RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/110  
 
3 June 2013  
(13-2892)  Page: 1/20  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 13-14 JUNE 20131 
 The present document compiles questions rece ived by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
30 May 2013 as specified in WTO/AIR/4137. 
  
_______________ 
 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/110 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of Contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTA TION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ................ 4 	
1.1   Brazil's domestic support prog rammes .......................................................................... 4 	
1.1.1   Question by: United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70007) ........................................... 4 	
1.2   Brazil's trade and industry policy .................................................................................. 4 	
1.2.1   Question by: Ca nada (AG-IMS ID 70016)  ................................................................... 4 	
1.3   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 5 	
1.3.1   Question by: New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70002) ............................................................ 5 	
1.4   Elimination of the price support mechanis m for ri ce: ....................................................... 5 	
1.4.1   Statement by Cost a Rica (AG-IM S ID 70080 ) .............................................................. 5 	
1.5   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 5 	
1.5.1   Question by: United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70008) ........................................... 5 	
1.6   European Union’s subsidy pr ogramme for Swedis h dairy ca ttle ......................................... 5 	
1.6.1   Question by: Swit zerland (AG-IM S ID 70073 ) ............................................................. 5 	
1.7   Indonesia’s quantitative and other import  restrictions on cert ain food products ................... 6 	
1.7.1   Question by: United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70009) ........................................... 6 	
1.8   Philippines’ continuous use of re ference prices applied to imports ..................................... 6 	
1.8.1   Question by: United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70010) ........................................... 6 	
1.9   Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO bindings ..................................... 7 	
1.9.1   Question by: New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70006) ............................................................ 7 	
1.10   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme .............................................................................. 7 	
1.10.1   Question by: Ca nada (AG-IMS ID 70017)  ................................................................. 7 	
1.10.2   Question by: United States of America (AG-IMS ID 70011) .......................................... 7 	
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................................. 8 	
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OT HER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ................ 8 	
2.1.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/73) ....................................................................................... 8 	
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) ...................... 9 	
2.2.1   Israel (G /AG/N/ISR/ 49) ........................................................................................... 9 	
2.2.2   Japan (G /AG/N/JPN/ 184) ......................................................................................... 9 	
2.2.3   Korea, Republic  of (G/AG/N/ KOR/48) ......................................................................... 9 	
2.2.4   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/74) ....................................................................................... 9 	
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TAB LE DS:1) ........................................................ 9 	
2.3.1   Armenia (G /AG/N/ARM/ 20) ...................................................................................... 9 	
2.3.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/30) ......................................................................................... 10 	
2.3.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/96) ...................................................................................... 11 	
2.3.4   Cuba (G /AG/N/CUB/ 45) ......................................................................................... 12 	
2.3.5   European Unio n (G/AG/N/EU /10) ............................................................................ 12 	
2.3.6   Georgia (G /AG/N/GEO/ 10) ..................................................................................... 12 	
2.3.7   Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/ 30/Rev.1, G/AG/N /IDN/34) .................................................. 13 	
2.3.8   Malawi (G /AG/N/MWI/ 4) ........................................................................................ 16 	G/AG/W/110 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.9   Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/2) ............................................................................................. 16 	
2.3.10   Moldova, Republic  of (G/AG/N/ MOL/4) ................................................................... 16 	
2.3.11   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/69/Rev.1) ........................................................................... 17 	
2.3.12   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PR Y/21) .................................................................................. 17 	
2.3.13   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/42) ................................................................................ 17 	
2.3.14   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CH E/61) .............................................................................. 19 	
2.3.15   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UK R/9, G/AG/N/U KR/13) ............................................................. 19 	
2.3.16   United States of America (G/AG/ N/USA/89) ............................................................ 20 	
2.3.17   Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/9) ..................................................................................... 20 	
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 20 	
3.1   Turkey's dela yed notifications .................................................................................... 20 	
3.1.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 70075)  ....................................................... 20 	
 G/AG/W/110 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's domestic support programmes  1.1.1  Question by: United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 70007) 
The United States of America thanks Brazil for th e informal table provided separately with generic 
destinations of PEP auctions by commodity (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69027). As a follow up to 
that information, the United States of America specifically requests the quantity auctioned and negotiated by actual destination and tonnage and by commodity for each of the "Aviso" numbers 
provided. According to CONAB's guidelines for PEP
2, CONAB collects all of this data. Specifically, 
the guidelines stipulate in Article 9 ("Da Comprovação de Colocação do Produto na Região de Destino"— Validation of the Product Delivery to the Destination) that the documentation required for every PEP Auction include: auctions destined for the domestic market require the market 
destination (Article 9.8.1.4) and cargo manifests (Article 9.8.1.7); auctions destined for the 
international market require the extract of the dispatch declaration, or export receipt (Article 9.8.2.1) and the bill of lading (Article  9.8.2.2). Therefore, according to the programme 
guidelines precise information on the market destination is available.  
a. For each domestic auction the United States of America requests the tonnage and the 
Brazilian state that was the actual destination. 
b. For exports, the United States of America requests the tonnage auctioned by 
commodity for each of the "Aviso" numbe rs, but does not request the foreign 
destination specified. 
1.2  Brazil's trade and industry policy 
1.2.1  Question by: Canada (AG-IMS ID 70016) 
At the March 2013 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Brazil provided responses to 
Canada's follow-up questions regarding its trade and industry policy for 2011-2014, called the 
Plano Brasil Maior ("Greater Brazil Plan").  
Canada understands that one of the Plan's elements is a temporary payroll tax exemption, where 
the 20% mandatory employer's social security contribution on payrolls (contribution to the 
Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social or "INSS") is substituted for a flat rate ranging between 1% 
and 2% on gross earnings, excluding gross revenue from exports.  
Brazil announced in early April that it would extend payroll tax exemptions to more agriculture 
sectors. Canada understands that, beyond the sectors already benefiting from the measure 
(pork, poultry, preparations of meat and fish an d preparations of cereals, flour starch), fruits 
(pulp and juices), beef, coffee, wine, animal feed and dairy cattle will also be eligible for payroll tax exemptions. 
a. Could Brazil provide more detailed information as to how the extension of coverage to a 
wider range of agricultural sectors (such as fruits, beef and wine) of the payroll tax exemption will benefit these new sectors and when it expects the extension of coverage 
to take effect? 
b. Further to the response provided by Braz il at the last Committee on Agriculture 
regarding Law 12.715, could Brazil provide more details of the policy objectives it seeks to achieve with the implementation of the payroll tax exemption? 
c. Considering that Brazil asserts that the new methodology applies independently of the 
export performance of the sectors covered by the measure: 
 Could Brazil confirm that no portion of revenues derived from exports are 
currently being excluded in the calculatio n of the employer's contribution to the 
INSS? 
                                               
2 http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/03d5f5cc69ed07435cba2a3798bb39fc.pdf  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 5 - 
 
   Could Brazil explain why product coverage relies on a list of HS codes if revenues 
derived from exports do not receive a different treatment than other sources of revenue? 
 In light of the provisions of Annex 1, paragraph (e) of the SCM Agreement, and 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture and the inclusion of "revenue 
foregone" as a form of provision of a subsidy, could Brazil elaborate on its assessment that tax breaks such as the payroll tax exemption do not involve 
subsidies? 
1.3  Canada's dairy policies 1.3.1  Question by: New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70002) 
a. In responses to questions during the 69
th (regular) Committee on Agriculture, Canada 
explained that it was necessary to implement a new milk class for mozzarella cheese 
for fresh pizzas due to an "evolving market demand".  
 Could Canada please elaborate on the nature of this evolving demand?  
 Could Canada further explain how the programme will address this evolving 
market demand, and how this is expect ed to affect imported products?  
b. New Zealand thanks Canada for the advice that the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a 
private contractual agreement between Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) and ice cream 
processors. New Zealand would be grateful for an explanation as to why the Canadian Dairy Commission performs the service of calculating pooling returns for milk classes on behalf of a non-government organisation (DFC) if it has no influence in determining 
the terms and conditions of their various initiatives? Is there a contract in place for the 
provision of these services, and if so, is payment received by the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC)? If there is no contract, under what authority does the CDC perform 
this service? 
1.4  Elimination of the price support mechanism for rice:  1.4.1  Statement by Costa Rica (AG-IMS ID 70080) 
Costa Rica will deliver a statement on the elimination of Costa Rica's price support mechanism for 
rice. 
1.5  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  
1.5.1  Question by: United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 70008) 
The United States of America continues to be seriously concerned with Costa Rica's continued 
provision of domestic support in excess of its bo und commitments. In the five notified years since 
first breaking its WTO binding commitment, Costa Rica has provided over US$384 million of 
cumulative excess support. In 2012 alone the high  market price support to Costa Rica's farmers 
represented more than four times Costa Rica 's annual total AMS commitment of about US$16 
million. The United States of America is encouraged by press reports that Costa Rica has initiated 
some steps in recent months that may help address this situation. The United States of America 
looks forward to engaging with Costa Rica in an informal plurilateral gathering in advance of the June 2013 Committee meeting in order to better understand Costa Rica's planned actions with respect to its domestic support and total AMS commitments.  
1.6  European Union’s subsidy programme for Swedish dairy cattle  
1.6.1  Question by: Switzerland (AG-IMS ID 70073) Could the European Union please provide information on the recently announced subsidy for 
Swedish dairy cattle? In particular, what is the level of subsidy foreseen in this programme? What G/AG/W/110 
 
- 6 - 
 
  are the conditions for eligibility for the payments? Is the programme intended to be of a 
temporary or permanent nature?  
1.7  Indonesia’s quantitative and other impo rt restrictions on certain food products 
1.7.1  Question by: United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 70009) 
The following questions regard Indonesia's revised Food Act No. 18/2012 Food Security and 
Trade (replacing the previous Food Act No. 7 of 1996 Food Law).  
Article 14 states: (1) The source of the food suppl y shall originate from domestic food production 
and national food reserve. (2) If the food supp ly sources as intended in paragraph (1) is not 
sufficient, food can be fulfilled throug h food import according to necessity. 
And Article 36, (1) and (2) states: Food import can only be implemented if domestic food 
production is not sufficient and/or the product cannot be produced domestically and staple food 
import can only be implemented if domestic food production and national food reserves are not 
sufficient.  
a. Do these articles mean that Indonesia will stop imports of food products whenever the 
government determines that domestic food sources are "sufficient"? 
b. On what basis will Indonesia restrict imports under Article 36 of the Food Law?  
c. Please explain how Indonesia's import restrictions are consistent with Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, which states that countries will not resort to measures of 
any kind (such as quantitative import restrictions, discretionary import licensing, etc.) other than ordinary customs duties.  
Article 36 (3) states that: Sufficiency of domestic  staple food production and government food 
reserve is determined by minister or government institution with the task of executing 
governmental orders in the food sector. Please explain which ministry or institution will determine when domestic production of a staple/basic food is sufficient and what method will be used to 
make this determination. 
Article 28, paragraph 1 states: The definition of "certain staple food" is the food produced and 
consumed by most people of Indonesia, and wh en the availability and price of the food is 
disturbed, it may affect the economic and social stability of the community.  
Please provide a list of foods that are considered "sta ple food". Is this a definitive list or will this 
list change? If the list may change, then under what conditions is this possible? 
The Law calls for the implementing regulation to  b e  i n  p l a c e  w i t h i n  f i v e  y e a r s .  W i l l  t h e  
Government of Indonesia publicly notify any re lated implementing regulations that might alter 
trading rights or rules in advance of adoption, so that trading partners can have the chance to comment? 
1.8  Philippines’ continuous use of reference prices applied to imports 
1.8.1  Question by: United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 70010) 
The United States of America understands that the Philippines uses reference prices to determine 
duties to apply to pork and poultry imports.  
a. Please explain the rationale and objective of using reference prices to establish applied 
import duties on pork and poultry imports.  
b. Please explain how the Philippines' use of reference prices complies with the Philippines' 
WTO customs valuation obligations.  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.9  Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO bindings 
1.9.1  Question by: New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70006) New Zealand thanks Sri Lanka for their advice in the last Commitee on Agriculture meeting that 
their tariff for milk powders was exceeding the bound tariff and further, that advice would be 
sought from Capital on steps to address this. New Zealand thanks Sri Lanka for its comments 
received in late May. New Zealand would be gratef ul for confirmation that Sri Lanka will ensure 
adherence to its WTO commitments in the revision  of its tariffs which New Zealand understands 
will be completed before or as part of the budget process in November.  
1.10  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.10.1  Question by: Canada (AG-IMS ID 70017) Canada notes that during the 26 March 2013 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture Thailand 
indicated responses to the questions on its "Paddy Pledging Scheme" were still being prepared. 
Without further delay, could Thailand please provide responses to the following questions previously posed by Canada:  
Canada has come across some information regarding a new marketing year 2012/2013 Off-
Season Paddy Pledging Program. This new programm e, though not yet finalized, is said to cost 
approximately US$6 billion for a pledging target of about 11 million metric tons of paddy rice.  
a. Could Thailand please provide additional details on this proposed programme?  
b. How will Thailand manage its domestic support commitments while providing what 
Canada assumes to be significant amounts of domestic support to producers of rice?  
1.10.2  Question by: United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 70011) 
The United States of America regrets the non-re sponse regarding questions posed at the March 
2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031 and 69032).  
The United States of America resubmits the questions and looks forward to holding a plurilateral 
meeting in advance of the June Committee on Agriculture in order to explore this issue more 
substantively.  
a. When does Thailand expect to provide upda ted Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications that 
include information regarding the paddy pledging scheme to the WTO?  
b. Thailand previously stated that official information on rice pledging scheme could be 
found on the website of the Department of Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce. The United States of America notes, however, that the Department of Internal Trade has, 
since 8 October 2012, discontinued the online publication of rice exports. The 
Government of Thailand also discontinued publishing the rice pledging programme progress report online. Please indicate when this function will be restored.  
The United States of America notes that the Bank  for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives 
(BAAC) reported revenue of 72 billion baht during 2012 from the Ministry of Commerce through sales of government-owned rice stocks. This revenue figure appears to indicate much larger sales 
than previously reported.  
a. Is this a result of significant increase in sales between September and the end of the 
year? If not, what other factors resulted in the increased revenue? 
b. Please confirm whether the Government of Thailand places any requirements or 
preferences on stocks that are released for ei ther export or domestic use. If so, when 
and how does the Government of Thailand determine if sales are for export or the domestic market? What laws or regulations oversee/implement government practices in 
this area? 
Regarding Thailand's response about its rice intervention price (G/AG/W/106, paragraph 18): G/AG/W/110 
 
- 8 - 
 
  a. Please provide more details on how the intervention price is determined, including 
information explaining the meaning of an "a ppropriate profit reflecting farmer living 
cost". 
b. In 2012, what were the total expenditures on benefits to millers?  
The United States appreciates Thailand's detailed response regarding the areas that are 
cultivated and harvested (G/AG/W/106, paragraph 20). The United States understands that high prices have encouraged farmers, particularly in irrigated areas, to shorten their growing season 
for each crop, so that multiple rice crops (using lower quality varieties) can be harvested.  
a. Please describe further the trend in the number of crops per year farmers are 
harvesting and the types/quality of rice being planted.  
b. Please provide the quantities of rice procured by variety for crop years 2011 and 2012.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 2.1.1  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/73) 
AG-IMS ID 70076: Question by: Switzerlan d - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities 
Would Thailand please provide more detail on the allocation method to obtain licenses for the 
import of coffee (under HS 0901 and 2101)? Are licenses for coffee under HS 0901 allocated 
based on historical import performance or other additional requirements? 
AG-IMS ID 70013: Question by: United States  of America - Allocation of licences to 
importing entities 
The United States of America regrets the non-re sponse regarding questions posed at the March 
2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69033 and 69034).  
The United States of America resubmits the questions and looks forward to holding a plurilateral 
meeting in advance of the June Committee on Agriculture in order to explore this issue more 
substantively. 
The United States of America welcomes Thailand's timely notification of tariff rate quota (TRQ) 
administration and imports within the TRQs. The Public Warehouse Organization (PWO) is 
designated as the administrating agency for three TRQs, according to G/AG/N/THA/73. While some trade has been notified in most of Thailand's TRQs (G/AG/N/THA/74), no trade is registered in the three TRQs – maize for feed, palm oil, and garlic – of the PWO. Thailand's feed mills use 
very large amounts of maize to supply its animal industries, which include its export-oriented 
chicken meat industry. Thailand borders Malaysia, which has a large exportable surplus of palm oil. Garlic is widely consumed in Thailand. These facts provide some basis to expect trade to 
occur, at least in some years. The questions below pertain to the administration of the TRQs by 
the PWO and the absence of in-quota imports.  
a. What is the relationship of the PWO to the Thai Government?  
b. Prior to 2013, did the PWO import products under the TRQs?  
c. Does the PWO compare internal Thai prices to prices for maize for feed, palm oil, and 
garlic available through foreign trade? If so , please provide the internal prices for 2009 
and 2010. If not, please explain what is the PWO's role in TRQ administration.  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/49) AG-IMS ID 70051: Question by: European Union – Autonomous tariff quota access The European Union would like to revert to Israel's reply to the question raised by the European 
Union at the Committee meeting of March 2013 (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69039).  
a. According to Israel's reply, the European Union understands that Israel applied 
autonomous duties for some products subject to imports under TRQs at a level lower or 
equal than the in-quota rate foreseen for these TRQs. Consequently Israel does not 
monitor whether imports are done within or outside the TRQ regime or not. Could Israel confirm this understanding?  
b. If it is correct, could Israel indicate for which products it applied a duty lower than the 
in-quota rate and at which rate the duty was applied? 
c. It would be useful for transparency reasons if Israel could indicate in future 
notifications when products are subject to these types of lower duties.  
2.2.2  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/184) 
AG-IMS ID 70068: Question by New Ze aland – Product/tariff line coverage 
Following on from New Zealand’s question in the March 2013 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture, could Japan provide further clarification on the imports under the TRQ for "other 
dairy products for general use" and "designate d dairy products for general use"? New Zealand 
notes that the tariff item numbers encompassed in the product descriptions for these two TRQs include both whey and butter.  
Could Japan please provide the tariff item number(s) to the 6 digit level (including quantities of 
each) for all of the product(s) that were imported during the period notified under the above two mentioned TRQs? 
2.2.3  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/48) 
AG-IMS ID 70014: Question by United States of America – Tariff quota fill 
The TRQ for chicken eggs, not in shell, fresh, frozen, or cooked (0408.99.1000) is reported to 
have no in-quota imports in 2011, yet trade data indicate imports of 186 kg in 2011. Please 
explain why the indicated imports were not brought in within the TRQ, but rather were imported 
outside the TRQ.  
2.2.4  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/74) 
AG-IMS ID 70077: Question by Switzerland – Tariff quota fill 
Please explain the reasons for the fill rates below 50% for the TRQs for coffee (under HS 0901 
and 2101).  
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/20) AG-IMS ID 70012: Question by United Stat es of America – Non-product-specific AMS 
The United States of America regrets the non-response regarding questions posed at the 
March 2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/109, Ag-IMS ID 69051).  
a. The United States of America notes that in G/AG/N/ARM/16/Rev.1 for 2007, there are 
two programmes (i.e., "Assistance to land users of up to 7 acres" and "Assistance for 
acquisition of nitrogen fertilizers") in Supporting Table DS:9. In Supporting Tables DS:9 G/AG/W/110 
 
- 10 - 
 
  of G/AG/N/ARM/20 for 2008 and 2009, Armenia notified "State support to the 
agricultural land users" and in 2011, Armenia notified "State support to agricultural land users in the framework of grain crops production, seed-breeding, and seed production development programmes". Is there any relation between these 
programmes? Please elaborate on how these programmes operate. 
b. The United States of America notes that from 2008 through 2011, Armenia notified 
"Supplying farmers with livestock on the condition of postponed payments, in the 
framework of the Cattle Husbandry Development Programme". Please provide further 
information regarding the terms of repayment for participating farmers, including any eligibility requirements, how long farmers have to repay the loan, and the subsidized interest rate.  
2.3.2  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/30) 
AG-IMS ID 70052: Question by European Union – General services: marketing and 
promotion services 
What expenditure is covered in the framework of "building and maintenance of central market 
facilities"? Could Brazil explain why it consid ers this spending falls under paragraph 2(f) 
marketing and promotion services?  
AG-IMS ID 70057: Question by European Unio n – Public stockholding for food security 
purposes 
Brazil notified significant increase of spending for "the programme of acquisition of agricultural 
products from family farming" as co mpared to the previous notification.  
a. What caused this increase in spending from US$46 million in 2008/09 to US$386 
million and 2009/10? 
b. Could Brazil provide recent data on the share of family farmers/low-income resource 
poor farmers in Brazilian agriculture? (please see Brazil's reply to question Ag-
IMS ID 67015 provided at the 67
th Committee on Agriculture meeting of 
September 2012) 
c. Does the expenditure notified as "Management of public stockholding programme" also 
concern the "Programme of acquisition of agricultural products from family farming"? If not, what spending is notified under "Manag ement of public stockholding programme"?  
AG-IMS ID 70001: Question by New Zealand – Public stockholding for food security 
purposes 
New Zealand notes that the payments under "Programme of acquisition of agricultural products 
from family Farming" have increased from US$46 million for 2008/2009 to US$385 million 
for 2009/2010.  
a. Can Brazil provide further information to explain this increase? 
b. Can Brazil also outline how "family farming" is defined under this programme? 
AG-IMS ID 70053: Question by Australia – Domestic food aid 
a. Brazil's expenditure under its domestic food aid programme has increased to 
US$ 1.7 billion in 2009/2010, up from just over US$ 1 billion in 2008/2009. Can Brazil please explain the reason behind the increase? 
b. Further, can Brazil please confirm if all inputs for its school lunch programme are 
supplied by domestic production only. If so, is there a legal requirement for this. Can Brazil also confirm that purchases for this programme are at market prices. G/AG/W/110 
 
- 11 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70019: Question by Canada – In vestment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture 
Canada notes that the amount of support reported as "Investment Credit" has increased from 
US$705,096 reported in 2008/2009 to US$1,443,091.1 in 2009/2010.  
a. Could Brazil please provide additional information on the reasons for this significant 
increase in support?  
b. What types of activities would be in cluded to "improve rural structure"? 
c. Could Brazil elaborate on the relative proportion of government funds versus private 
funds in the amount notified?  
d. With respect to the "acquisition of machines", what types of farms or farm 
organizations would be eligible for funds to acquire farm machinery?  
AG-IMS ID 70060: Question by European Union – Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture 
According to the notification the "funds for agricultural investments" are "government and private 
funds, directed to improve rural structure, acquisition of machines, equipment, vehicles and 
animal services". Spending on these measures si gnificantly increased compared to the previous 
notification. Could Brazil provide more details on what is included in the "animal services"?  
AG-IMS ID 70062: Question by European Union – Market price support 
a. What is the share of production of coffee an d maize which is subject to price support in 
the total domestic production?  
b. Could Brazil explain what spending is included  in the "associated fees/levies" column of 
the Supporting Table DS:5 in the case of coffee, maize and rice?  
c. Could Brazil explain why the "associated fees /levies" are deducted from the price gap 
calculation for the three products?  
AG-IMS ID 70054: Question by Austra lia – Classification of measures 
a. Can Brazil please provide advice on whether the Warranty-Crop Fund in the Supporting 
Table DS:1 is a measure under paragraph 7 or paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
b. If the payments are made under paragraph 8,  could Brazil please provide background 
advice on the natural disasters that gave rise to the significant increase in expenditure under the Warranty-Crop Fund and further details on how the measure complies with 
sub-paragraphs (a) – (e) of paragraph 8. 
2.3.3  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/96) AG-IMS ID 70061: Question by Australia – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Please provide advice on the status of the Ontario Risk Management Programme for hogs. This 
programme does not appear to be included in Canada's notification even though the publicly available information indicates that this programme does in fact cover hogs. Can Canada provide 
advice on what component of this programme is contributed through direct government funding? 
Can Canada please confirm its view that this  programme is "completely countervailable"?  
AG-IMS ID 70063: Question by European Union – Current total AMS (Amber Box) 
The Current Total AMS has decreased substantially compared to the previous year notified. What 
were the reasons for this decrease?  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 12 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70066: Question by European Union – Market price support 
Why were the quantities of butter and skimmed milk powder for further processing and for 
exports were not taken into account in the calculations?  
AG-IMS ID 70065: Question by European Union – Non-product-specific AMS 
Spending on the AgriRecovery Framework has increased from CAN$21 to CAN$416 million 
between 2009 and 2010. What is the reason behind this increase?  
2.3.4  Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/45) 
AG-IMS ID 70067: Question by European Union – Domestic food aid 
Does the retail price subsidy also concern imported goods?  
2.3.5  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/10) 
AG-IMS ID 70015: Question by United Stat es of America – Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
The United States of America notes that the European Union's notification indicates that it 
provides product-specific, trade-distorting support for olive oil, fruits and vegetables, and other 
products. The United States of America also understands that EU member States are permitted 
certain percentages of their CAP funds to be targeted at coupled policies, including for olive oil. However, it is not clear from the European Union's notification how such support has been 
captured.  
a. In order to help Members better understand the application of this policy, please 
explain how exactly coupled olive oil support is implemented in each of the major olive oil-producing member States (e.g., Italy, Spain, Greece), including any differences in 
how such support is implemented in each.  
b. Please indicate all member States that provide coupled olive oil support.  
2.3.6  Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/10) 
AG-IMS ID 70079: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Many of these exempt programmes appear to be new programmes. Georgia has not, however, 
submitted DS:2 notifications to explain thes e programmes and how they meet the exemption 
criteria. When does Georgia plan to submit its DS:2 notifications? 
AG-IMS ID 70018: Question by United States of America – General services: 
infrastructural services 
Please provide an explanation as to why machinery support is only notified every other year. 
AG-IMS ID 70078: Question by United States  of America – Direct payments: decoupled 
income support 
What are the eligibility requirements for beneficiaries under various exempt programmes notified 
including the "2007, 2008 and 2009 Harvest Suppo rt Measures", "2011 Grape harvest support", 
"Measures for Wine-making development", and "Mineral Fertilizer Provisions"?  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.3.7  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30/Rev.1, G/AG/N/IDN/34) 
AG-IMS ID 70055: Question by Australia – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia welcomes Indonesia's attempt to bring its domestic support notification up to date. Will 
any further information be provided for support programmes that may have been in force during 
the relevant periods given the absence of a number of Supporting Tables and a DS:1 table? 
AG-IMS ID 70024: Question by Canada – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada would like to note the importance and valu e of Table DS:2 notifications (new or modified 
domestic support measures exempt from reduction) to the work of the Committee. These 
notifications provide transparency and help Memb ers to better understand how support measures 
fit within the three categories that are exempt from domestic support reduction commitments. As Indonesia has to date not submitted any Table DS :2 notifications, Canada would urge Indonesia 
to submit a notification which provides more detailed information on its Green Box programmes 
and how those programmes comply with criter ia set out in Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 70056: Question by Australia – General services: extension and advisory 
services 
With regard to the notifications as tabled, Australia seeks background information on Indonesia's 
Programme on the Development of Food Self-Suf ficiency Village, in particular to better 
understand how this programme works and its policy objective. 
AG-IMS ID 70023: Question by Canada – General services: inspection services 
For "inspection services", Indonesia originally notified Rp 13.89 billion of support in 2008 
(G/AG/N/IDN/30) and the revision shows an amount of Rp 1.39 billion that represents a 
significant decrease in support. Could Indonesia please confirm that this represents a corrected decimal place error?  
AG-IMS ID 70058: Question by Australia – General services: marketing and promotion 
services 
Indonesia's expenditure on marketing and promot ion services increased markedly from 2010 to 
2011, from Rp 8.97 billion to Rp 4 622.4 billion. Can Indonesia please explain what programmes 
have been implemented to generate this increase?  
AG-IMS ID 70070: Question by European Union – General services: marketing and 
promotion services 
Spending notified under marketing and promotion se rvices increased from Rp 9 billion in 2010 to 
Rp 4,622 billion in 2011. What were the reasons for this increase? Could Indonesia provide some examples of measures notified under this paragraph?  
AG-IMS ID 70027: Question by United States  of America – General services: marketing 
and promotion services 
Marketing and promotion expenditures (in Supporting Table DS:1, under general services) 
peaked in 2004 (G/AG/N/IDN/30) and 2011 (G/AG/N/IDN/34). How were the funds used in these 
years?  
AG-IMS ID 70025: Question by United Stat es of America – General services: other 
In the years covered by both notifications, what programmes has Indonesia administered that 
subsidize loans taken out by farm producers (for instance, the Kredit Ketahanan Pangan—Food 
Security Credit)?  
a. What was the amount of government spending to subsidize the loans? How many 
farmers received the loans?  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 14 - 
 
  b. Have any of the loans been forgiven?  
c. Please indicate how such measures are accounted for in Indonesia's recent 
notifications. 
AG-IMS ID 70020: Question by Canada – Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
In notification year 2004, Indonesia originally reported (G/AG/N/IND/30) that Rp 2,422 billion 
was provided for Public Stockholding for food security purposes (Reserve stock for emergency and price stabilization purposes) but in the revise d notification, that amount has gone down to 
zero. Could Indonesia please explain this change to its notification?  
AG-IMS ID 70026: Question by Canada – Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
In Supporting Table DS:1, Indonesia notifies significant increases in support for measures 
classified as "public stockholding for food security purposes". Support has more than tripled from 
2008 (Rp 697.83 billion) to 2011 (Rp 2,160.10 billion) and shown considerable variability year on 
year.  
a. Could Indonesia provide more information as to how this measure meets the all of the 
criteria of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Is it correct to assume that stocks acquired for this programme were procured at 
market prices, given that there is no reported accounting for the difference between 
the acquisition price and the external reference price in the AMS? 
AG-IMS ID 70003: Question by Japan – Public  stockholding for food security purposes 
Could Indonesia explain why the figures for the public stockholding between 2009 and 2011 were 
substantially higher than those before 2007?  
AG-IMS ID 70031: Question by United States of America – Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
a. Indonesia notified Rp 2,422 billion in public stockholding for food security in 
G/AG/N/IDN/30 for 2004, but that amount was reduced to zero in 
G/AG/N/IDN/30/Rev.1. Please explain this change in notified expenditures. 
b. Indonesia's notified food security policies varied significantly both in terms of 
expenditures and apparent methodology across notifications since 2000. Please explain 
the changes in Indonesia's food security policies across these notifications that warranted the changes in how support was notified. Specifically, please address the notification of an administered price in only one year and whether Indonesia had any 
public stockholding policy in 2001-04. 
c. What is Indonesia's process to establish the pre-determined targets (published) for 
reserve stocks for emergency situations and where are these targets published? How 
do these compare to actual stocks? 
d. Please clarify for the notified years what percentage of stocks are procured for 
emergency situation compared to price stabilizing objectives. 
AG-IMS ID 70028: Question by Canada – Domestic food aid 
The RASKIN (Rice for the poor) programme has grown in terms of monetary support by more 
than 25% from 2009 to 2011.  
a. Could Indonesia please explain what accounts for this increase, and whether this 
upward trend will continue?  
b. Could Indonesia confirm that, as outlined in Paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, food purchases related to th is measure were made at market prices?  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 15 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70004: Question by Japan – Domestic food aid 
Could Indonesia kindly explain why the figures for the domestic food aid between 2009 and 2011 
were substantially higher than those before 2007?  
AG-IMS ID 70022: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
The 2007 figure for "payments for relief from natural disasters" is more than 50% higher than 
the figure reported in the original notification  (G/AG/N/IDN/30) [Rp 136.61 billion compared to 
89.79 billion]. Could Indonesia please expl ain the cause of this major discrepancy?  
AG-IMS ID 70029: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Regarding the measures classified as paym ents for relief from natural disasters:  
a. Could Indonesia provide more information as to how the programme operates? More 
specifically, are payments made directly or by way of government financial participation in crop insurance schemes?  
b. Are payments made on a monetary basis or by a provision of rice? 
As there has been a notified monetary value of support for this measure for every year from 
2002-2011, could Indonesia explain what conditions must be met for payments for relief from 
natural disasters to be dispersed?  
AG-IMS ID 70071: Question by European Union – Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters 
Could Indonesia provide further details concerning the measure "Rice for relief to support people 
who suffered from natural calamities and IDPs" no tified under "Payments for relief from natural 
disasters"? 
AG-IMS ID 70059: Question by Australia – Input subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Australia notes that Indonesia's expenditure on its fertilizer subsidy and seed subsidy under the 
heading input subsidies generally available to low-income or resource-poor producers both 
increased markedly from 2004 to 2010, but with decreases in both for 2011. Could Indonesia 
provide advice on the increase and subsequent decrease in expenditure levels on these programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 70021: Question by Canada – Input subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
In the revised notification "input subsidies generally available to low-income or resource-poor 
producers" are 15% to 43% lower than in the original notification (G/AG/N/IDN/30). Could 
Indonesia please explain what accounted for a downward revision of Supporting Table DS:2 totals 
for each year?  
AG-IMS ID 70069: Question by European  Union – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The European Union notes that this revision of notification G/AG/N/IDN/30, apart from revised 
numbers, also contains a different presentation of the "Input subsidies generally available to low-income or resource-poor producers" in Supportin g Table DS:2. This spending has been broken 
down to a "fertilizer subsidy" and a "seed subsidy" instead of previous notification under "Farming 
input assistance programme". More detail in presentation of spending in notifications is always appreciated.  
Following this change, the European Union would be interested to understand whether the 
fertiliser and seed subsidies are still granted in the form of short-term loans as was explained under the "Farming input assistance programme" in notification G/AG/N/IDN/30? G/AG/W/110 
 
- 16 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70035: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America appreciates Indonesia's breakout of fertilizer and seed subsidies 
under its Farming Input Assistance Program. The Un ited States of America notes that the notified 
levels of expenditures are considerably less than those notified in G/AG/N/IDN/30. The United 
States of America also notes the description in G/AG/N/IDN/30 includes "….the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, and facilities". What was the cause for this decrease in notified expenditures 
and is this reduction related to the exclusion of facilities subsidies?  
2.3.8  Malawi (G/AG/N/MWI/4) 
AG-IMS ID 70039: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America greatly appreciates Malawi updating its domestic support 
notifications.  
a. Please provide separate breakouts for fertilizer and seed subsidies which are reported 
in aggregate in the notification.  
b. Please provide guidance as to how Malawi's policy defines "low-income or 
resource-poor producers". 
2.3.9  Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/2) 
AG-IMS ID 70030: Question by Canada – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
Canada would like to thank Mali for submitting its first domestic support notification to the 
Committee on Agriculture. Canada notes that there was a substantial increase in environmental 
programme payments from 2006 to 2007 where the amounts went from CFAF 10,465,500,000 to CFAF 76,483,950,000. Could Mali please provide more information on this increase in payments?  
2.3.10  Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MOL/4) 
AG-IMS ID 70043: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America resubmits questions to Moldova for which it did not receive 
responses at the March 2013 Committee meeting.  
a. The United States of America notes that domestic support measures generally were 
notified either for a single year  or over only a few years.  
 Is it correct that Moldova's programmes notified here are not based on 
permanent, long-term legislation? If not,  please provide a brief overview of the 
agricultural policy structure in Moldova.  
 When will Moldova be notifying for more recent years?  
AG-IMS ID 70041: Question by United Stat es of America – Direct payments: other 
The United States of America notes that Moldova first notified "Support and credit stimulation 
fund for agricultural producers" outlays in 2002.  Was this programme first implemented in 2002? 
Please provide additional information on the operation of this programme. 
AG-IMS ID 70044: Question by United St ates of America – Market price support 
The state reserve for wheat was notified by Moldova for only 2001.  
a. What is the objective of the state reserve?  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 17 - 
 
  b. Does Moldova still maintain state reserves for wheat even though no purchases were 
made in 2002-2004?  
AG-IMS ID 70045: Question by United Stat es of America – Non-product-specific AMS 
Moldova notified "Control on selection and reproduction in zoo techniques" in 2004. Please 
describe what this programme entails and what is meant by "zoo techniques". 
2.3.11  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/69/Rev.1) 
AG-IMS ID 70032: Question by Canada  – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Notification G/AG/N/NOR/69/Rev.1 amends product-specific support in respect of beef, sheep and 
pork and accordingly includes a modified Current Total AMS amount in the Table DS:1. For beef, the product specific equivalent measurement of support was reported as NKr 95.4 million in G/AG/N/NOR/69 but was revised to NKr 111.9 million in the revised notification. Under 
Supporting Table DS:8 the notification indicates that the amount reported under the transport 
subsidy changed from NKr 49.2 million to NKr 64. 7 million. Could Norway please explain what 
accounted for the increase in transport subsidies reported for beef?  
AG-IMS ID 70072: Question by European Union – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
The revised notification includes some changes concerning the figures for transport subsidies for 
meat. What are the reasons behind the modified support figures in respect of beef, sheep and 
pork in Supporting Tables DS:4, DS:7 and DS:8?  
2.3.12  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/21) 
AG-IMS ID 70049: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In previous notifications for Supporting Table DS :1, Paraguay usually notes the type of currency 
used.  
a. Please explain the type of currency noted in Supporting Table DS:1. 
b. There were a total of 7 programmes in 2010, totalling approximately US$52 million. In 
2011, there were 20 programmes reported, valued at approximately US$93 million.  
 If the Supporting Table DS:1 table is reported in US$, could Paraguay explain 
the large difference in total value of the programmes from 2010 to 2011?  
 When does Paraguay plan to submit a DS:2 notification to explain its new 
measures, specifically environmental programmes or other programmes added to existing measures? 
 When does Paraguay plan to publish its Table DS:1 showing the Current 
Total AMS? 
2.3.13  Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/42) 
AG-IMS ID 70034: Question by Canada – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada appreciates the Philippines including a descrip tion of all the measures that fall under the 
various measure types, as well as the amounts provided in the years reported as an attachment 
to their DS:1 notification. However, the Philippi nes has not provided any DS:2 notifications that 
provide Members with information necessary to understand how the measures comply with the criteria in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agricult ure. Such information includes the eligibility 
criteria of these programmes and details of how these measures meet the criteria in Annex 2, 
and the period of application. In future, could the Philippines please provide DS:2 notifications 
explaining the measures notified?  G/AG/W/110 
 
- 18 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70033: Question by Canada – Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Could the Philippines please explain why there was a substantial increase in spending under the 
measure "production and market infrastructure, including construction, rehabilitation and repair of irrigation and drainage systems, slaughte rhouses, solar dryers and food terminals"?  
This support increased from ₱5,644 million in 2005 to ₱18,138 million in 2010. Much of this 
support seems to be attributed to increases in irrigation projects. Could the Philippines please provide more information on these initiatives including what types of projects were supported 
and what were the eligibility criteria for project funding? 
AG-IMS ID 70005: Question by Japan – Public  stockholding for food security purposes 
With regard to the public stockholding in the Supporting Table DS:1, why has the figure for the 
programme in 2010 substantially increased in recent years (the figure in 2010 is 17 times as high 
as that of 2004)?  
AG-IMS ID 70046: Question by United States of America – Public st ockholding for food 
security purposes 
The United States of America appreciates the attachments to Supporting Tables DS:1, which 
provide details on the Green Box expenditures by  the Philippines. Such additional information 
greatly improves the transparency of domestic support notifications. The United States of 
America acknowledges the engagement on this topic since January 2013 and will appreciate a 
deeper understanding of the Philippine notification in this broader context. To this extent the U.S. 
looks forward to a plurilateral gathering in advance of the June Committee on Agriculture to explore the questions on the details of the Ph ilippines Domestic Support tables, including the 
questions outlined below.  
a. The United States of America notes that the notified values for public stockholding for 
food security purposes increased significantly after 2007.  
 For purposes of greater transparency and understanding the Philippines public 
stockholding policies, please provide an explanation of what expenditures are included in the aggregated notified values. 
 Please provide a breakdown by year of these (sub-category) expenditures for the 
notified period. 
 Please explain the reason for the significant increase in expenditures, especially 
if the increase relates primarily to a specific sub-category of expenditure.  
AG-IMS ID 70064: Question by Australia – Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Australia commends the Philippines for its efforts in seeking to bring its notifications up to date, 
covering the years 2005 to 2010. Australia sees this as an important contribution to greater 
transparency in Committee on Agriculture.  
Australia requests that the Philippines confirm the basis on which its crop insurance programme 
is notified in under the Green Box. In particular: 
a. Can the Philippines indicate whether this programme is product specific and whether or 
not it includes direct payments to producers?  
b. What natural disasters were declared to trigger these payments? 
c. Can the Philippines provide details to confirm there was a production loss of 30% of the 
average production for the three preceding years. 
d. Can the Philippines confirm that the payment in question was no more than the total 
cost of replacing losses and was not conditional on a specific type or quantity of future 
production? G/AG/W/110 
 
- 19 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70074: Question by European Union – Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters 
Could the Philippines explain how the crop insurance premium subsidy operates?  
AG-IMS ID 70036: Question by Canada – In vestment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture 
In 2005, payments under soft-loans and grants for agricultural investment equalled 
₱1,357 million; this amount climbed to a high of ₱6,958 million in 2009 and then fell again to 
₱4,081 million. These payments include the provisions  of loans and grants for irrigation and farm 
infrastructure support.  
a. Which agricultural sectors have benefited from this type of support?  
b. How much of these payments under soft loan s were allocated to grants for irrigation? 
AG-IMS ID 70037: Question by Canada – Input subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Could the Philippines please explain the large increase in payments under the "Provision of access 
to farm inputs"? The highest reported amount was ₱7,736 million in 2009, up from ₱1,232 million 
in 2005. In 2010 payments remained high at ₱3,238 million.  
AG-IMS ID 70047: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America notes the Philippines provides input subsidies to low-income 
resource-poor producers for seeds, planting materials, fertilizers, and animal stocks.  
a. Please provide data on input subsidies by type (i.e., seeds, fertilizers, planting 
materials, etc…). 
b. How are these input subsidies implemented? 
AG-IMS ID 70048: Question by United St ates of America – Market price support 
The United States of America notes the Philippines notifies market price support for both rice and 
corn.  
a. How is the eligible production (the quantity procured according to the footnote) 
determined?  
b. How does the procured quantity compare to the total quantity of production? 
2.3.14  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/61) 
AG-IMS ID 70050: Question by United St ates of America – Market price support 
The distinction between a "guaranteed price" and "price support" in Switzerland’s recent 
notification is not clear.  
a. In order to help Members better understand the application of this policy, please clarify 
what the two terms mean in the context of Supporting Table DS:5. 
2.3.15  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9, G/AG/N/UKR/13) 
AG-IMS ID 70038: Question by Canada – Market price support 
Canada would like to thank Ukraine for its response to questions regarding the calculation of 
market price support for sugar produced from sugar beets. However, Canada would like to 
reiterate its concern that the methodology used by Ukraine to calculate market price support 
does not conform to paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture which describes the G/AG/W/110 
 
- 20 - 
 
  methodology to calculate market price support. It is necessary that Ukraine provide calculations 
that conform to those stipulated in the Agreement on Agriculture. Only then, will it be possible for Members to give due consideration to the impact of inflation in determining the actual level of product support. Canada reiterates its request th at Ukraine provide revised notifications which 
include the accurate fixed external reference price.  
2.3.16  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/89) 
AG-IMS ID 70040: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Canada thanks the United States of America for its response to Canada's question relating to the 
reference period used under the Non-insured Cr op Disaster Assistance Program (G/AG/W/10, 
AG-IMS ID 69084). While Canada notes that the United States of America has made efforts to introduce more "stringent criteria", the reference period does not meet the criteria clearly set out in Annex 2. Canada again respectfully requests that the United States of America bring the 
programme into conformity with the clearly defined criteria, or to report the programme as 
domestic support subject to reduction commitments under Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
2.3.17  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/9) 
AG-IMS ID 70042: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
In 2012, the "Development and climate change adaptation programme" was introduced, 
US$ 2 million was provided under this environmental programme.  
a. Could Uruguay please provide more information on this programme, such as a detailed 
description of the measure and the eligibility criteria?  
b. Could Uruguay provide a Table DS:2 notification that includes this information?  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Turkey's delayed notifications  
3.1.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 70075) Could Turkey please inform the Committee when it  intends to present its delayed notifications for 
review? 
 
 
__________