wheat did therefore not fulfill 
the criteria for wheat classif ied for human consumption. The smaller share of wheat for human 
consumption led to a decrease in the market price support from 2015 to 2016.  
 
Follow -up: Canada noted that it may follow up on Norway's  consideration of the quality of wheat 
for determining t he eligible  production. Can ada noted its practice was to include  on-farm feed as 
part of its  eligible production for wheat. The European Union indicated it also included total 
production of wheat in market price support  calculation even though the intervention  was only 
made  for wheat  of breadmaking quality .  
 
2.4.10   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  
AG-IMS ID 86099: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada appreciates Thailand submitting more Table recent DS:1 notification which cover 
the 2014, 2015 and 2016 calendar years. However, Thailand 's previous Table DS:1 
notification (G/AG/N/THA/75) covered the 2008 calendar year. In the intervening years 
there were a number of changes to the support provided to Thailand 's rice sector which 
would have been reflected in these missing notifications. Could Thailand please inform 
the Committee on when they expect to provide notifications for the years, namely, 2009, 
2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013?  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
The information for Domestic Support  between 2009 -2013 include s price guarantee and rice 
pledging programmes which are being considered by the Thai court.  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 48 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 86100: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In the 2014 DS: 1 notification, Thaila nd reports a new programme called "Government 
financial participation in crop insurance schemes " under Payments for relief from 
natural disasters.  
 
a. Given the lack of information for the preceding years, could Thailand indicate 
when this programme was introduced?  
b. Could Thailand provide additional information on this programme and elaborate 
on how it complies with the requirements of paragraph 8 under Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture specifically what is the reference period and what is 
the minimum percentage of the production loss eligible to be covered?  
c. Could Thailand indicate when it will provide a DS: 2 notification for this new 
measure ?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
Government financial participation in crop insurance schemes was introduced in 2011.  The scheme 
insure s in-season crops against natural disasters such as floods, droughts, typhoons, extreme 
cold, fire, and pest infestation. Thailand is in the process of gathering relevant information.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86023: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia thanks Thailand for its Domestic Support notification for 2014 -2016 contained 
in G/AG/N /THA/85.  
Australia notes that Thailand 's listed expenditure on Article 6.2 support changes 
considerably over the three year period – 39,522 million baht in 2014; 0.42 million baht 
in 2015 and a high of 64,712 million baht in 2016. Could Thailand please exp lain: 
 
a. Why did payments under Article 6.2 expand so significantly in 2016?  
b. What specific subsidies were available to low income and resource poor 
farmers in each of the three years, given that Article 6.2 support is referred to 
differently in each year (i. e. as "subsidy to low income farmers " in 2014; 
"Subsidy Agricultural Machinery to producer " in 2015; and "provide inputs or 
financial assistance to obtain inputs to farmers " in 2016)?  
c. How does Thailand ensure that the Article 6.2 subsidies are provided only to 
"low-income and resource poor producers ", as required by Article 6.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
The amount of support given under Article 6.2 varies from  year to year depending on different 
circumstances and policy at the time of application. The measures have the objective of supporting 
low income farmers to improve productivity (Development programmes). However, measures in 
each year will provide differe nt type of supports for production input, as follows:  
 
 2014: subsidy to low income farmers provide s input support to improve production 
efficiency.  
 2015: Subsidy Agricultural Machinery to producer provide s support through Agricultural 
Machineries services  to farmer.  
 2016: support provide s inputs or financial assistance to obtain inputs to farmers. 
However, Farmers must be registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 
to be eligible. The inputs subsidies that are used in the actual production  process are 
covered under the programmes such as  seeds, fertilizers, and fuels.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 49 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 86101: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In 2014, Thailand notified an input subsidy under Supporting Table DS:  2 called 
"Subsidy to low income farmers " in the amount of $39,552.82 million Baht. This 
measure is not included in subsequent years (i.e. 2015 and 2016).  
  
a. Could Thailand indicate how long this programme has been in place prior to 
2014?  
b. Since this measure is not included in the 2015 and 2016 years, could Thailand 
indicate if this programme is still operational or if it has been terminated?  
c. Could Thailand elaborate as to how it defines "low income farmers "?  
d. Could Thailand elaborate on the types of inputs covered under this input 
subsidy?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
See response to AG -IMS ID 86023.  
 
Follow -up:  
 
AG-IMS ID 86102: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In 2016 under Supporting Table DS:2, Thailand reports what seems to be a new 
programme entitled "Provide inputs or financial assistance to obtain inputs to farmers ".  
  
a. Could Thailand elaborate on the eligibility criteria to receive this funding?  
b. What type s of inputs are covered under this programme?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
The programme provide s inputs or financial assistance to low income farmers to obtain inputs. 
However, Farmers must be registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives to be 
eligible.  
 
The inputs subsidies that are used in the actual production process are covered under the 
programmes such as seeds, fertilizers, and fuels.  
 
 
AG-IMS ID 86058: Question by the United States of America - Input subsidies available 
to low -income or resource -poor producers  
 
The United States would like to thank Thailand for its most recent domestic support 
notification for 2014 -2016. This notification is most welcome by Members seeking 
information and transparency on Thailand 's agricultural policies s ince its last 
notification for 2008.  
 
Supporting Table DS:2  
 
The United States notes various input subsidy measures for each of the three notified 
years: 'input subsidies ' (2014), 'subsidy for agricultural machinery to producer ' (2015), 
and 'inputs or financial assistance to obtain inputs to farmers ' (2016).  
 
a. Please provide additional details on how each measure is implemented.  
b. Please describe how each measure meets the criteria of Article 6.2.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86103: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada notices the addition of loans for production, payments for stockholding and 
loans for stockholding for rice under Suppo rting Table DS:7 starting in 2014.  
 
a. Are all three of these measures part of the same programme or are they 
separate initiatives?  
b. Could Thailand provide details on the eligibility criteria to receive support under 
the above mentioned loans?  
c. Could Thailan d elaborate on the types of activities eligible to receive support 
under "Payment for stockholding "?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
The programmes under AMS are not interrelated, details of each programme as follows:  
 loans for production provide low -interest loans t o farm ers for Agricultural production.  
 loans for stockholding provide loans for rice storage in rice barns.  
 payment for stockholding is for the cost incurred in storing rice from the previous year 's 
programme  and refers to the costs in preserving product quality, rent, insurance, and 
storage.  
 expenditure for stockholding of agricultural products for cereals is for cassava and corn 
and is the sa me as payment for stockholding.  
AG-IMS ID 86071: Question by the European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. Can Thailand explain in more detail how its On -Farm Rice Pledging Program has 
been taken into account in this notification, and give more detailed 
calculations?  
b. Can Thailand explain in more detail the calcula tion for the following rice 
subsidies: loans for production, loans for stockholding and payment for stock 
holding? What quantities of rice are concerned and what aid rates apply for 
these schemes?  
c. Can Thailand explain in more detail the calculation for the  cereal subsidies in 
supporting table DS:7: what cereals, what quantities and what aid rates for the 
schemes apply?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
See response to AG -IMD ID 86103.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86059: Question by the United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
 
Supporting Table DS:7  
 
a. The United States notes various measures for rice, including 'loans for 
production ', loans for stockholding ', and 'payment for stockholding '. In 
addition, Thailand notified 'expenditure for stockholding of agricultural 
products ' measure for cereals.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 51 - 
 
  i. Please describe how each of these measures is implemented and if there is 
any relationship between the three measures.  
ii. For 'expenditure for stockholding of agricultural products ' for cereals, 
please explain specifically what commodit ies are covered, including whether 
rice is covered.  If rice is covered, please explain how this differs from the 
'payment for stockholding ' notified for rice.  
iii. For the measures related to stockholding, please describe how commodities 
are purchased for stoc ks, including whether purchases are done at market 
prices or administered prices.  
b. The United States notes a budgetary outlay for 'loans for production ' for rice for 
all three notified years. In September 2017, the Thai cabinet approved a budget 
for the MY2 017/18 On -Farm Paddy Pledging Program to include all main -crop 
rice varieties from 1 November 2017 – 28 February 2018 in which farmers will 
receive a subsidy on storage costs as well as a direct payment for certain 
harvest and postharvest handling costs du ring 1 September 2017 – 
31 July 2018.   
Given that there are intervention prices and targeted quantities for the On -
Farm Paddy Pledging Program, please explain how this measure does not meet 
the criteria for being notified as market price support in Supporting Table DS:5.  
c. The United States notes a government subsidy of 450 million baht for 
sugarcane for all three notified years.  It is our understanding that the 
government of Thailand was seeking public comment on the draft amendment 
of the Cane and Su gar Act B.E. 2527 (1984), which aims to deregulate the 
domestic sugar market in MY2017/18, and that if the current draft is 
implemented, starting on December 1, 2017, domestic price subsidies and 
direct payments to cane growers will end.  
i. What is the status  of this amendment?  
ii. Please provide additional details as to how the "government subsidy " for 
sugar was implemented in the years covered by this notification.  
iii. Would the proposed amendment noted above result in the end of this 
measure as well?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.4.11   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109)  
AG-IMS ID 86028: Question by India - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
The USA spent USD  58 mil lion on farm credit programmes  under structural adjustment 
through investment aides of Green Box. These programmes include short -term loans 
made at preferential interest rates. The support is derived as the difference between 
FSA farm loans and commercial interest rates times the value of loans made during the 
years. Short terms loans at subsidies interest rate can be treated as input subsidies to 
the farmers. Could the USA explain how the credit subsidy for short -terms loan 
qualifying under Green Box?  
 
Answer by the United States of America  
 
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers who 
are unable to obtain financing from commercial credit sources. Examples of eligible recipients 
include : G/AG/W/173  
 
- 52 - 
 
   beginning farmers, w ho cannot qualify for conventional loans because they have 
insufficient financial resources or farming experience;  
 farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters or who have l imited 
financial resources, and;  
 socially disadvantaged (SD A) farmers, ranchers, or agricultural producers who have 
been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of his or her identity as a 
member of the group without regard to his or her individual qualities. SDA groups are 
women, African American s, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Asian 
Americans and Pacific Islanders. These payments are con sistent with Annex  2, 
paragraph  11 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 86027: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Under the  2014 Farm Act, historical cotton base acres were designated "generic base 
acres " and producers are eligible for payments under the PLC or the Agriculture Risk 
Coverage (ARC). How much cotton area is declared as "generic base acres " under the 
Farm Act, 201 4? 
 
Answer by the United States of America  
 
All former upland cotton base acres were designated generic base acres under the 2014 Farm Act, 
totalling  17 million acres.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86026: Question by India - Classification of measures  
As per domestic support notification for year 20 14, USA spent USD  773 million on 
covered commodities under Price Loss Coverage Programme. For each covered 
commodity on a farm, PLC payments are made on historical base area when current 
market price falls below the reference price. The reference price unde r the 
PLC programme varies across covered commodities and payments under PLC are based 
on current prices of covered commodity. Therefore, PLC payments are product specific 
trade distorting support rather than non -product specific support as notified by the USA. 
It resulted into underreporting of product specific support across covered commodities.  
 
a. Could the USA describe why PLC payments qualify for non -product specific 
support instead of product specific support und er Amber box?  
b. Could the USA provide commodity wise PLC payments for the marketing 
year 2014?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a. Payments under the PLC program me are not made to producers of particular crops; 
rather, they are made to those who own and/ or operate farms with historical base acres 
of those crops. While payment rates are calculated for each covered commodity 
according to the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, the base acreage and yields are fixed 
and based on historical production, and no pr oduction is required to receive payment. 
Therefore, the payments, if any, cannot be associated with current production of a 
specific commodity.  
b. PLC payments by commodity are available only for payments to generic acres. Those 
may be found in notification G/AG/N/USA/109.  
Follow -up: Argentina and Brazil share d an interest in the questions.   
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 53 - 
 
  2.5  Export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
2.5.1   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/95)  
AG-IMS ID 86079: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that Norway has significantly increased the use of export 
subsidies for swine meat and butter between 2015 and 2016. Does Norway consider this 
increased use of export subsidies for swine meat and butter to be in line with the 
commi tment, pursuant to the 2013 Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition, to 
"exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies 
and all export measures with equivalent effect "? According to paragraph 10 of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition "Members shall seek not to raise 
their export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product 
basis ". According to the information notified, Norway has failed to achieve this objective 
for butter in 2016. What are the reasons behind the increased use of export subsidies 
for butter?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
Based on the Uruguay round schedule, Norway had the right to use export subsidies for eleven 
products. In line with the 2013 Bali Ministeri al Declaration on export subsidies Norway reduced the 
use of export subsidies and used export subsidies for only four products in 2015.  
 
At the Ministerial in Nairobi in December 2015, Norway agreed to stronger commitments for swine 
meat, butter, cheese an d processed agricultural products. The export quantities for these products 
were fixed based on the average export in the period 2003 – 2005. For swine meat, Norway had to 
reduce the subsidized export quantity by 5 0% and for butter by approximately 8 0%, compared to 
the level set in the Uruguay round negotiations. Still some exports of butter had to take place 
in 2016.  
 
Norway remains fully committed to the outcome of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. Norway has 
notified a revised export subsidy schedule 28th November 2017.  
 
2.5.2   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/82)  
AG-IMS ID 86080: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
The EU notes that Switzerland is in breach of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition 
by granting export subsidies to cattle for breedin g and horses in 2016. The EU also notes 
that Switzerland is in breach of Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture by granting 
export subsidies to certain ingredients of processed agricultural products, such as eggs, 
flour, oils/fats and sugar which canno t benefit from any export subsidies in the primary 
form.  
 
The EU nevertheless also notes that the Swiss authorities have recently adopted a 
proposal on the abolition of agricultural export subsidies by 2019. The proposal refers to 
certain compensatory meas ures taken by the private sector and subject to private law, 
i.e. without direct participation of the authorities. Could Switzerland clarify if such 
private law measures imply any support to exported products financed by virtue of 
government action, such a s a mandatory levy on agricultural products from which the 
exported products would be derived?  
 
Answer by Switzerland  
 
Switzerland takes this opportunity to inform Members that it has no longer provided export 
subsidies for horses since 2017. As regards the EU's comment on export subsidies for certain 
processed agricultural products, Switzerland does not grant any export s ubsidies for eggs, oils or 
sugar contained in processed products. Turning to the question on export subsidies for certain 
dairy products and staple grains used in processed agricultural products, Switzerland considers 
these subsidies to be in conformity wi th Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and refers to 
question No.  83029 and to its reply to that question at the meeting of the Committee on G/AG/W/173  
 
- 54 - 
 
  Agriculture of 28  March  2017. In December  2017 the Swiss Parliament approved a package of 
measures which in cluded the abolition of export subsidies. The package also includes 
accompanying measures, namely the simplification of the procedure for approval of processing 
trade and coupled payments for certain staple agricultural products, including milk and cereals . 
The package contains no state measures in support of export activities. The package is scheduled 
to be implemented on 1  January  2019.  
 
2.5.3   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/118)  
AG-IMS ID 86081: Question by the European Union - International food aid  
The European Union notes that the Unites States has significantly increased the 
quantities of wheat, coarse grains and rice notified as food aid in table ES:1 in 2015.  
a. What are the reasons behind this increased use of in -kind food aid in 2015?  
b. When comparing t he quantities of in -kind food aid notified in Table ES:1 and 
the quantities of in -kind food aid notified in the corresponding NF:1 notification 
of the United States (G/AG/N/USA/119), it appears that more than half of the 
vegetable oil, almost half of the r ice and a substantial share of the coarse 
grains donated are in fact donated to countries t hat are not classified as 
least -developed or net food -importing developing countries. Could the United 
States elaborate on the reasons for the distribution of the in -kind food aid in 
question?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a. The increases of food aid from FY 2015 to FY 2016 were primarily made to support 
South  Sudan and Somalia, in response to the "four famines ".  
b. The United States provides food aid to countr ies in need. All of the countries which 
received food aid in FY 2015 and FY 2016 are developing countries.  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  
AG-IMS ID 86020: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Follow up questions from 85th CoA:  
As directed by India in its response to Question ID 85097, Australia has reviewed 
information contained at http://dfpd.nic.in/  in relation to questions Australia posed on 
India 's notification for public stockholding for food security purposes in 
G/AG/N/IND/11. Australia has been unable to locate the information requested in ID 
85097 and  therefore restates that question:  
 
Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/11 notifies over US$14  billion per annum in 
public stockholding for food security purposes support as "Green Box " measures exempt 
from reduction commitments.  
 
a. The Agreement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 states, "The volume and 
accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to pre -determined targets related 
solely to food security. " For each of the years and commodities covered by the 
notification, could India provide:  
i. The pre -determined targets and when these were established;  
ii. An explanation of how these targets were estab lished in compliance with 
the requirement of a sole focus on food security.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 55 - 
 
  b. The Agreement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 further states, "Food 
purchases by government shall be made at current prices and sales from food 
security stocks shall be made at  no less than the current domestic market price 
for the product and quality in question. " For each of the years and commodities 
covered by the notification, could India provide:  
i. The price at which the commodity was purchased;  
ii. The market price for each co mmodity at the time of purchase;  
iii. The price at which sales from food security stocks were made;  
iv. The domestic market price for the commodities sold from food security 
stocks at the time of their sale?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Before the onset of each marketing se ason, the Government of India consults agencies 
concerned to make an assessment of the availability of food  grains, for procurement at 
MSP based on various factors. The farmers in India are primarily low -income, resource -
poor, subsistence farmers. They kee p a portion of their produce for self -consumption, 
seed for the next crop year and local market sale. Only a portion of the marketable 
surplus offered by the farmers, and conforming to the prescribed specifications, is 
procured under the MSP operations.  
b.  
i. Information can be accessed at http://agricoop.nic.in ; 
ii. Information can be accessed from http://consumeraffairs.nic.in ; 
iii. Under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), wheat , rice and coarse grains are sold 
at Rs. 2, 3 and 1/kg resp. Information can be accessed at http://dfpd.nic.in ; 
iv. Information can be accessed from  https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/ .  
AG-IMS ID 86111: Question by the United States of America - Input subsidies available 
to low -income or resource -poor producers  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 85019 for more detail due to the 
insufficient   response provided as follows:  "As per agricultural census 2010 -11, 99.29% 
Indian farmers have landholding of less than 10 hectare. India's agricultural input 
subsidies are consistent with Article 6.2 of the AoA ":  
 
a. "India 's notification now notes that 99.15% of farmers are low -income or 
resource poor. In response to AG -IMS ID 75021 , India stated there is a trend 
that the average size of farms, by landholding, decrease in each subsequent 
Census, and that 99% of farms have inadequate resources to generate enough 
income to maintain a minimum standard of living. Concurrently, India has 
increased agricultural production in India, exports, and marketed surplus of 
major commodities. India is now one of the world 's largest agricultural 
producers and exporters of a number of major and minor commodities.  
i. Please provide additional information b eyond that provided in pre vious 
CoA responses, including relevant statistics, to help Members understand 
this dichotomy.  
ii. Please  include any available statistical information with regards to the size 
and ownership structure of the farms that contribute to t he sizeable 
marketed surplus.  G/AG/W/173  
 
- 56 - 
 
  b. Please explain what mechanisms exist in India 's domestic support measures to 
ensure that the programmes benefit low -income or resource poor farmers only. 
Given the sizeable market surplus of commodities in India, does India ha ve any 
statistical information or other relevant information it can share with Members 
to better understand the level of input subsidies provided to producers by size 
of operation and income level? " 
Answer by India  
 
As per agricultural census 2005 -06, 99.15% and as per census 2010 -11, 99.29% Indian farmers 
have landholding of less than 10 hectare. India's agricultural input subsidies are consistent with 
Article 6.2 of the AoA. Further details can be accessed at http:/ /agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/  
 
AG-IMS ID 86109: Question by the United States of America - Market price support  
 
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
The United States resubmits question AG -IMS ID 85021 for response:  
 
a. "In G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies market price supports for several 
commodities; however, the list of commodities for each year differs. Further, 
certain commodities have been aggregated into larger categories compared to 
previous notifications and India 's AGST.  
i. Please explain the basis for aggregating these co mmodities despite 
separate applied administered prices being announced.  
ii. For each year covered by this notification, please provide a list of all 
announced minimum support prices  (e.g., applied administered prices) for 
each commodity announced, whether proc urement occurred or not.  
b. The United States notes that India used the same methodology to calculate 
market price support as in its previous notifications, including the use of 
procurement as eligible production. As noted in previous questions 
(AG-IMS ID 75062) to India in this Committee, this differs from India 's AGST 
where total production of a given commodity was used as eligible production. 
In response to AG -IMS ID 65061, India explains its reason for why it considers 
procurement to be the appropriate mea sure of eligible production, but did not 
confirm that India doesn 't place any preset limit on the amount of production 
that may be procured from farmers. Whil e India notes in response to 
AG-IMS ID 75062 that India procures marketable surplus and, it  did no t clarify 
any pre -established limit.  
i. Please confirm that India doesn 't place any preset limit on the amount of 
production that may be procured from farmers.  
ii. Please clarify the basis for changing the notification methodology related to 
eligible production b etween India 's AGST and subsequent notifications, 
including any specific changes to Indian policy that contributed to this 
change. " 
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86110: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production  
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
The United States again resubmits AG -IMS ID 84071 (and AG-IMS ID 85029) as no 
written response has been provided: "In response to AG -IMS ID 83009, India states tha t G/AG/W/173  
 
- 57 - 
 
  'the government does not procure in all states, and hence entire production is not 
covered. ' Please provide the details of the specific legislation, regulations or other 
measures that limit the eligibility of procurement of eligible product from all stat es." 
 
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86112: Question by the United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 85022 for response:  
 
"The United States notes that in G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies a new non -product 
specific measure: "insurance premium subsidy. " 
 
a. Please provide an overview of how this measure is implemented.  
b. Please explain how the budgetary outlays are calculated.  
Answer by India  
 
Government implement s an agricultural insurance scheme to safeguard the interest of farmers. 
The insurance premium subsidy given under insurance programmes has been notified as non -
product specific support in the notification under reference. Further details about the scheme are 
available on the website http://agricoop.gov.in . 
 
3.2  Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8)  
AG-IMS ID 86078: Question by the European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Since no reply has been received the EU repeats its question AG -IMS 85001.  
 
Mali notifies that in 2016 it granted subsidies for agricultural inputs in compliance with 
the criteria set out in Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to the latest 
version of the Director General's Evolving Table on Cotton Development Assist ance 
(WT/CFMC/6/Rev.22) Mali has been indicated as a beneficiary country of several 
programmes/projects/activities targeting the cotton sector. For example several 
programmes have been implemented in Mali with the aim of improvement of 
productivity and sus tainability of cotton areas, fostering agricultural productivity in Mali 
etc.  
 
Are these programmes covered by the notification by Mali for 2016 and for what 
amount?  
 
Answer by Mali 
 
Mali undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFIC ATIONS  
4.1.1   Egypt  
AG-IMS ID  86024: Question by Australia  
Australia notes that Egypt does not appear to have lodged an annual export subsidy 
notification to the WTO since G/AG/N/EGY /2 of 7 May 1999. Australia encourages Egypt 
to bring itself into compliance with its export subsidy notification obligations  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Egypt has taken stock of all  trade-related measures in the area of agriculture . Egypt will  assess 
the measure,  prepare  the necessary notifications  and submit them to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86060: Questio n by the United States of America  
The United States appreciates the efforts undertaken by Egypt to bring its domestic 
support notifications up t o date with its latest notification covering the period 
2005 -2016. However, it is noted that Egypt 's prior domestic support notification covered 
the period of 1995 -1998.  
 
Please provide an update on when Members can expect to receive Egypt 's overdue 
notif ications for the period 1999 -2004.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
See response to AG -IMS ID 86024.  
 
4.1.2   Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 8608 2: Question by the European Union  
Could Indonesia explain what progress has been made on the notifications for years 
after 2011 compared to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 83032, given in the Committee 
meeting in March 2017.  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesian Delegation wishes to thank the EU delegation for raising the question. Indonesia  would 
like to refer to its response at the 83rd meeting of the COA. W orks are still underway in the Capital 
to update Indonesia 's notification, particularly on dome stic support and market access. Indonesia 
will update its notification once the works in the Capital are done.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union noted that this response was the same as the one provided one 
year ago and looked forward to see ing Indonesia progress on updating its notifications.  
 
4.1.3   Mauritius  
AG-IMS ID 86107: Question by the Europ ean Union  
The European Union  thanks Mauritius for its export subsidy notification 
(G/AG/N/MUS/8) covering financial year 2016 -2017. The EU notes that Mauritius 
appears  not to have submitted ES notifications covering years 2014 and 2015 and would 
underline that these notifications are also essential in order to verify compliance with 
the Bali and Nairobi commitments on export subsidies. The EU thus encourages 
Mauritius t o submit all pending notifications in due course.  
 
Answer by Mauritius  
 
Mauritius endeavours to submit all pending notifications for Exp ort subsidy by the end of 
April 2018.  
 
4.1.4   Nigeria  
AG-IMS ID 8608 3: Question by the European Union  
Since no reply has been given EU repeats question AG -IMS ID 85037.  
 
The latest DS:1 notification from Nigeria dates from 2012 covering 2011. Since then 
Nigeria has implemented the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and th e 
Agricultural Promotion Policy  (2016 -2020).  
 G/AG/W/173  
 
- 59 - 
 
  Will Nigeria submit a DS:1 notification for years after 2011 including Green Box support 
as well as Article 6:2 support?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria would like to thank the European Union for its interest in the Agricultural Transfor mation 
Agenda and the Agricultural Promotion Policy from 2016 to 2020. The European Union may be 
aware that Nigeria has already submitted its notification on domestic support from 2012 to 2016 
as contained in the document G/AG/N/NGA/17. It was an oversight  that the question from the EU 
has not been fully addressed. Nigeria wishes to reassure the EU that its  capital has taken the 
question  seriously and is working assiduously to provide the additional information as soon as 
possible.  
 
4.1.5   Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 861 05: Questio n by the United States of America  
The United States would like to thank Thailand for its most recent domestic support 
notifi cation for  2014 -2016. This notification is most welcome by Members seeking 
information and transparency on Thailand 's ag ricultural policies since its last 
notification for 2008.  
 
Please provide an update on when Members can expect to receive Thailand 's overdue 
notifications for the period 2009 -2013.  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
4.1.6   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 8607 0: Question by the European Union  
The European Union  appreciates that Turkish has submitted DS:1 notifications for the 
years 2002 to 2004. As expressed in previous meetings in our views this is far too late. 
Will Turkey forwa rd the remaining missing notifications and when?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
As Members may be aware, Turkey submitted a package of notifications last year which were 
under consideration during the last Committee meeting. Turkey's relevant authorities are working 
on the remaining notifications and Turkey hopes to be in a position to submit another package of 
notifications soon.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union looked forward to Turkey's upcoming notifications.   
 
5  OTHER  
5.1.1   Japan  
AG-IMS ID 86052: Question by China  
China thanks Japan for the reply to the question AG -IMS ID 84123. Regarding the food 
aid provided by Japan, China would like to raise some follow -up questions as below:  
a. Since the food aid is provided in cash, please explain the necessity for re -
monetizati on.  
b. Is there any additional requirement for using the fund donated by Japan, such 
as purchasing commodities from Japan? If that is not the case, please clarify 
how the statistics of the quantity of food provided by Japan to each recipient 
country is made?   G/AG/W/173  
 
- 60 - 
 
  Answer by Japan  
 
a. Japan allows recipient countries to re -monetize the food which they purchase with the 
funds provided by Japan and to accumulate counterpart funds. Japan expects, through 
this scheme, the funds provided by Japan not only contribute to ove rcoming food 
shortages but also have positive effects on the development of the recipient countries by 
allowing them to utilize counterpart funds for socioeconomic development projects.  
b. In Japan 's scheme of food aid, items to procure and its place of origin are different from 
one case to another. Japan implements food aid on a cash -based basis based on the 
needs and requirements of recipient countries.  
With regard to the notification of aid perfo rmance, Japan regularly notifies the WTO of 
such performance as quantity based on the result of procurement.  
Food aid by Japan is not in -kind but cash -based, and this is different from the 
"monetization of in -kind aid ". 
 
 
__________