G/AG/W/146  
 
9 September 2015  
(15-4641)  Page: 1/27  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 24 SEPTEMBER 20151 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline specified in 
WTO/AIR/AG/6. 
 
_______________ 
 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 4 
1.1   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78002) ....................................... 4  
1.2   China's outstanding responses at the 77th Committee on Agriculture meeting ..................... 4  
1.2.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  78014)  .................................................................... 4  
1.3   China – TRQ underfill ................................................................................................. 4  
1.3.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78004) ....................................... 4  
1.4   China's ma ize subsidies .............................................................................................. 5  
1.4.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7801 5) ................................................... 5  
1.5   China's cotton policies ................................................................................................ 5 
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78070) ....................................... 5  
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 5  
1.6.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78005) ....................................... 5  
1.7   European Union's dairy policies .................................................................................... 6  
1.7.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG-IMS ID 78078)  .................................................................. 6  
1.8   India's support  price for wheat .................................................................................... 6  
1.8.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7801 8) ................................................... 6  
1.9   India's cotton policies ................................................................................................. 6  
1.9.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78006) ....................................... 6  
1.10   India's sugar export subsidies .................................................................................... 7  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78016) ................................................................. 7  
1.10.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78017) .................................................. 7  
1.11   India's export a ssistance pr ogramme s ........................................................................ 8  
1.11.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78007) ..................................... 8  
1.12   Indonesia's restrictions on importation of sugar ............................................................ 9  
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78019) ................................................................. 9  
1.13   Korea's ri ce imports ................................................................................................. 9  
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78020) ................................................................. 9  
1.13.2   Question by Th ailand (AG-IM S ID 78024) ................................................................ 10 
1.14   Russian Federation 's wheat ex port tax ....................................................................... 10 
1.14.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78021) ................................................. 10 
1.15   Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs .................................................................. 10 
1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78022) ................................................................ 10 
1.15.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 78001) .......................................................... 11 
1.16   Switzerland's ex port subsidy budget .......................................................................... 11 
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78023) ................................................................ 11 
1.16.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 78025) .......................................................... 11 
1.17   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 11 G/AG/W/146 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.17.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  78026) .................................................................. 11 
1.17.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78044) ................................................. 11 
1.18   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 12 
1.18.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  78008 ) .................................... 12 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 12  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 12 
2.1.1   Switzerland (G /AG/N/CHE/13/ ADD.17) ..................................................................... 12 
2.1.2   United States of Am erica (G/AG/N/U SA/101/ADD. 1) ................................................... 12 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 12 
2.2.1   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/24) ............................................................................. 12 
2.2.2   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/ 102) ............................................................. 13 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 13 
2.3.1   China (G /AG/N/CH N/28) ......................................................................................... 13 
2.3.2   Costa Rica  (G/AG/N/ CRI/51) ................................................................................... 18 
2.3.3   Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/41) ................................................................................... 19 
2.3.4   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) ....................................................... 19 
2.3.5   Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/7, G/AG/N/OMN/13) ................................................................. 22 
2.3.6   Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/16) ...................................................................................... 23 
2.3.7   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/9) ......................................................................... 23 
2.3.8   Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LK A/4) ...................................................................................... 25 
2.3.9   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/72) ................................................................................. 25 
2.3.10   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TU N/40 and G/AG/N /TUN/45) ........................................................ 25 
2.3.11   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7 and G/AG/N/ARE/8) ......................................... 26 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION S (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) ................................. 27 
2.4.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CA N/108)  ..................................................................................... 27 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 27  
3.1.1   Argentina .............................................................................................................  27 
3.1.2   Turkey ................................................................................................................ . 27 
 G/AG/W/146 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's domestic support programmes 1.1.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78002) 
In previous responses by Brazil to questions from the United States, Brazil stated that the 
Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) programme was suspended for a reassessment to 
address concerns regarding its control mechanism,  in order to prevent irregularities. Further, 
no deadline was set for the completion of this reassessment and as such, Brazil has been unable to 
provide a date upon which it can provide the data requested by the United States. 
 
a. Have reassessments been carried out in the past for other programmes that provide 
precedent for how this reassessment is being carried out? If so, please provide 
information. 
b. Is the data requested by the United States (see AG-IMS ID 76039, AG-IMS ID 75023, 
AG-IMS ID 74021, AG-IMS ID 66002, AG-IMS ID 77066) also being requested by the 
entity carrying out the reassessment? 
The United States notes that in response to AG-IMS ID 76039, Brazil appears to have responded 
primarily in relation to the PEP programme and that the reassessment is a primary reason for not 
being able to provide a time-frame for provid ing the requested data. With regards to the 
Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) programme:  
c. Please provide an update on the progress made in the compilation of the requested data, 
and an estimated date of completion if available. 
1.2  China's outstanding responses at the 77
th Committee on Agriculture meeting 
1.2.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 78014) 
At the 77th Committee on Agriculture Meeting on 4 June 2015, Canada posed several questions to 
China on its 2009 and 2010 DS:1 notification G/AG/N/CHN/28, i.e. AG-IMS ID 77007, AG-IMS ID 77008, AG-IMS ID 77009, AG-IMS ID 77010, AG-IMS ID 77011, AG-IMS ID 77012 and 
AG-IMS ID 77013. Canada recalls that during the J une meeting, China indicated that it was not in 
a position to provide responses but would do so shortly after the meeting. Canada notes that the 
rules require that Members not in a position to provide a reply at a meeting of the Committee have 30 days to provide a detailed response. Given that  China has not yet provided responses to any of 
Canada's questions, Canada respectfully requests that China provide substantive answers to the 
questions.  
1.3  China – TRQ underfill 
1.3.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78004) 
The United States repeats its questions from the June CoA (AG-IMS ID 77068). 
 
Despite high domestic prices and falling world pric es, China continues to significantly under-fill the 
substantial tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) it established during its WTO accession for wheat, corn and rice. Starting in 2015, the United States understands that China has added a requirement that 
non-STE end users purchase domestic stocks in order to receive a TRQ allocation. 
 
a. Please confirm whether there is a new domestic purchase requirement. If yes, please 
provide the time-frame and conditions when it  applies to purchases, and which products 
by tariff code line are subject to this requirement. 
b. Also, if there is such a requirement, please provide any further information on the 
implementation of this policy including where a copy of the policy is available to 
WTO Members and when it was notified to the WTO. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.4  China's maize subsidies 
1.4.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78015) Since no reply has been received to question AG-IMS ID 77043 the European Union therefore 
repeats the question. 
 
According to World Perspectives Inc. newsletter, on 20 April 2015, China sold 38,700 tonnes of maize from state stocks. Further, the Heilongjiang Government supported this sale with a subsidy 
to grains processors participating in the state grain auction of 200 RMB/t (=32.6 $/t). This subsidy 
level would be the double of the subsidy of 100 RMB/t granted in 2013/14.  
a. Can China confirm that the Heilongjiang Government has granted this type of subsidy? 
Who were the beneficiaries? For what quantity has this subsidy so far been granted in 
the current marketing year and the previous marketing year? 
b. Can China explain whether other local governments grant similar subsidies and if so 
what are the quantities concerned in 2013/14 and 2014/15? 
1.5  China's cotton policies 1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78070) 
The United States repeats its questions from the June CoA (AG-IMS ID 77069). 
 The United States thanks China for its response to AG-IMS ID 76051. The United States notes in China's response that it appears China has made the assertion that the cotton policies in the 
largest producing, consuming, and importing country of cotton do not affect the international 
market. However, the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) indicates that China held stocks of 11.6 million metric tonnes at the end of 2013/14, a quantity equivalent to 149% of 
Chinese domestic mill use and 57% of global stocks. In 2013/14, China purchased cotton that 
contributed to those stocks at a price of 151 cents per pound and the 2013/14 market year was the third consecutive year of stock build-ups. The ICAC estimates that amounts to USD 5.8 billion 
and USD 5.1 billion in direct assistance in 2012/13 and 2013/14, respectively. As noted by 
the ICAC, China's position in cotton markets permitted this build-up of stocks to distort not only domestic prices, but also international prices. In particular, China's stockpiling has led to an increase in use of polyester to the detriment of all cotton producing countries. China has 
announced that it plans not to expand the TRQ for cotton in 2015 beyond its WTO obligation. 
Imports are likely to fall close to the TRQ in -quota quantity of 0.894 million tonnes (894,000 
metric tonnes) in 2015, a decrease from  5.1 million tonnes of imports in 2012. 
 
Please provide a detailed description of why these policies implemented by China are not having a distorting effect on world cotton markets. 
 
1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.6.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78005) 
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its continued transparency, though it remains concerned 
by Costa Rica's continued lack of compliance with  its WTO obligations. In particular, the United 
States notes that support to the rice sector in creased from USD 81.85 million to USD 86.14 million 
from 2012 to 2013. While the United States has expressed hope in the past with regards to steps 
Costa Rica has indicated it would be taking to come into compliance, the United States notes the 
repeated delay of necessary reforms.  
a. Does Costa Rica intend to meet its AMS commitment in the current year? If not, when? 
b. What specific steps is Costa Rica undertaking to bring its AMS into compliance with its 
commitments? Please describe evidence that the steps are having, or will have, an effect. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.7  European Union's dairy policies 
1.7.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78078) Australia supports efforts by the European Union to adopt more market-focussed agriculture 
policies, including reforms like the termination of  the milk-quota system in March 2015, which will 
position dairy producers in the European Union to be better-placed to respond to market forces.  
Australia is pleased that the European Union continues to show restraint regarding the use of export subsidies, consistent with the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition.  Australia 
notes that no export refunds have been paid on dairy products since 2009.   
 Given the background of weaker global dairy demand and prices across the world, can the 
European Union: 
 
a. outline if there are any plans to increase the current public intervention price for butter 
and skim milk powder;  
b.  reaffirm the commitment made by Minister s at the 9th Ministerial Conference to 
exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies and 
all export measures with equivalent effect.  
1.8  India's support price for wheat 1.8.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78018) 
Press reports suggest that the region of Punjab has for the marketing year 2015/16 increased the 
minimum support price for wheat by 5,000 INR/t (72 EUR/t) more than the federal support level of 14,500 INR/t. ( http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ news/economy/agriculture/punjab-
government-seeks-rs-1950-a-quintal-msp-for-wheat/articleshow/47490036.cms ). 
 
a. How does India intend to include this increase in its Domestic Support notification? 
b. Have any other Indian states introduced similar increases for the 2015/16 marketing 
year? 
c. During the years for which India has already made notifications for Domestic Support 
(up to and including the year 2010) was there any similar state support applicable in the 
state of Punjab, and, if yes, how was th is included in the DS:1 notification? 
1.9  India's cotton policies 1.9.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78006) 
The United States resubmits questions from the June CoA (AG-IMS ID 77109). 
 In response to AG-IMS ID 76053, India responded to part a) that there are a number of factors involved in the setting of the Minimum Support Pr ice (MSP). However, the US question remains: 
 
a. Which of these factors were the bases for rais ing the MSP for cotton, in light of the fact 
that there was reduced import demand in China, falling world cotton prices, and record 
or near record Indian production? 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76053, India responded to part b) of the question by stating that India 
takes its commitments seriously and believes in fair market practices. The United States agrees 
fully in this response, for itself and all Members. However, India did not address the question 
asked. The United States repeats the question:  
b. Is India taking specific steps to ensure that the release of its cotton stocks does not 
further distort international cotton markets, either due to direct export sales or market 
leakage? If yes, please specify and explain th e steps India is undertaking in this regard. 
The United States notes that similar market conditions occurred in 2008/2009 when G/AG/W/146 
 
- 7 - 
 
  India also procured significant quantities of cotton, estimated at approximately 40% of 
production. According to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, India then provided USD 26 million in export subsidies to reduce its stocks. 
1.10  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.10.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78016) 
Australia notes that India has not yet submitted a written response to the questions raised by 
Australia (AG-IMS ID 77035) at the 77
th Committee on Agriculture in relation to Indian sugar 
export subsidies, and respectfully asks that it does so. Australia notes that a number of 
delegations have expressed support for its ques tions and therefore asks that India formally 
respond to the questions in writing and orally as it is the practice of this Committee.  
Australia has stated its concerns regarding the WTO-inconsistency of these measures on a number 
of occasions and urges India to end the programme.  
In February 2015, India officially increased the rate of its export subsidy for raw sugar from 
Indian Rupees (INR) 3,371 to INR 4,000 per tonne , for a quantity of 1.4 million tonnes over the 
2014-15 sugar season. At INR 4,000, this level of subsidy currently represents over 25% of the 
current world benchmark price. 
In addition to outstanding questions from the 77
th Committee on Agriculture, can India: 
 
a. Advise how much has been paid under the export subsidy programme to eligible 
applicants for both the 2013-14 season and the 2014-15 season to date? 
b. Advise the total amount of individual applications received under the export subsidy 
programme, and the total amount of export subsidy claimed, for both the 
2013-14 season and the 2014-15 season to date? 
c. Advise how many tonnes of raw sugar have been produced in India during the 
2014-15 season to date? 
d. Advise how many tonnes of raw sugar have been exported in the 2014-15 season to 
date? 
e. Australia understands that the top export markets for Indian raw sugar with the Indian 
export subsidy are: Iran, Somalia, the Former Sudan, Tanzania and the UAE. Can India 
confirm the top five destinations for its raw sugar exports. 
f. Can India please identify how many LDCs ar e destinations for its raw sugar exports? 
At the 73rd Committee on Agriculture, India stated (AG-IMS ID 73036) that the export subsidy 
programme was "one of the numerous steps contemplated/undertaken by the central government 
as well as various state governments in the country to tackle arrears payments by sugar mills to Indian sugarcane farmers …" and further, that "…  (t)he interventions by the government aim to 
infuse additional liquidity in the severely stretched sector and are linked to cane payments to 
farmers by the sugar mills".  
g. Can India provide an update of the effectiveness of the sugar export subsidy programme 
with respect of the policy goals identified above? 
h. Can India provide an update on the implementation of the separate sugar export subsidy 
programme, reportedly proposed by the Indian State of Maharashtra? 
1.10.2  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78017) 
Since no reply has been received to question AG-IMS ID 77044 the European Union therefore 
repeats the question. 
 G/AG/W/146 
 
- 8 - 
 
  After the introduction of the export subsidy of INR 4,000 per tonne of raw sugar by the 
Indian Central Government in February 2015, the website of "Business Standard" on 13 April reported "The Maharashtra Government on 14 Ap ril announced an export subsidy of INR 1,000 
($1=INR 62.31) per tonne for raw sugar to boost the cash-strapped sugar industry in the state, 
in addition to the INR 4,000 already unveiled by the central government, according to the state's 
co-operative minister Chandrakant Patil".  
a. Could India confirm these figures of INR 4000 and INR 1000 and explain how these 
subsidies granted comply with its WTO commitments on export subsidies? 
b. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar that has/will be able to benefit from these 
subsidies? 
1.11  India's export assistance programmes 
1.11.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78007) 
The United States is concerned about a possible Indi an export subsidy programme. Specifically it is 
the US understanding that from 2004-2014 the Indian Government operated an export assistance 
programme for a number of agricultural products called the Vishesh Krishi Gram Upaj Yojana (VKGUY – or "Special Agriculture Produce Scheme"). In 2014 another programme, the 
Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS), was introduced and appears to have some similar 
components to the VKGUY programme.  
a. Did India include the VKGUY programme in India's latest export subsidy 
notification (G/AG/N/IND/9)? 
b. The United States understands that under the VKGUY programme, the Indian 
Government provides a "duty scrip" equivalent to 5% of FOB value of an exported dairy 
product. Could India provide an explanation of how the scrip is used? 
c. According to "Foreign Trade Policy, 27
th August 2009 – 31st March 2014" published by 
India's Ministry of Commerce and Indust ry, under the VKGUY programme duty scrip 
benefits are granted with an aim to compensate high transport costs, and to offset 
"other disadvantages". Can India please expl ain what these "other disadvantages" are? 
d. According to that same document, the subsidies provided under VKGUY are provided 
based on the FOB value of the product exported. In the light of that, how does India 
effectively link the subsidies to specific transportation costs? 
e. What is the relationship, if any, between th e exported product and the imported product 
on which the scrip is used to reduce the import duty? 
f. When skim milk product (SMP) was eligible, how was the scrip used for imports? 
g. Could the duty scrip be used as a credit  against any other tax charges, or other 
government arrears, other than import duties? 
h. Was the VKGUY programme replaced by the Merchandise Export from India Scheme 
(MEIS)? 
i. Scrips provided under both VKGUY and MEIS  are described as "fully transferrable". 
What does "fully transferrable" mean - to whom can they be transferred and for what? 
j. How much revenue was foregone by the Government under the programme? 
The United States notes that MEIS, which st arted in 2014, excludes cereals, milk and 
milk products, meat and meat products, and sugar. However, the United States is 
concerned that all other agricultural products could participate in this programme. 
k. Will India notify benefits provided under th e MEIS in its export subsidy notifications? G/AG/W/146 
 
- 9 - 
 
  l. From 2010-2014, which agricultural products received export assistance under the 
VKGUY programme, and in what amounts? 
m. Since 2014, have any agricultural products received export assistance under the 
MEIS programme, and in what amounts? 
n. Please confirm that cereals, milk and milk products, meat and meat products, and sugar 
are excluded from the MEIS programme? 
o. Is VKGUY permanently ended or could it be reintroduced? If it can be reintroduced, what 
would be the circumstances? 
p. If VKGUY was re-introduced, would it be changed in any way? For example, would it 
have a different product eligibility list? 
1.12  Indonesia's restrictions on importation of sugar 
1.12.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78019) 
Australia understands that in December 2014, Indonesia imposed new restrictions on the 
importation of sugar through circular No. 1300/M-DAG/SD/12/2014. 
 
a. Can Indonesia please explain how its restrictions on sugar imports are consistent with its 
obligations under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, in particular: 
i. whether Indonesia issues import permits for sugar on a quarterly basis and in 
accordance with quotas set by the Government; and 
ii. whether Indonesia imposes a range of other restrictions on the importation of sugar, 
including: 
 limits on the types of businesses that can import sugar; 
 rules prohibiting the sale of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar to 
the domestic retail market; and 
 rules prohibiting the importation of white sugar for consumption except with 
government approval at certain times of the year and to producers sourcing at least 75% of their cane domestically. 
b. Can Indonesia please provide further information about the operation of circular 
No 1300/M-DAG/SD/12/2014 and its intended purpose? 
1.13  Korea's rice imports  1.13.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78020) 
a. Could the Republic of Korea please advise the arrangements for importing rice? 
b. The Republic of Korea advised WTO Members of proposed changes to its rice import 
measures in G/MA/TAR/RS/396. Those arrangements have not been certified by 
WTO Members and Australia, China, the United States, and Viet Nam objected to them. 
Has the Republic of Korea been applying the arrangements that it circulated in (G/MA/TAR/RS/396) for imports of rice? 
c. How much table rice has been imported since 1 January 2015? 
d. How much non-table rice has been imported since 1 January 2015? G/AG/W/146 
 
- 10 - 
 
  e. How do these figures (for c and d) compare with the previous three-year averages for 
table and non-table rice? 
1.13.2  Question by Thailand (AG-IMS ID 78024) With regard to the document entitled "Rectification and Modification of Schedules - Schedule LX - 
Republic of Korea" submitted by the Republ ic of Korea and circulated to Members on 
30 September 2014, (G/MA/TAR/RS/396), Thailand notes that in the light of objections by Thailand and four other Members namely, Australia, China, the United States, and Viet Nam, 
Korea's proposal was not formally certified. Thailand has since received information from capital 
that the Republic of Korea has enforced its proposed, but unapproved Schedule, since 1 January 2015. 
Thailand understands that the Republic of Korea ha s been applying a global quota for rice products 
of 408,700 tonnes, with an in-quota tariff rate of 5% and an out-quota rate of 513%. Thailand 
continues to believe that the proposed out-of-quota rate at 513% is unreasonably high, and cannot accept the method of calculation used by th e Republic of Korea. Thailand also understands 
that the country-specific quotas previously given to Australia, China, the United States, and 
Thailand have all been cancelled. This would unfairly and negatively have adverse impact on Thailand's current trade as a result.  
 
In the light of this information, Thailand would like to pose the following questions to the Republic of Korea:   
a. Could the Republic of Korea please confirm that it has been enforcing its proposed 
Schedule since 1 January 2015. If so, does the Republic of Korea have a definite timeframe for the application of the Schedule? 
b. Since Korea's proposed schedule has not been approved, and no consultations have 
been held since the aforementioned Members objected to the Schedule in December 2014, Thailand believes that consul tations between the Republic of Korea and 
the objecting Members should be arranged as soon as possible. These consultations are 
necessary in order to resolve issues relating to the rectifications and modifications of Korea's schedule for rice products and to have a formally certified Schedule come into force as soon as possible so as to minimize the negative trade impacts on Members 
resulting from Korea's enforcement of the unapproved Schedule.  
In this respect, could the Republic of Korea please  indicate when it plans to convene consultations 
with the relevant Members to resolve issues regarding the rectification and modification of Korea's 
Schedule for rice products?  
 1.14  Russian Federation's wheat export tax 
1.14.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78021) 
Press reports state that the Russian Federation has introduced, starting from 1 July 2015, a wheat 
export tax set at 50% of the customs price per tonne minus 5,500 roubles, but not less than 50 roubles per tonne. Could the Russian Federation confirm this measure and explain how it 
intends to comply with the related transparency requirements as laid down in Article 12.1(b) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.15  Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs 
1.15.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78022) Australia understands that Sri Lanka has increased its tariffs for milk powder to the higher of 
either 25% ad valorem , or a specific duty of Sri Lankan Rupees (Rs) 225 per kilogram. 
 
a. Can Sri Lanka please identify the specific HS codes, to the eight digit level, that these 
tariff increases apply to, and can Sri Lanka also advise the relevant bindings for these 
tariff lines? G/AG/W/146 
 
- 11 - 
 
  b. Can Sri Lanka please confirm the current ad valorem  equivalent of the Rs 225 
per kilogram specific duty and also indicate the milk powder reference values that are used in this calculation? 
1.15.2  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 78001) 
New Zealand understands that Sri Lanka has increased its tariffs for milk powder to Rs 225 
per kilogram (HS 0402.10.01 skimmed milk powder, HS 0402.21.01 and HS 0402.29.01 whole m i l k  p o w d e r ) .  S r i  L a n k a ' s  t a r i f f  f o r  m i l k  p o w d e r  i s  b o u n d  a t  2 0 %  ad valorem . This rate is now 
equivalent to around a 70% ad valorem  duty (based on GDT price at 1 September 2015). 
New Zealand is concerned that Sri Lanka is operating outside of its bound tariff rate. What action is Sri Lanka taking to ensure its applied tariff is brought in line with its WTO commitments at the earliest possible opportunity? 
 
1.16  Switzerland's export subsidy budget 
1.16.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78023) 
Australia thanks Switzerland for its response to its question raised at the 77
th Committee on 
Agriculture in relation to the proposed increase to  Swiss export subsidy budgetary outlays. In that 
response, Switzerland stated that the proposal would be subject to parliamentary review in 
June 2015. Can Switzerland please provide an update to the Committee in relation to the current 
status of the export subsidy proposal?  1.16.2  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 78025) 
New Zealand thanks Switzerland for its transparency in the Committee on Agriculture on its 
proposal to increase export subsidies on processe d agricultural products by up to CHF 20 million, 
however notes its concern about these plans given th e trade distorting effects of export subsidies 
and the Bali Declaration on export subsidies in which Ministers committed to exercise utmost 
restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies. Could Switzerland please provide an update on the proposal to exceptionally increase the export subsidy budget for 
processed agricultural products for 2015 by a maximum of CHF 20 million? 
 1.17  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies 
1.17.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 78026) 
C a n a d a  i s  c o n c e r n e d  w i t h  T u r k e y ' s  l a c k  o f  t i m e l y  n o t i f i c a t i o n  o f  e x p o r t  s u b s i d y  a n d  d o m e s t i c  
support measures. The last measures notified were in 2000 for export subsidies and 2001 for domestic support. Would Turkey provide a specific timeline as to when it intends to complete and 
submit these missing notifications to the Committee? More specifically, Canada is interested in 
receiving information on Turkey's historical domestic support information for subsidies provided to the wheat sector. 
 
1.17.2  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78044) 
The European Union has still not received any substantive answer to questions AG-IMS ID 77047, 
AG-IMS ID 75069 and AG-IMS ID 73056 asked during the 73
rd, 75th and 77th Meeting of 
Committee on Agriculture, and invites Turkey to present its reply to these questions. 
 Further, the US Department of Agriculture in its Citrus Report for the year 2013 indicates 
(as in the 2011 report) that "the Turkish Government makes support payments to exporters and 
the rates vary each year. The Ministry of Finance is providing a subsidy to citrus exporters of 200 YTL/MT in 2013. There is also a minimum price requirement for this specific subsidy. 
The Government makes payments to a special account, which the exporter can only use to make 
tax and social security payments as well as utilities such as telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas. In order to protect domestic producers, the Government kept the customs duty rates at 2007 levels for orange juice and citrus imports, which are 54%". 
 G/AG/W/146 
 
- 12 - 
 
  a. Could Turkey confirm that since 2001 its budge tary outlays and eligible quantity as 
regards export subsidies, notably for citrus fruits, have remained below its commitments? 
b. Could Turkey indicate the level of AMS support in absolute amounts since 2002 
per budget year or at least for the budget years 2010 to 2014? 
c. Does this level respect Turkey's de minimis  commitment? 
d. When will Turkey make its DS:1 notifications for the years after 2002? 
1.18  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.18.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78008) 
The United States has received Turkey's respon ses to the US questions and is reviewing them. 
As a follow-up, could Turkey confirm whether any Members of the TMO's Board of Directors are 
appointed by or employed by the Government of Turkey? 
 2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
2.1.1  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/13/ADD.17) AG-IMS ID 78027: Question by Australia - Allo cation of licences to  importing entities 
Australia thanks Switzerland for its response to its question raised at the 77
th Committee on 
Agriculture, regarding the allocation of import entitlements within the Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) for "Animals for slaughter; meat mainly produced on the basis of coarse fodder". In that answer, Switzerland explained that quota shares for a number of products within the TRQ are distributed to 
importers on the basis of a contribution to Swiss production, that is, the number of animals 
slaughtered of Swiss origin. Can Switzerland clarify how these requirements accord with its obligations under the agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, namely Article I of the 
Annex to that Agreement and Article 4(2) of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
 2.1.2  United States of Am erica (G/AG/N/USA/101/ADD.1) 
AG-IMS ID 78074: Question by the Dominica n Republic - Country-specific allocation 
Under which criteria does the United States es tablish reallocations among beneficiary countries? 
 2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/24) 
AG-IMS ID 78075: Question by the Dominican Republic - Transparency issues 
The European Union indicated in a footnote that, where the numbers do not carry an asterisk, the 
amount indicated corresponds to import authorizations. What is the rational to use import 
authorizations instead of actual imports? 
AG-IMS ID 78043: Question by South Africa - Tariff quota fill 
South Africa notes with concern the low fill rates of certain quotas as notified in G/AG/N/EU/24. 
South Africa would like to know the reasons why the following quotas were not filled and what the administration procedures are for allocating the quotas. Are these quotas allocated to specific 
countries? 
 
 080510 – Oranges; 
 2008 –Preserved fruit; G/AG/W/146 
 
- 13 - 
 
   2009 – Grape juice. 
2.2.2  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/102) 
AG-IMS ID 78032: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues 
The US commitments comprise 54 bound tariff quotas. However, the notification only includes 
44 of them. As a matter of transparency, could the United States explain the rationale for omitting 
ten TRQs?  
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  China (G/AG/N/CHN/28) AG-IMS ID 78073: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77
th meeting of the Committee; therefore the European Union repeats its question 
AG-IMS ID 77051. 
 
a. Can China indicate whether the aid given to State Trading Enterprises either as direct or 
indirect support in the form of aid from the Industrialisation Funds or similar support 
instruments (which also includes agricultural and agro-food sectors) has been included in 
the notification and with which amounts? 
Supporting Table DS:1 
 
b. The footnote to the Supporting Table DS:1 stat es that the data includes both the outlays 
of the national and subnational governments. Could China explain the national and subnational shares of the Green Box spending notified? 
c. Can China indicate in which heading of the current notification the Agricultural Insurance 
Programme has been included (CNY 116.9 billion in 2009, according to the annual budget for National People's Congress)? 
d. Can China elaborate on the reasons for the continued increase of the food security 
stocks (+ 33%) while at the same time production continue to increase? 
e. What types of farmers receive direct aides and which sectors are eligible, and which 
criteria must farmers fulfil to be eligible for this type of payments? 
Supporting Table DS:4 
 
f. Can China give further details to the calculation of the Value of Production, including the 
sources for this calculation in DS:4? 
g. Can China give more details on the differences  in definition of products categories as 
indicated in the footnote to Table DS:4? 
Supporting Table DS:5 
 
h. Could China provide information on total wheat and rice production in the notified 
years 2009 and 2010? 
i. Can China give more details on the reasons for the very significant differences in the 
production numbers in this notification and the figures given by the national administration in "Report on grain development in China – 2013". According to the 
latter, the buying-in of wheat in China by State Enterprises in 2009 reached a total 
of 69.339 million tonnes, whereas this notification only indicates 39 million tonnes. Can China please explain this difference in de tail? The difference for rice is even bigger. 
How have the quantities for this notification been calculated? G/AG/W/146 
 
- 14 - 
 
  j. What are the reasons not to include maize in this notification, when to EU knowledge, 
there exists a system of guaranteed pric es for maize (minimum procurement price 
scheme). 
AG-IMS ID 78062: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77080 from the June CoA. 
 
The United States notes that the Chinese Gove rnment did not include market price support 
calculations for corn, soybeans, and rapeseed in 2009, despite the fact that an applied administered price was announced for these commodities under the temporary reserve price 
support programme. The temporary reserve programme operates as a price support programme 
and in a very similar manner to the Minimum Price Procurement programme that was notified by China. The Government offers to purchase commodities at a specified price if the market price 
falls below that price. The Government holds the commodities in reserve and re-sells them in 
future years when market prices are higher . During years of falling prices, like 2009, 
the Government buys large volumes to prevent prices from falling. In 2009, for example, China set 
a target price for corn at CNY 1,500 per metric tonne, soybeans at CNY 3,700 per metric tonne, 
and rapeseed at CNY 3,700 per metric tonne.  According to the 2010 China Grain Industry De velopment Report edited by Nie Zhenbang, 
Director of the National Grain Bureau (p. 14), "to stabilize grain market prices, protect returns to 
grain-planting farmers, in 2009 the Governme nt implemented minimum procurement price 
programmes for rice and wheat, and temporary reserve purchases for corn, soybeans and Xinjiang 
wheat". The report said that the Government's grain reserves were at a record-high level as 
a result of these market stabilization programmes (p.29).  
Further, Xinhua News Service in 2010 (see http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2010-
01/11/content_12791971.htm ) cited the Government's increase in minimum procurement prices 
for rice and wheat and temporary reserve procurem ent of rice, wheat, corn, soybeans and central 
reserves of oils from soybeans and rapeseed as  measures that prevented prices from falling 
during 2009. 
 The Xinhua article reported that purchases by the State to intervene in markets prompted 
an increase in market prices and effectively increased the income of farmers by CNY 40 billion 
(USD 5.9 billion) during 2009, "…effectively protec ting the enthusiasm of farmers to plant grain". 
China clearly implements the "temporary reserve" programme in a manner that is intended to 
manipulate producer incentives and prevent market forces of supply and demand from 
determining prices. This was acknowledged by Ch inese authorities during 2014 when "temporary 
reserve" programmes were ended for cotton and soybeans.  
a. Please revise the notification to include all relevant commodities for which an applied 
administered price was established under this or any other programme. If China does not consider these pre-determined prices to be administered prices for these 
commodities, please explain the rationale. 
b. If the rationale is that the pre-determined prices are based on market prices, please 
clarify whether, in cases where the market prices decline after the date the administered 
price is set, the administered price does not automatically adjust (in other words it 
remains constant throughout the period for which it is set). 
c. If so, please indicate the reason for fixing th e price rather than allowing market prices to 
move freely throughout the year. 
AG-IMS ID 78063: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77073 from the June CoA. 
 China notified that outlays for agricultural infras tructure services include a number of programmes. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 15 - 
 
   
a. Please identify all major programmes accounted for in the notified value and the 
respective value of outlays in 2009 and 2010. 
b. Please provide additional details with rega rds to what the Agricultural Comprehensive 
Development Programs are and how they are implemented. 
c. Please provide additional details on how "small-scale watering facilities on farmland" are 
implemented and how they meet the requiremen ts of paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, in particular that it excludes expenditures for on-farm 
facilities. 
AG-IMS ID 78055: Question by the European Union - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its question 
AG-IMS ID 77052. 
 
a. Can China indicate the products, quantity and the average buying-in price of each 
product for the years 2009 and 2010? Can China indicate how the buying-in price was 
fixed and the level for the diffe rent products in question? 
b. A continued upward trend in China's spending on public stockholding for food security 
purposes is seen in Supporting Table DS:1. Could China indicate what type of expenditure is included in the notified amount? 
c. Could China confirm that food purchases by the Government under the public 
stockholding for food security purposes are ma de at current market prices as required by 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement of Agriculture? 
d. Could China indicate the food security related pre-determined targets which guide the 
volume and accumulation of stocks under the public stockholding for food security purposes as required by paragraph 3 of Annex 2? 
AG-IMS ID 78056: Question by the European Union - Domestic food aid 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77
th meeting of the Committee, therefore th e European Union repeats its question 
AG-IMS ID 77053. 
 
Amounts notified under domestic food aid vary annually during the notified years 2005-2010. There is a substantial variation between 2009 and 2010 in particular in the current notification. 
Could China explain why the amount notified for 2010 decreased so substantially compared to the 
previous years? Is this related to a policy change? 
AG-IMS ID 78057: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77
th meeting of the Committee, therefore th e European Union repeats its question 
AG-IMS ID 77054. 
 
The European Union notes a decrease in the amount notified under decoupled income support compared to the previous notification G/AG/N/CHN/21. Could China explain why this spending is 
decreasing? Is this related to a policy change? 
AG-IMS ID 78064: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for relief from natural disasters 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77075 from the June CoA.  G/AG/W/146 
 
- 16 - 
 
  China's "payments for relief from natural disasters" have increased substantially since 2005, 
reaching CNY 583.84 hundred million in 2010. Per paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture "… payments shall arise only following a formal recognition by government authorities that a natural or like disaster has occurred". 
 
a. Please provide a list of all relevant formal recognitions by either the central government 
or local governments that provided eligibility for payments in 2010. 
b. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China noted that notified payments under this 
subheading include "disaster prevention". Please clarify how this meets the criteria of paragraph 8. Please provide additional details as to the meaning of "disaster prevention". 
c. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China stated that it was not in a position to provide 
any specific resources related to other specific policy and implementing guidance regarding the notified programmes. Is China no w in a position to do so? If not, what 
resources are available to help Members better understand programmes notified under 
this subheading? 
d. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China indi cated that total payments only compensated 
for a small part of farmers' losses. Please provide an indication of the level of 
compensation provided to farmers compared to losses of income. 
e. Please provide a list of the individual programmes included under this subheading. 
AG-IMS ID 78065: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77074 from the June CoA. 
 
The United States notes that China's notificati on of environment programme expenditures has 
increased over time. China, in response to AG-IMS ID 59032, stated that it was impossible to 
determine whether the payments under the various programmes notified under these programmes 
are dependent on the fulfilment of specific criteria, a requirement outlined in paragraph 12(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture. Further, China stated that all the support at the time was used solely for compensation to the farming households  affected by the afforestation and reforestation 
programme. 
 
a. Is this notification still accurate in that all support is still for afforestation and 
reforestation programmes? 
b. Is China now able to provide the details of such criteria? In particular, what exactly are 
the payments compensating farmers for with regards to afforestation and reforestation? 
c. If China is still unable to provide the specific criteria, on what basis is China able to 
notify this programme under paragraph 12? 
AG-IMS ID 78058: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77
th meeting of the Committee, therefore th e European Union repeats its question 
AG-IMS ID 77055. 
 
Could China provide more details on the aid prov ided to disadvantaged regions under regional 
assistance programmes? What are the criteria for disadvantaged regions? 
AG-IMS ID 78066: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments under regional assistance programmes 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77076 from the June CoA. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 17 - 
 
   
China's regional assistance programme includes "outlays on aid and assistance to disadvantaged regions".  
a. How does China define "disadvantaged region s" and what are those regions in China? 
b. Please provide additional details with regards to how this programme operates. 
AG-IMS ID 78067: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77078 from the June CoA.  
a. The United States notes that China's calculation of market price support for rice is 
incorrect. The calculation uses a price for unmilled paddy rice as the administered price. 
However, the fixed external reference price for rice is for milled rice. These prices are not comparable. The administered price should be adjusted to make it comparable to the 
price for milled rice. Please revise your notification. 
b. In AG-IMS ID 65049, China states that the mi nimum purchasing price policy functions in 
the main grain producing provinces, not in the overall state. The United States notes 
that China often cites ensuring the livelihood of its poorest producers as a rationale for 
its domestic support policies. 
i. Please explain the basis for providing minimum support prices only to the producers 
in the main grain producing regions where the greatest grain surpluses are located. 
ii. Even if only small surpluses were available to sell in other regions, wouldn't 
providing a market price support to those smaller producers still provide the same 
important benefit as it does to producers with larger surpluses as China claims? 
AG-IMS ID 78059: Question by the European  Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77
th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its question 
AG-IMS ID 77056.  Could China explain why the eligible production for rice in 2010 in Supporting Table DS:5 is 
indicated at 0? 
AG-IMS ID 78068: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77077 from the June CoA.  
With regards to the notified market price support programme for wheat and rice in Supporting 
Table DS:5, the United States already understands that according to China "only the grains sold to the State at the minimum purchasing price are entitled to the applied administered price" as noted in AG-IMS ID 65049. However, the methodology for market price support in paragraph 8, Annex 3, 
is clear that the quantity of production eligible to receive the applied administered price must be 
used. Eligible production is not the same as what was actually purchased, unless a predetermined limit was announced in conjunction to the support price. 
 
a. Please cite documentation that establishes the level of production eligible to receive the 
applied administered price. 
b. If pre-determined targets are not set by the Government, please indicate whether there 
are any statutory limits on the quantities of product that are eligible to receive the applied administered price. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 18 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78060: Question by the European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77th meeting of the Committee, therefore th e European Union repeats its question 
AG-IMS ID 77057. 
 
Can China explain in detail the reason for the sizeable variations for cotton between the years 2009 and 2010 in Supporting Table DS:7? 
AG-IMS ID 78069: Question by the United St ates of America - Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 77079 from the June CoA. 
 
As has been previously noted by multiple Members, China's inclusion of negative market price support in the summation of product-specific AMS in Supporting Table DS:7 is a serious concern 
and should be reported as a zero for purposes of summation. The United States would note that 
the intent of negative support in the AMS is to account for "specific agricultural levies or fees paid by producers" per Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
a. Please state the intended objective of Chin a's price support programmes. Please clarify 
how these objectives are in line with providing a negative level of support as purported by China in its notification. 
b. China has previously indicated that it refers to the "rules of the WTO Secretariat" 
as a basis for notifying in this way. Please provide the relevant Secretariat documentation and specific rules that China believes permits this. 
The United States appreciates the transparency  provided by China in noting the various 
programmes notified in Supporting Table DS:7. The United States suggests China notify these programmes on a disaggregated basis. 
 
c. Please provide a breakdown of the product-specific programmes notified in the footnotes 
with their respective outlays by commodity. 
AG-IMS ID 78061: Question by the Euro pean Union - Non-product-specific AMS 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77
th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its 
question AG-IMS ID 77058. 
 
a. Input subsidies: Can China elaborate on the functioning of the system aid for 
mechanisation which is given to the distributors of agricultural machinery for certain 
types of material which has to be produced for at least half in China? How can non-China 
based producer participate is this scheme? 
b. Is the aid given as tax rebates (for instance in the horticultural sector) included in this 
table? 
2.3.2  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/51) 
AG-IMS ID 78033: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level 
Canada would like to express its appreciation for Costa Rica's transparency and engagement over 
the past few years regarding its Current Total AMS excess of its WTO commitment. With its most 
recent DS:1 notification for 2014, Costa Rica is once again over its AMS commitment and does not provide any support details aside from the Market Price Support for rice. Would Costa Rica indicate 
when it expects to provide a revised notification to the Committee to include the missing 
information? Canada looks forward to Costa Rica's  DS:1 notification for 2015 when the Executive 
Decree will be operational.  G/AG/W/146 
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.3.3  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/41) 
AG-IMS ID 78034: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
Honduras notified the programme "Sustainable rural development programme for the Southern 
Region (EmprendeSUR)" as a Green Box programme for 2014. In the following Supporting 
Table DS:2, Honduras notifies "Competitiveness and sustainable rural development project in the 
Northern Zone of Honduras (Northern Horizons)". The information provided per the notification does not substantially differentiate the two programmes. 
 
Please elaborate on why the EmprendeSUR programme is considered to be Training Services consistent with the Green Box, while the Northern Horizons program is listed as an investment programme under Article 6.2. Are payments being provided in the form of investment subsidies to 
individual farmers?  
 2.3.4  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 78035: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77083 from the June CoA meeting. 
 
The United States notes that India's external  reference price for wheat in 1986/87, 1987/88, 
and 1988/89 in G/AG/AGST/IND is INR 3,540 per metric tonne for each year. India's AGST document states these prices are the c.i.f. average unit price for RITC No. 0413002 
(1986-87) and HS No. 1001.9002 (1987-88 and 1988-89) derived from Monthly Statistics 
of Foreign Trade in India. In G/AG/N/IND/10, India converted this to USD 264 per metric tonne. This price appears to be quite high compared to other WTO Members who scheduled fixed external 
reference prices (FERP) for wheat in their AGST documents. For example, the EU FERP is 
approximately USD 97 per metric tonne, the Turkish FERP is approximately USD 98.50 per metric tonne, and the Japanese FERP is approximately USD 160 per metric tonne when each is converted 
to US dollars. Further, various measures of world prices also show the world price of wheat to be 
much lower than that notified by India. For example, the US No. 2 Gulf soft red winter is USD 126 per metric tonne and the US Gulf hard red winter was USD 135 per metric tonne. This would appear to indicate that for India's FERP , on a c.i.f. basis, to make sense shipping costs 
per tonne would have almost equalled the price of  the wheat itself. For further comparison, even 
during the 2006-2008 period, the Russian Federation only scheduled a FERP of USD 211 per metric tonne. 
 
a. Please provide the source data for establishing India's FERP. 
b. Please provide an explanation for the variance between India's FERP and other relevant 
prices discussed above. 
c. Please confirm that the external reference price was indeed the same for each year at 
INR 3,540 per metric tonne. 
AG-IMS ID 78037: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77110 from the June CoA meeting. 
 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76018 and other responses to various Members questions, India has 
repeatedly stated the basis for notifying in US dollars is to provide a comparable estimate since 1995. However, this is not comparable to the commitments India undertook in its 
AGST document. Further, in response to AG-IMS ID 76066, the United States of America notes 
that upon the request for India's notification in Indian rupees that India states "support has already been notified and the conversion rates from INR to USD have already been provided".  
At India's suggestion, the United States of Amer ica has used the information provided in India's 
notification to calculate the level of support India notifies in Indian rupees for comparison. The United States of America notes India's Market Price Support, using India's current 
methodology for calculating support at Rs. 362.5 million for wheat and Rs. 335.7 million for rice. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 20 - 
 
   
Please confirm whether the US calculations are correct. 
AG-IMS ID 78038: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77111 from the June CoA meeting. 
 In response to AG-IMS ID 76067, India responded that State governments do not provide any 
funding for the support of agriculture and that al l funds are provided by the Central Government. 
State governments expend Central Government funds "per the modalities defined by the 
Government of India". 
Please explain what these modalities are and how they are implemented. 
AG-IMS ID 78039: Question by the United St ates of America - Public stockholding for 
food security purposes 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77112 from the June CoA meeting. 
 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76068 part b) and c), India provided data on the quantities of wheat 
exported through competitive global tenders. Th is data varies from the data noted by the 
United States on the Food Corporation of India website. 
 
a. Please provide the source of the data pr ovided by India and what accounts for the 
discrepancy between the two sources. 
b. Please provide the weighted averages on an annual basis. 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76068 part e-g), the United States appreciates India's 
commitment to the WTO and notifying in a manner it considers consistent with the WTO. 
However, the United States repeats the questions in hopes of understanding how India 
notifies: 
c. Please confirm the US estimates of State bonuses and provide total State-level funding 
expenditures for the notified period, including, but not limited to, State ‑bonuses 
per part e) of question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
d. Please confirm whether the State bonus or other State-level funding is included in the 
notification by India under public stockholding for food security per part d) of 
question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
e. Please explain any other expenditure notified under this sub-heading and include 
relevant values for the notified period. 
AG-IMS ID 78040: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77113 from the June CoA meeting. 
 The United States thanks India for providing a copy of the legislation in response to AG-IMS ID 76070. 
 
a. The United States of America would appreciate a better understanding of the basis for 
implementing this debt program as described. 
b. Other than landholding size, what factors contributed to India's assessment that two 
hectares was an appropriate basis for determining which farmers received debt waivers versus debt relief. 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76070, India states there is no pooling of landholdings by India farmers. 
However, per the link provided by India https://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=4190  
the law states the following: "In the case of borro wing by more than one farmer by pooling their G/AG/W/146 
 
- 21 - 
 
  landholdings, the size of the largest landholding in the pool shall be the basis for the purpose of 
classification of all farmers in that pool as 'mar ginal farmer' or 'small farmer' or 'other farmer'". 
 
c. Please explain. 
d. The United States repeats the previous ques tion noting the pooling described in the 
legislation provided by India: Can India provide relevant data on the pooling of 
landholdings by Indian farmers? For example,  the percentage of landholdings that are 
pooled; the average size of the combined pooled landholdings; the number of farmers 
involved in a single landholding "pool" on average, etc. 
In response to AG-IMS ID 75052, India stated it would be providing the appropriate Table DS:2 
notification in due course. The notification has still not been provided despite being a program 
introduced a number of years ago. 
 
e. When will India submit this overdue notification? 
AG-IMS ID 78041: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77114 from the June CoA meeting. 
 
a. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, India notes in part c) that government is purchasing at 
MSP only the surplus produce which the farmer  wants to sell. Based on India's response, 
it is in fact the US understanding that it is the choice of farmers not to sell to the Government at the MSP and that there is no  limitation on the quantity of products, 
including rice or wheat that the Government is willing to purchase from Indian farmers. 
Please confirm this is correct. 
b. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, India did not directly answer the question. The 
United States of America would like to confirm that India's decision to abandon its 
notification methodology reflected in the AGST document and India's first notification for 1995/1996 is because of the reason provided and not due to any policy change between 
1995/1996 and 1996/1997. Please confirm. 
c. The United States of America also notes that India, in response to various questions 
asked by Members, has based its choice of notifying in US dollars on the fact that it did so in its first notification for comparable levels of support. If no domestic change in 
policy occurred, as India was asked to confirm, this logic seems to be inconsistent within 
India's notification. 
Please provide the level of total production for all years since 1995/96 for commodities notified 
under Supporting Table DS:5 so that Members may have a basis of comparing current level of 
support with that notified in India's commitments and its first notification, with respect to eligible production. 
 
d. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062 part d) and e) , India states its notification is compliant 
with WTO rules. The United States of America notes that India has notified that all rice and wheat farmers in India received the same applied administered price. However, 
the United States of America notes that this appears to be inaccurate, and according to 
official state agencies and media reports state bonuses in addition to the applied administered price were provided in a number of states. For example, the state of Madya 
Pradesh procured 3.538 million metric tonnes of wheat in 2010/11. Wheat procured in 
Madya Predesh was not purchased at the applied administered price notified by India, but rather at rate of Rs. 100 per metric quintal higher than the notified administered 
price. In total, trillions of rupees are expended each year paying state bonuses for the 
procurement of wheat and rice alone. 
e. Please update Supporting Table DS:5 to reflect the actual applied administered prices. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 22 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78036: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77084 from the June CoA meeting. 
 
In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, the United States understands that India only notified the 
procured quantity of production as the "eligible production" for purposes of Supporting Table DS:5 
because "India procures the marketable surplus which farmers want to sell keeping aside their own 
consumption requirements and seed requirements for the next crop year". The United States 
appreciates this response regarding what the amount actually procured is. However, the question remains: "what is the reasoning behind India's decision to adopt a new understanding of eligible production and abandon its previous position of notifying all price supports as reflected in its 
AGST document"? 
 
f. Please explain. 
g. Further, please explain whether there has been any policy change in how the 
administered price is operated during the pe riod under review in India's most recent 
notification as compared to during the peri od covered by G/AG/AGST/IND. In particular, 
India notes in its AGST document that the "administered price shown in column 3 pertain 
to the following marketing years in which production shown under column 5 becomes eligible for the said administer price". In other words, India claimed, and as such made commitments under the WTO, that its administered prices were eligible to be received by 
all production. 
2.3.5  Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/7, G/AG/N/OMN/13) AG-IMS ID 78013: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77090 on G/AG/N/OMN/7 from the June CoA. 
 
In November 2012 (AG-IMS ID 68029), September 2012 (AG-IMS ID 67038) and June 2015 
(AG-IMS ID 77090) the United States asked a question regarding Oman's notification G/AG/N/OMN/7 and the notification of new programmes. Oman stated it would respond at a later stage. The United States resubmits its question:  
 
The United States asked questions in 2009 regarding Oman's notification G/AG/N/OMN/7. The United States notes that a number of those programmes appear in the most recent notification 
(G/AG/N/OMN/11 refers). In 2009, Oman provided helpful responses to the US questions and 
indicated a Table DS:2 notification regarding those programmes would be submitted. Please confirm if Oman submitted a Table DS:2 notifica tion. If not, when will Oman be making its 
notification? 
AG-IMS ID 78071: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77087 on G/AG/N/OMN/13 from the June 
CoA. 
 Oman has notified "Development of natural pastures" under General service - infrastructure in 
Supporting Table DS:1. 
 
a. Can Oman provide further details on the programme to develop and maintain natural 
pastures on government land? 
b. Are the natural pastures used for animal graz ing? If so, do individual producers benefit 
from the improvements made to the pasture land? 
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, Oman has notified "Establishment of fodder production company in Najd" and 
"Establishment and development of agricultural and veterinarian quarantine" as exempt measures 
under Supporting Table DS:1. It is noted that these establishment costs have continued for several years. G/AG/W/146 
 
- 23 - 
 
   
c. Please provide more details on the reason for these continuing payments and whether 
they extend beyond the initial establishment of the designated facilities (e.g. are payments made to defer costs, such as maintenance of facilities, etc. that would 
otherwise be passed on to customers in the form of higher prices). 
d. Previously in G/AG/N/OMN/12, Oman noted that the "Establishment of fodder production 
company in Najd" was support for a consultancy study. Is this still the purpose of these 
payments? What type of entities are the beneficiaries of these payments? 
AG-IMS ID 78072: Question by the United St ates of America - Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential Treatment/Develo pment Programmes): Other 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77088 on G/AG/N/OMN/13. 
 
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, budgetary expenditures under "National project for date palm development" increased substantially in 2013. Please describe how this programme operates and the reason for 
the large change in expenditures in the most recent notification. 
 2.3.6  Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/16) 
AG-IMS ID 78046: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia thanks Pakistan for the response to its question at the 77
th Committee of Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 77038) with respect to Pakistan's domestic support notification (G/AG/N/PAK/16), and Pakistan's notification of support in US Do llars (USD), rather than Pakistan Rupees. 
 
In its response, Pakistan stated that the use of USD was essentially an extension of previous practice. Could Pakistan please explain what the rationale is for not notifying in local currency, 
in the first instance? 
 2.3.7  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/9) 
AG-IMS ID 78081: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
In Table DS:1, could the Russian Federation plea se elaborate on the types of programmes and 
respective expenditure that receive payments under environmental programmes and regional assistance programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 78048: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that a number of items in the Green Box have received support in Russia's 
newest DS:1 for 2013, which reported no amounts in the previous notification. These include: 
 
a. Domestic Food Aid; 
b. Decoupled Income Support; 
c. Government financial participation in income insurance and income safety-net 
programmes; 
d. Structural adjustment assistance provided  through resource retirement programmes; 
e. Payments under Environment Programs; 
f. Other. 
Would the Russian Federation please indicate, for ea ch of these items, if the provided support is 
a result of new initiatives? If so, would the Russian Federation please advise when it expects to 
provide an associated DS:2 notification providing the necessary details regarding these 
programmes?  G/AG/W/146 
 
- 24 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78077: Question by Dominican Re public - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
What programmes are included under: "(d) Decoupled income support" and "(e) Government 
financial participation in income insurance and income safety-net programmes"? And what do they 
consist of? 
AG-IMS ID 78049: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: pest and disease control 
Support for pest and disease control under the Green Box decreased significantly in 2013 going 
from a total of USD 755.36 million in 2012 to USD 80.92 million in 2013. Would Russia please 
elaborate on the reasons behind this substantial decrease in support? 
AG-IMS ID 78052: Question by Canada - General services: training services Federal support under training services increased from USD 19.50 million in 2012 to 
USD 518.35 million in 2013. Would the Russian Federation please provide details on this 
substantial increase in support? 
AG-IMS ID 78079: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services 
Under General Services in Table DS:1, could the Russian Federation disaggregate the sub-federal 
expenditure for infrastructural services (paragraph vii) to delineate the expenditure and the specific projects for each type of infrastructure item?  
AG-IMS ID 78053: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Canada notes a significant decrease in spending under public stockholding for food security 
purposes from 2012 to 2013 going from USD 228.80 million to USD 0.16 million, respectively. Would the Russian Federation please elaborate on this significant decrease in support? 
AG-IMS ID 78080: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support 
In Table DS:1, could the Russian Federation expl ain what the decoupled income support is for, 
who is eligible, and how is the payment determined?  
AG-IMS ID 78047: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support 
The notification includes for the first time decoupled income support with significant amounts at 
both federal and sub-federal level. Can the Russian Federation explain in more detail the reasons 
for this shift in support and the eligibility criteria for farmers for this support? Does the Russian Federation intend to make a DS:2 notification for this policy change? 
AG-IMS ID 78082: Question by Australia - Direct payments: other 
In Table DS:1, could the Russian Federation please elaborate on what the subsidies for 
intervention funds are for and how they operate within the agricultural system?  
AG-IMS ID 78051: Question by Canada - Market price support 
Rye is no longer included in the list of products receiving Market Price Support in Supporting 
Table DS:5. Would the Russian Federation please elaborate on the reasons why this product is no longer included? 
AG-IMS ID 78054: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada noticed that wheat, buckwheat, potatoes  and soybeans have been added to the list of 
plant products receiving product-specific support in Russia's Supporting Table DS:4. Since these products were not covered in the previous noti fication, could the Russian Federation please 
elaborate on why these products were added to the list? Is this the result of a new initiative? 
If so, would the Russian Federation please provide details? 
AG-IMS ID 78083: Question by Australia - Non-product-specific AMS 
In Supporting Table DS:9, a number of farm inputs have been included as non-product specific 
AMS.    
a. In particular, could the Russian Federation explain the use of subsidies of interest rates 
on short term credits and investments and the method of calculation please?   G/AG/W/146 
 
- 25 - 
 
  b. Could the Russian Federation also explain the eligibility requirements for interest rate 
subsidies on credits taken by personal subsidiary households, peasant farm enterprises and agricultural consumer cooperatives?  
c. How were the subsidies calculated for the purpose of the current notification?  
AG-IMS ID 78050: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes that agricultural crop insurance premium subsidy is no longer listed in Supporting 
Table DS:9. Would the Russian Federation confirm whether or not this programme has been 
terminated? 
 2.3.8  Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/4) 
AG-IMS ID 78045: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
The European Union welcomes Sri Lanka's continued domestic support notifications. 
 
a. Can Sri Lanka elaborate further on the reason for the significant increase in investment 
aid from 2012 to 2013 and which crops or agricu ltural sectors have benefitted from this 
increase? 
b. According to the information available, in marketing year 2012/13, the Sri Lanka Paddy 
Marketing Board acquired 131,000 tonnes of paddy rice. Has there been any support given directly or indirectly for buying-in, storing and distribution for the rice bought-in by the Paddy Marketing Board? Has this support been included in the notification? 
2.3.9  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/72) 
AG-IMS ID 78042: Question by Canada - Market price support 
Canada notes that the applied administered price for meat of bovine has increased in 2013 going 
from CHF 3,387/tonne in 2012 to CHF 4,319/tonne in 2013. Could Switzerland please provide 
an explanation for this increase?  
2.3.10  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/40 and G/AG/N/TUN/45) 
AG-IMS ID 78031: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
In G/AG/N/TUN/40, Tunisia has adjusted the reference prices for durum wheat, soft wheat, barley 
and milk to take account of inflation and exchange rate movements. As stated in previous 
Committee on Agriculture meetings, Canada is of the view that paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture requires the external reference price to be fixed and thus, does not allow for any type of adjustment, including adjustments based on inflation. One of the main objectives 
for calculating a Member's Current Total AMS using a fixed external reference price is to ensure 
that a Member's capacity to provide trade distorting domestic support is effectively capped and cannot expand over time in absolute or relative terms.  
 
Furthermore, Canada is of the view that Article 18.4 does not provide a methodology or a legal basis through which a Member's fixed external refe rence prices may be adjusted for inflation, and 
does not give any consideration for a methodology which would account for accumulated inflation 
after the reference period of the fixed external reference price(s). Rather, under Article 18.4 it is 
Members (i.e. the Committee) that shall give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates 
of inflation on the ability of a Member to abide by its domestic support commitments. 
 
Would Tunisia provide a rationale for why it believes inflation adjustments are required for its fixed external reference price? 
AG-IMS ID 78030: Question by the Europe an Union - Excessive rates of inflation 
The European Union welcomes Tunisia's domestic support notifications. 
 G/AG/W/146 
 
- 26 - 
 
  In Supporting Table DS:5, Tunisia indicates that th e external reference has been adjusted to take 
account of inflation.  
a. Can Tunisia indicate the inflation rate used for each year covered by the notification? 
b. Can Tunisia explain how this unilateral inflat ion adjustment of the external reference 
price is in compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture? 
2.3.11  United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7 and G/AG/N/ARE/8) 
AG-IMS ID 78011: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77101 on G/AG/N/ARE/7 form the June CoA. 
 
a. Under sub-headings "pest and disease control" and "extension advisory services" the 
United Arab Emirates notified the values of support for each year; however, it is unclear from the notification what the difference betw een the two values is. Please explain what 
each value represents. 
b. It is noted that compared to G/AG/N/ARE/5 for the years 2000 and 2001, the 
United Arab Emirates introduced in 2002 a number of new programmes that are 
considered exempt under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the 
United Arab Emirates introduced one new programme in 2003 under subheading "Inspection". When does the United Arab Emirates plan on submitting its DS:2 notifications for these new programmes? 
AG-IMS ID 78012: Question by the United St ates of America - Input subsidies available 
to low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77102 on G/AG/N/ARE/7 form the June CoA. 
 
a. It is noted that all measures notified under the criteria of Article 6.2 were eliminated 
in 2006. What was the basis for the elimination of these measures and did the 
United Arab Emirates introduce any other measures as part of this reform? If so, what? 
b. How did the United Arab Emirates define low-income or resource-poor producers at the 
time these measures were operational? 
AG-IMS ID 78010: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/8, 
 
a. Why is there a significant increase in monetary value for pest/disease control and 
extension/advisory service support measures from the previous calendar years?  
b. Why was the inspection support measure not reported for calendar year 2014? Is the 
United Arab Emirates no longer using this support measure or has it been replaced by 
another support measure? Why?  
AG-IMS ID 78009: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/8, 
 
a. How does the new infrastructure support measure meet the policy-specific criteria in 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, such as the eligibility criteria to receive the 
payment, the conditions applying to the payments, or the rules governing the amount of the payment?  
b. When will the Table DS:2 notification for the new infrastructure support measure be 
submitted? G/AG/W/146 
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.4.1  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/108) AG-IMS ID 78076: Question by the Dominican Republic - Transparency issues 
Could Canada explain: 
 
a. What are the producer-financed subsidies granted to skim milk powder? 
b. Under which criteria are these grants awarded? 
AG-IMS ID 78028: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues 
The total amount of export subsidies granted by Canada has remained stable and there is no 
significant downward trend of subsidies granted over the years. Moreover, subsidies granted to 
dairy products are at, or very close to, the Canadian commitment levels. In the light of this and 
the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition which undertakes to ensure to the maximum 
extent possible that the level of export subsidies will remain significantly below the Members' export subsidy commitments, could Canada indicate whether it intends to undertake reforms in the 
field of export competition? 
 3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1.1  Argentina 
AG-IMS ID 78029: Question by the European Union 
The European Union takes note of the reply to the question AG-IMS ID77042. However, despite 
the stated size of the amounts in question, can Argentina indicate when it intends to notify its 
domestic support for the years 2008/09 onwards? 
 3.1.2  Turkey 
AG-IMS ID 78003: Question by the United States of America 
Turkey remains seriously overdue in notifying its domestic support and export subsidies. 
Turkey has not made a domestic support notification since 2001, nor an export subsidy notification 
since 2000. Turkey has been asked repeatedly by Members in this Committee over a number of 
years about the delay in these notifications. This lack  of transparency over such a long period is of 
particular concern because Turkey ranks as the 7
th largest agricultural producer in the world and 
has undergone a number of changes in domestic ag ricultural policy over that time. When does 
Turkey plan to submit its domestic support and export subsidy notifications? 
  
__________