G/AG/W/126  
 
16 May 2014  
(14-3007)  Page: 1/49  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE 
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 21 MARCH 20141 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/119 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
Outstanding responses will be circulated in addenda to this document as soon as they are provided 
by Members. A comprehensive version of the pr esent compilation will be issued thereafter. 
  
_______________ 
                                               
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/126 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS: ARTICLE 
18.6 .......................................................................................................................... ....... 4 
1.1   Article 18.4 of the Ag reement on Ag riculture ................................................................. 4  
1.1.1   Statement by Ca nada (AG-IMS ID 73069)  .................................................................. 4  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 5  
1.2.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73026) ............................................ 5  
1.3   Canada's proposed ch anges to tariff  schedule ................................................................ 6  
1.3.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73027) ............................................ 6  
1.4   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 8  
1.4.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 73001) ............................................................. 8  
1.4.2   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73034) ............................................ 8  
1.5   China's Cotton Domestic Su pport ................................................................................. 9  
1.5.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73035) ............................................ 9  
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS commitments ........................................................... 10 
1.6.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IMS ID 7300 2) ................................................................... 10 
1.6.2   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID  73037 ) ........................................... 11 
1.7   Ecuador's domestic purchase requ irements .................................................................. 12 
1.7.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID  73038 ) ........................................... 12 
1.8   India's market su pport price for rice ............................................................................ 12 
1.8.1   Question by Pa kistan (AG-IM S ID 73053) .................................................................. 12 
1.9   India's national food security bill ................................................................................. 13 
1.9.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID  73066 ) ........................................... 13 
1.10   India's sugar export subsidies ................................................................................... 14 
1.10.1   Question by Australia and Colombia (AG-IMS ID 73036 and AG-IMS ID 73067) ............. 14 
1.10.2   Question by Br azil (AG-IMS ID 7306 8) .................................................................... 16 
1.10.3   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 73055) ...................................................... 16 
1.11   India's wheat stocks and exports .............................................................................. 17 
1.11.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  73003) .................................................................. 17 
1.11.2   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73039) .......................................... 17 
1.12   Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork ................................ 18 
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73040) .......................................... 18 
1.13   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme ............................................................................. 19 
1.13.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  73004) .................................................................. 19 
1.13.2   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73041) .......................................... 19 
1.14   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 21 
1.14.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 73056) ...................................................... 21 
1.15   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 21 
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73042) .......................................... 21 
1.16   U.S. Farm Bill ......................................................................................................... 22 G/AG/W/126 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.1   Question by In donesia (AG-IM S ID 73043) .............................................................. 22 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 26  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 26 
2.1.1   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/2) ......................................................................... 26 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 27 
2.2.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/EC U/38) ...................................................................................... 27 
2.2.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/74) ...................................................................................... 27 
2.2.3   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TU N/44) ....................................................................................... 28 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 28 
2.3.1   Botswana (G/AG/N/BW A/19) ................................................................................... 28 
2.3.2   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/32) ......................................................................................... 28 
2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/ N/EU/10/REV.1, G/AG/N/E U/17) ............................................. 32 
2.3.4   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/45) .................................................................................. 36 
2.3.5   India (G /AG/N/IN D/7) ............................................................................................ 37 
2.3.6   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ IDN/30, G/AG/N /IDN/34) ............................................................ 38 
2.3.7   Jordan (G/AG/N/JO R/16) ........................................................................................ 39 
2.3.8   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/73) ...................................................................................... 40 
2.3.9   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UK R/18) ...................................................................................... 40 
2.3.10   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/80/REV.1, G/AG/N/USA/89/REV.1, 
G/AG/N/U SA/93) ............................................................................................................. 42 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) .................................. 44 
2.4.1   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/33) ......................................................................................... 44 
2.4.2   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/18) ............................................................................. 44 
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 46 
ANNEX 2 ....................................................................................................................... . 47 
ANNEX 3 ....................................................................................................................... . 48 
 
 
 G/AG/W/126 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture 1.1.1  Statement by Canada (AG-IMS ID 73069) The paper G/AG/W/122, which presents best practice s in notification relating to Article 18.4, is 
intended as a practical contribution to help st rengthen the review process by promoting greater 
transparency in notifications and more effective and consistent questions and answers from Members. 
Canada's interest in Article 18.4 stems from an observation that Members' notification practices 
and the resulting questions and answers relating to this issue have been rather inconsistent. At times, this has resulted in less transparency in the review process. A history of notifications and 
related questions and answers pertaining to Article 18.4 can be found in RD/AG/18/Add.1/Rev.1. 
Since last June, Canada has organized four plurilateral meetings on this issue. Members have also 
discussed the issue during three informal m eetings of the Committee on Agriculture. 
Each time Canada invited all interested Members to contact Canada and share their views. This 
resulted in several bilateral exchanges and in an expansion of participation in the plurilateral 
meetings. Canada is very pleased with the level of engagement from Members. 
In particular, Canada would like to thank the co-sponsors, as well as all Members who participated 
very constructively in consultations on this issue. 
B e f o r e  s u m m a r i z i n g  s o m e  k e y  p o i n t s ,  i t  s h o u l d  b e  u n d e r l i n e d  a t  t h e  o u t s e t  t h a t  t h e  p a p e r  i s  
without prejudice to Members' rights and obliga tions under Article 18.4 and the review process 
more broadly, including notification obligations. This is not a legal exercise. This point is made very 
explicitly in paragraph 1.2 of the paper. 
Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the paper attempt to sp ell out very clearly what Article 18.4 says and 
does not say. 
Article 18.4 does not create a right for Members to violate domestic support commitments, to 
modify such commitments or to unilaterally adjust notifications to account for the influence of excessive rates inflation. 
Rather, Article 18.4 creates space in the Committee to discuss the effects of excessive inflation on 
the ability of any Member to abide by its commitments and creates an obligation for Members to give "due consideration" to these effects in the review process. 
However, the article is entirely silent on the procedural aspects of how this process should work. 
This lack of specific guidance reinforces the value of improving Members' notifications through the 
identification of best practices. 
Regarding best practices, the co-sponsors offe r the following suggestions to Members seeking 
consideration as provided for in Article 18.4, wh ich are reflected in paragraph 3.2 and 3.3 of the 
paper: 
 submit a domestic support notification with data that has not been adjusted for inflation; 
and, 
 submit supporting documentation, which can in clude domestic support data that has been 
adjusted for inflation, as well as other inform ation pertaining to the nature and magnitude of 
inflation and demonstrating its impacts on the ability of the Member in question to abide by 
its domestic support commitments. 
Canada would encourage Members to keep these points in mind, and hope that the communication 
can serve as a useful reference document  for the future work of the Committee. 
Follow-up: Several Members including Chile, Cost a Rica, the European Union, New Zealand, 
Paraguay and Uruguay welcomed the paper noting that it had been useful in enhancing 
transparency in the Committee's work. Some Members such as Argentina, China, the European 
Union, Pakistan, Norway, and the United States of America stressed that Members should not see 
this exercise as an incentive to avoid fulfilling current obligations and implementing agriculture 
reforms. Argentina, Colombia, the European Union,  Pakistan, and the Republic of Korea supported G/AG/W/126 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Canada's view that Article 18.4 did not provide fo r Members to unilaterally adjust domestic support 
notifications. Argentina and the United States of America underlined "excessive rates of inflation" as the precondition for Members seeking recourse to Article 18.4. Considering Article 18.4 did not specifically define the word "excessive", the Unit ed States of America suggested Members to agree 
on some criteria. New Zealand, Norway, and the United States of America pointed out that the 
Committee could only consider the effects of excessi ve inflation on a Member's ability to abide by 
its AMS commitment if sufficient information was provided in its domestic support notification. 
Indonesia, supported by India, stated that inflation is unavoidable especially in developing 
countries where according to data from the World Bank or IMF the rates of inflation are higher than in developed ones. In Indonesia's view, excessive rate of inflation had undermined the implementation of government policies including th ose addressing food security issues. Like some 
previous speakers, Indonesia recognized that Me mbers had yet reached consensus on issues such 
as the meaning of "excessive rate of inflation" and "due consideration" and how "due consideration" should be reflected in Members' notifications to help Members comply with AMS 
commitments. In its view, that Article 18.4 did not provide for Members to self-adjust the 
notification, as stated by some Members, was on ly one interpretation of the Article, and there 
might be other interpretations on which further discussions were needed. As a developing Member 
who faced negative impact of inflation when complying with AMS commitment, Indonesia was 
committed to find permanent solutions for those issues. Indonesia further drew Members' attention to the non-paper proposed by G-33 on 3 October 2013 in this regard and suggested discussions be taken place in the special session of the Committee on Agriculture. Norway 
reminded Members not to read more into the pape r as it was merely a reference document for the 
Committee's future work. The paper did not contain guidelines for future work and Norway believed that discussions should continue in this respect. The Republic of Korea proposed a more 
comprehensive and fundamental approach for discussions. It highlighted the twelve notifications 
that were previously submitted that applied Article 18.4 and suggested the Committee to base its discussions on those notifications. Like Indonesia,  India made reference to the G-33 proposal and 
stated that this exercise should by no means prejudge the final decision on this issue. China 
echoed India's statement and suggested the Committee not to adopt any formal decision on this matter. In its view, the issue of excessive rate of inflation was related to the permanent solution in 
implementing the ministerial decision on food security.  
 
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes 
1.2.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73026) 
The United States of America appreciates Br azil's response to the question on Prêmio 
para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) and Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) from the January 2014 Committee on Agriculture meeting, including data on 
PEPRO (AG-IMS ID 72051). 
a. The United States of America has repeatedly requested information on the 
quantities of product shipped to specific  destinations, including both domestic 
and export destinations. The United St ates of America is disappointed that 
Brazil has not been able to compile this data to date. When specifically might 
the United States of America expect to receive this data? 
b. The United States of America notes that  much of the PEPRO data only notes 
where product may not be shipped. The Un ited States of America requests the 
PEPRO data on a similar basis as the requ ested PEP data given the similarity of 
the two programmes. In particular, please  provide data on the quantities of 
product shipped to specific destinat ions, including domestic and export 
destinations. The United States of Am erica notes Brazil's response to the 
question on PEP from the September 2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting (AG-IMS ID 71028). In that response, Brazil noted that the PEP 
programme has been suspended and is under reassessment by the government. 
c. What was the basis for the reassessment?  
d. Has the government completed its reassessm ent? If so, what did it conclude?  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 6 - 
 
  e. Given the similarity between PEP and PEPRO, was PEPRO also reassessed? If 
so, what was concluded? If not, why was this programme not reassessed?  
Answer by Brazil a. Brazil cannot estimate when the requested data will be available. 
b. At this moment, the requested information is unavailable. 
c. The programme was reassessed to address concerns regarding its control mechanism, in 
order to prevent irregularities. 
d. The reassessment is still in progress, and the programme remains suspended. 
e. No, because under the PEPRO the subsidy is pa id directly to the producers (requiring a 
simpler control mechanism), and not indirectly to processors/traders as is the case under the PEP. 
Follow-up : The United States of America expressed disappointment with Brazil's continued failure 
to provide the requested data. As PEP was suspende d, PEPRO remained of interest to the United 
States of America. The United States of America was also interested in the trade trends of some 
agriculture products such as feed grains. The Eu ropean Union flagged interest and supported the 
question.  
1.3  Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule 
1.3.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73027) 
The United States of America apprecia tes Canada's response to question 
AG-IMS ID 72049 regarding an amendment to Canada's Customs Tariff Schedule 
affecting pizza food preparation products. Re cognizing that Canada did not have enough 
time to prepare a complete response to U.S.  questions, the United States of America 
repeats the following questions from January: 
a. Please provide information on historical imports of the product(s) affected by 
Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16 (referenced in AG-IMS 72049), and what the impact of the Parliamentary motion has been on imports of these products. 
b. B y  u s i n g  a n  e f f e c t i v e  d a t e  t h a t  i s  r e troactive, the measure appears to have 
already impacted trade negatively withou t any stakeholders' input. What is the 
purpose, if any, for using a retroactive date? What is the intended effect of 
retroactive implementation? 
c. Is Canada currently enforcing Supplemen tary Note 2 to Chapter 16? If yes, 
please describe how it is being enforc ed, i.e., how is Canada verifying the 
separate classification of the componen ts of a food preparation in instances 
where the components are comingled or mixed together? If it is not yet 
enforcing the measure, please describe whether and how it intends to enforce 
Supplementary Note 2. 
d. In 2013, the Canada Border Services Agency revoked Tariff Classification 
Advance Ruling No. 218973 (an advanced ruling on a certain pizza topping product) citing Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16. The United States of America understands that Supplementary Note 2 was not effective at the time 
of the revocation of Advance Ruling No . 218973. Please explain the legal basis 
and provide a list of all relevant measur es regarding the revocation of this 
advance ruling. Please also explain th e legal basis for revoking the advance 
ruling prior to the effective date of the Supplementary Note. 
e. Are importers now subject to increased tariffs as a result of Supplementary 
Note 2 to Chapter 16? Has any importer appealed or sought further review G/AG/W/126 
 
- 7 - 
 
  within Canada of the classification dete rmination that resulted in the higher 
tariffs? Please provide details on the application of the higher tariff rate on affected products, including the prod ucts covered and volume of trade 
concerned. 
f. Are there any further proposals to amend Canada's tariff schedule in a similar 
manner in the area of food preparations or other goods? If the answer is yes, 
please identify and describe in detail those proposals. Are there any proposals 
to amend the supplementary notes of any other chapter of Canada's tariff 
schedule to target cheese and/or dairy products in a similar fashion? If the 
answer is yes, please identify an d describe in detail those proposals. 
g. U.S. traders have raised concerns with  the timing of the application of the 
measure. Would Canada consider revo king or delaying application of 
Supplementary Note 2? 
Additionally, the United States of Americ a requests a response to the following 
questions. 
h. The House of Commons Budget 2014 dated 11 February 2014 confirms the 
Canadian Government's intention to proceed with the Ways and Means motion 
to amend Canada's Customs Tariff Sche dule to add a supplementary note to 
Chapter 16. What are the specific legislat ive steps required to give the motion 
measure legal effect and when does Cana da anticipate initiating those steps? 
i. Canada Border Services Agency i ssued Customs Notice 13-021 as of 
29 November 2013, stating "the Canada Bo rder Services Agency (CBSA) wishes 
to advise of an amendment to the Depa rtmental Consolidation of the Customs 
Tariff effective November 29, 2013". The No tice contains the same language as 
the Ways and Means motion to add the supplementary note. The Notice further 
directs traders to "an amended version of the Departmental Consolidation of 
the Customs Tariff, reflecting this chan ge" on the CBSA Web site. What legal 
effect does CBSA Customs Notice 13-021 have? What legal effect does the 
amended Customs Tariff schedule of Canada have? 
Answer by Canada It is impossible to single out specific products in Canada's trade statistics for any given tariff 
item and, in any case, it is too early to determine how the measure in question will impact 
trade in affected products. Changes to trade patterns in the future could be influenced by various factors. As such, it is impossible to assess the impact of the measure. This measure 
was not implemented on a retroactive basis.  
The measure was introduced through the tabling of a Notice of Ways and Means Motion on 
22 November 2013 with an effective date of 29 November 2013. The tabling of a Notice of 
Ways and Means Motion is a standard parliamentary procedure to give effect to domestic 
taxation changes prior to such time that formal legislation can be brought forward. Parliamentary convention dictates that taxation proposals are effective as soon as the government tables a Notice of a Ways and Means Motion, even though the government's 
taxation plans have not yet been officially adopted by way of legislation. In this regard, it is 
the long-standing practice of Canadian governments to put tax measures into effect as soon as the Notice of the Ways and Means Motions on which they are based are tabled in the 
House of Commons, with the result that taxes are collected as of the date of this notice (or 
an alternate date specified therein). In this particular case, there was a limited gap between the tabling of the Notice of Ways and Means and its effective date, in order to discourage 
further circumvention of the law (whereby ce rtain goods were packaged in a specific, 
deliberate manner solely to circumvent Canada's tariff structure), but also to ensure that goods in transit were not impacted.  
The government's 2014 federal budget, tabled in the House of Commons on 
11 February 2014, reiterated the government's intention to modify the Customs Tariff G/AG/W/126 
 
- 8 - 
 
  through the addition of a new Supplementary Note to Chapter 16, to formally codify the 
Notice of Ways and Means Motion tabled on 22 November 2013. Generally, legislative amendments are made through legislation, which must be adopted by Parliament. The legislation is introduced and then debated by both the House of Commons and the Senate. 
Once the legislation has been passed by both chambers, it is presented for Royal Assent, 
after which it becomes law. The specific legislative vehicle for implementing this amendment has yet to be confirmed. Canada can provide more details as they become available.  
Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16 of Canada's Customs Tariff clarifies that the individual 
components of certain food preparations that include cheese are to be classified separately, regardless of their packaging, in order to ensure consistent application of the law. Specifically, this clarification addresses a gap whereby certain imported goods were 
packaged in a specific, deliberate manner solely to circumvent Canada's tariff structure 
(e.g. significant imports of a "pizza topping s" product containing 79% shredded mozzarella 
cheese and 21% sliced pepperoni, packaged toge ther in a single plastic bag and separated 
by a sheet of wax paper to qualify as a "food preparation" in Chapter 16). All rates of duty in 
Canada's Customs Tariff remain unchanged. No other such proposals are being considered at this time. 
Follow-up : Supported by New Zealand, the United States of America questioned Canada’s 
statement that the measure was not implemented on a retroactive basis. The United States was 
concerned that stakeholders’ input was not taken into account. The United States of America disagreed with Canada's assertion that some packaging practices circumvented Canada's the tariff 
structure and considered these practices reflected the incentives created by Canada's TRQs. New 
Zealand flagged the concern that  the move to amend Canada's customs tariff schedule to add a 
supplementary note affecting certain commercial "food preparations" would impose a new 
prohibitively high tariff on what was previously zero duty rate. 
 1.4  Canada's dairy policies 
1.4.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 73001) 
In February, the Canadian Dairy Commission  released programme guidelines for the 
Planned Export Program for Cheese (PEPC). Th e purpose of the programme is described 
as a mechanism to "encourage and support Canadian cheese manufacturers and 
exporters in developing long term export  markets for Canadian cheese". Given that 
Canada uses nearly its entire export subsidy revenue outlays for "incorporated products" and "other milk products" each ye ar, could Canada please indicate whether 
this will have an effect on other existing  export programmes that use special milk 
Class 5(d) permits? 
Answer by Canada 
The use of export subsidies for dairy products in terms of budgetary outlays and quantity is 
consistent with Canada's WTO rights and obligations. In 2010-2011, Canada used 100% of its annual outlay commitment levels for skim milk powder, other milk products and incorporated products, while it was not fully utilized for cheese and butter. Canada remains 
committed to its WTO rights and obligations and as such will operate the Planned Export 
Program for cheese in a way to ensure these commitments are met. 
1.4.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73034) 
The United States of America is concerned at  the proliferation of Canada's special milk 
pricing classes, which now include 39 differe nt classes. Domestic food and industry 
processors appear to receive a special milk cl ass permit to purchase dairy inputs at a 
subsidized price, predicated on a declarat ion that a competitive like-product has been 
imported into Canada. These special milk prices  range from whey used in animal feed to 
cheese used in the manufacturing of further processed products, such as frozen pizzas. 
These products are produced using the heavily  discounted dairy inputs and are then sold 
in domestic and foreign markets. The United  States of America has noticed increasing 
discrepancies between the export numbers pu blished by the Canadian Dairy Commission 
and the export numbers supplied by Statisti cs Canada in Canada's export subsidy G/AG/W/126 
 
- 9 - 
 
  notifications to the WTO Committee on Agriculture, in particular with regard to exports 
of cheese. Please explain th ese discrepancies and how the dairy export subsidies in 
Canada's notifications are calculated.  
Answer by Canada 
The use of export subsidies for dairy products in terms of budgetary outlays and quantity is 
consistent with Canada's WTO rights and obligations. In 2010-2011, Canada used 100% of its annual outlay commitment levels for skim milk powder, other milk products and 
incorporated products, while it was not full y utilized for cheese and butter. Discrepancies 
between Canada's export subsidy notifications and trade statistics can be explained by the 
use of different data sources. Volumes of subs idized exports are reported by the Canadian 
Dairy Commission, whereas total exports are reported by Statistics Canada. Statistics 
Canada may revise its data up to four years after they were initially reported. Canada's total 
exports also include exports of dairy products made from milk and/or other dairy ingredients 
imported under re-export programmes, such as the Import for Re-Export Program (IREP), 
and other exports that do not benefit from export subsidies.  
Follow-up : New Zealand welcomed the assurance that Canada would continue to remain within its 
export subsidy commitments, particularly since the new planned export programme for cheese 
appeared to apply to products for which Canada used nearly its entire export subsidy revenue 
outlays. New Zealand therefore continued to take an interest in this programme and whether it 
would have an effect on other existing export programmes that used special milk class 5(d) permits. New Zealand was also interested in th e increasing discrepancies between the export 
numbers of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the export numbers supplied by Statistics Canada 
in the export notifications, which was noted by the United States of America in its question. The United States of America flagged interest. The European Union continued to be concerned in the 
operation of Canadian milk classes in general.  
 1.5  China's Cotton Domestic Support 
1.5.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73035) 
Is China in a position to respond to the questions asked by the United States of America 
in AG-IMS ID 72052 regarding China's cotton support programme?  
a. China noted in its last response that it would be notifying domestic support 
shortly. Please provide an update on th e intended timeframe for China to notify 
domestic support notifications for recent  years, in particular for years when 
cotton price support was applied.  
b. Please provide the Committee with specific information from its official 
website(s) on various subsidy meas ures associated with price support, 
including the legal mechanisms by whic h they are implemented, as well as 
updated data on the accumulation, maintenance, and distribution of cotton 
stocks since the program's inception?  
c. The United States of America requests that China provide the Committee with a 
brief summary of China's analysis on the economic impact and effects of 
China's management of its sizable dome stic cotton stocks on the world cotton 
market, taking into account the large role China plays in both global supply and demand of cotton.  
Answer by China 
a. Chinese government is preparing the notification for the years of 2009 and 2010. China 
is finalizing the notification by asking various agencies to review and confirm the numbers. 
Due to the huge amount of data and the invo lvement of over 10 departments and agencies, 
China needs some time to guarantee the accuracy  of the notification. When the notification 
is ready, China will send it to the Committee without further delay. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 10 - 
 
  b. All information regarding cotton reserve can be found on the website of National 
Development and Reform Commission. The legal documents for the mechanism are Notice No.5 issued in 2011, No. 3 in 2012 and No. 20 in 2013. In 2011, the purchase price of cotton reserve was 19,800 RMB per tonne. In 2012 and 2013, due to the increase of market 
price, the purchase price increased to 20,400 RMB. The purchase, maintenance and 
distribution of the reserve are carried out by China National Cotton Reserves Corporation. The company buys and sells cotton through open trade in the national cotton exchange. 
Profits or losses are possible depending on the fluctuating market prices. 
c. China's cotton reserve has limited impacts on the world cotton market. The government 
manages the reserve to safeguard farmers' interests. China purchases a certain amount of cotton and sells some old reserve every year. The purchase begins after the harvest. The 
government avoids bulk purchase within a short period of time, in order to prevent 
interrupting the market by avoiding supply sh ortage. Neither does the government dump 
large quantities of reserves on the market which would lead to price decreases.  
Since China initiated the cotton reserve mechanism, China's cotton imports have been 
steadily increasing while at the same time China has almost no exports. In 2011, China's 
cotton import was 3.4 million tonnes, which increased to 5.1 million in 2012. In 2013, China 
imported 4.1 million tonnes of cotton. The impo rt price stayed around US$2 to US$3 per kilo 
for all those years. China's trade is not interrupted by the reserve mechanism and China does not export cotton to distort international supply. 
From a world outlook, China also does not see any major impacts caused by China's cotton 
reserve. According to the cotton report issued by USTR in March 2014, the world cotton 
production remains at around 26 million tonnes while the world consumption maintains at around 23 million tonnes in the recent years. Chinese national consumption stayed at 
around 8 million tonnes. The world price slowly increased without much fluctuation. China is 
not convinced that China's reserve polices have major and direct economic impacts on the world cotton production, consumption, or prices and therefore does not consider that these 
is an impact on the world market.  
Annex 1 contains a monthly chart of average cotton prices in two years. 
Follow-up : The European Union looked forward to receiving China’s upcoming notification. 
 
1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.6.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 73002) At the last meeting of the Committee on Agricu lture, Costa Rica indicated that the date 
of the elimination of the price support mechan ism for rice is postponed to 1 March 2015, 
as the rice sector needs more time to finaliz e its definition of the alternative mechanism 
that is to replace the current price support mechanism. Canada takes this opportunity to 
again thank Costa Rica for its commitment to  transparency and willingness to engage 
openly with Members.   
a. Could Costa Rica provide an update on the progress made so far in developing 
and defining an alternative mechanis m that would bring Costa Rica in 
compliance with its domestic support commitments? 
b. Could Costa Rica inform this Committee of the options currently under 
consideration? 
Answer by Costa Rica Costa Rica will be able to provide details regarding the alternative mechanism once it has 
been defined. Costa Rica will notify the Committee in due course, as it has always done in 
the WTO. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.6.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73037) 
The United States of America thanks Costa Ri ca for regularly updating this Committee on 
its rice policies over the past several years during which time Costa Rica has notified an 
Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) in excess of its bound commitments. The 
United States of America appreciates the transparency provided  in Costa Rica's 
notification G/AG/GEN/116, but is disappointe d to learn that the elimination of Costa 
Rica's price support mechanism for rice has been postponed until 1 March 2015. It is the 
U.S. understanding that Costa Rica's Law 8285, which established the National Rice 
Corporation (CONARROZ), allows the Minister  of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) and 
the Minister of Economy, Industry an d Commerce (MEIC) representation on 
CONARROZ's General Assembly and Board of Di rectors. The United States of America 
also notes the leading role the General A ssembly and Board of Directors takes in 
CONARROZ's policy creation, approval, and implementation. Article 7 of Law 8285 and 
its Regulations states that CONARROZ "shall suggest the price of rough rice and its 
byproducts to the MEIC with the financia l value the agro-industrialist must pay to 
producers, as well as the prices consumers must pay for milled rice". The United States 
of America also understands from Article 20,  paragraph o that a responsibility of the 
Board of Directors is to "approve, the reco mmendation for chaff and milled price prices 
through technical studies, which shall be notified to the MEIC". 
a. Please describe in more detail the ro le of the CONARROZ's General Assembly 
and Board of Directors in price determination. 
b. Will these policies continue after the adoption of Executive Decree 
No. 38093-MEIC in March 1, 2015? With respect to the alternative mechanism that the United States of America underst ands is to be introduced, the United 
States of America repeats two qu estions asked in September 2013 
(AG-IMS ID 71030) and in January 2014 (AG-IMS ID 72050):  
i. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system?  
ii. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for 
notifying them to the WTO?  
Answer by Costa Rica The role played by the Governing Board of  the National Rice Growers Corporation 
(CONARROZ) in setting the price of rice is limited to making a non-binding recommendation 
to the Ministry of the Economy, Industry an d Trade. The General Assembly of CONARROZ, 
which brings together all producers and industrialists in the sector, does not take part as 
such in the recommendation formulation process. 
Pursuant to Law No. 7472 on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer 
Protection and its implementing regulations, the authority to set the price of rice lies solely 
with the Executive, and specifically the Minist ry of the Economy, Industry and Trade, which 
is under no obligation to endorse the recommendation made by CONARROZ. 
Executive Decree No. 38093-MEIC stipulates that  the current rice pricing scheme will be 
abolished as of 1 March 2015, which is the date set for completion of the definition of the 
alternative mechanism. This will not involve any changes to the application of Laws 
Nos. 8285 (creation of CONARROZ) and 7472 (Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection). 
i. and ii. See answer to AG-IMS ID 73002. 
Follow-up : Canada, the United States of America and Uruguay thanked Costa Rica for the 
transparency provided. The United States of America stressed the importance of this issue in which 
a Member had been breaching its commitments over  a number of years. Pakistan registered its 
concern. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.7  Ecuador's domestic purchase requirements  
1.7.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73038) 
Industry reports that the government of Ecuador is requiring importers to source a 
specified percentage of products domestic ally, based on agreements signed between 
Ecuador's Ministry of Agriculture, Mi nistry of Industries, and importers. 
a. Please explain the legal basis for thes e new domestic purchase requirements 
and how they are consistent with Ecuador's WTO obligations. 
b. Does Ecuador intend to submit notifications to the WTO related to market 
arrangements for agricultural products that include procurement of a domestic 
product as a requisite for importing?  
Answer by Ecuador 
As regards the first question of the United States of America, Ecuador does not request 
importers – specifically – to source a percentage of products domestically. What Ecuador is driving and promoting is a change to its production matrix based for the most part on the 
development of human knowledge and talent. 
There is no law, regulation or stipulation requiring importers or domestic traders to purchase 
a percentage of products domestically. The sign ed agreements to which the United States of 
America refers are technical cooperation agreements drawn up at the wish and request of 
the import/production sectors themselves that have a vested interest in the national production promotion policy and are seeking ac tivities to improve the production chain. 
In order to be implemented, these produc tion promotion agreements, which are fully 
consistent with the WTO provisions, require - given Ecuador's production structure - the 
import of capital goods and inputs. The conditions of competition for imports are thus not in any way affected. 
Moreover, these agreements are open to any in terested production sector, which means that 
there is no discrimination regarding their a pproval, and they are not contingent upon 
meeting performance or absorption of domestic production requirements. 
Follow-up : Canada flagged its interest.  
1.8  India's market support price for rice 
1.8.1  Question by Pakistan (AG-IMS ID 73053) Pakistan appreciates the response provided by India regarding exports of rice in the last 
two years (AG-IMS ID 72059). It appears that  Indian rice exports increased 41% from 
year 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. The export s of non-Basmati increased by 67%. 
Based on the information available on the we bsite of Food Corporation of India (FCI) 
regarding support price (US$338 per tonne, 1 US dollar equals to 47.91 Indian rupees 
for 2011-2012 and US$344.3 per tonne, 1 US dollar equals 54.45 Indian rupees for 
2012-2013) for paddy common rice, it appears th at during the same period there was an 
increase of 24% in the rice MPS (Market pric e support) on the basis of procured quantity 
as eligible production. However there was an  increase of 7.3% on the basis of total 
production as eligible production. Since Grade A rice procurement quantity was not 
available therefore MPS for paddy common rice is used for this calculation. Price of 
Grade A rice is Rs 30 per quintal higher than common rice.
 G/AG/W/126 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Table 1. RICE AMS (only mark et price support, other produc t specific rice AMS is not 
included) (billion US$)  
Commodity   2011-12 2012-13
Calculated on the basis of procured quantity as eligible production 2.64 3.28
Calculated on the basis of total production as eligible production 7.99 8.54
Source: Indian Economic Survey 2012-13, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture 
and Cooperation, Ministry of Agricu lture India. State Bank of India. 
 
Answer by India 
India appreciates Pakistan's keen interest and efforts to help India work out its market price 
support for rice. Pakistan may like to compare the figures with India's notifications for the 
relevant years, which are under preparation. 
Follow-up : Noting that India’s last domestic support notification was submitted for 2003 and only 
6 months of 2004, Pakistan requested India to provide a timeline as regards when India would 
provide its next notification. India replied that they were working on the notification but there were 
constraints in the work.  
1.9  India's national food security bill 
1.9.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73066) 
According to India's Finance Minister, the estimate for India's food subsidy bill in 
2014-2015 is Rs 115,000 crore (US$18.8 billion; note crore = 10 million) in the interim 
budget. According to India's National Sample Survey Office the poverty gap per its latest 
Consumption Expenditure Survey is Rs 55, 744 crore (US$9.1 billion) in 2011-2012. In 
other words, the cost of India's food subsid y bill is approximately twice the amount it 
would cost to provide all below poverty households with enough cash to cross the 
poverty line. The significant cost of the food subsidy bill compared to the poverty gap in India highlights the large costs the governme nt incurs in procuring, storing, and 
distributing food grains that could otherw ise be more effectively used to alleviate 
poverty in India. The United States of Americ a understands that the Finance Minister has 
also capped the Food Corporation of India's reimbursements for costs incurred in 
operating the food subsidy programme at the aforementioned Rs 115,000 crore 
(US$18.8 billion). 
a. Besides limiting expenditures, what steps is the government of India taking to 
more efficiently implement its current policies? Further, does the 
recently-passed National Food Security  Act 2013 include any specific language 
to address these concerns?  
b. Given that the National Food Securi ty Act 2013 directly impacts measures 
reported under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, when does India plan 
to submit a DS:2 notification?  
Answer by India 
The inferences drawn by the United States of  America in the chapeau of the question are 
unwarranted. 
The National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) gives legal entitlement to distribution of 
subsidized food grains under the Targeted Pub lic Distribution System (TPDS). The TPDS is 
already operational across all the states/union territories.  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 14 - 
 
  The Act also provides for measures for reforms in TPDS. These include the following: 
 doorstep delivery of food grains to TPDS outlets; 
 application of information and communication technology tools including end-to-end 
computerisation in order to ensure transparent recording of transactions at all levels, 
and to prevent diversion; 
 leveraging ''aadhaar'' for unique identification , with biometric information of entitled 
beneficiaries for proper targetin g of benefits under this Act; 
 full transparency of records; 
 preference to public institutions or public bodies such as Panchayats, self-help groups, 
co-operatives, in licensing of fair price shops and management of fair price shops by women or their collectives; 
 diversification of commodities distributed und er the Public Distribution System over a 
period of time; 
 support to local public distribution models and grain banks; 
 introducing schemes, such as cash transfer and food coupons to the targeted 
beneficiaries in order to ensure their food grain entitlements. 
The amount mentioned in the Budget for 2014-15 are budget estimates and no cap as such 
on food subsidy has been imposed. 
Follow-up : Canada, the European Union and the United States of America requested India to 
provide a Table DS:2 notification. India responded that the notification was still under preparation. 
Pakistan was of the view that the bill provided a very big production incentive to farmers because 
all procurements were achieved at administered prices that were set by the government. Pakistan 
would like India to notify the programme proper ly according to India’s WTO commitments under 
the Agreement on Agriculture. India considered Pakistan’s concern unwarranted at this stage as 
the government had not published any information regarding how the public procurement would 
be carried out. 
1.10  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.10.1  Question by Australia and Colombia (AG-IMS ID 73036 and AG-IMS ID 73067) 
Australia understands that the Indian go vernment decided to provide incentive 
payments to Indian sugar exporters upon th e export of sugar, as per The Gazette of 
India, dated 28 February. 
a. Can India explain the legal basis for this  export subsidy, given that India has 
no scheduled export subsidy commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture? 
b. With regard to the elements of this incentive payment, can India confirm that 
the level of the payment is Indian Rupees  3300 per metric tonne of raw sugar?  
c. When did the incentive payments referenced in the Gazette commence, and 
when will they end? 
d. What is the total value of all incentive pa yments made to date on the export of 
sugar since 12 February 2014? 
e. What is the total volume of raw suga r and refined sugar exports made since 
12 February 2014 that have been subject to incentive payments? G/AG/W/126 
 
- 15 - 
 
  f. Can India provide the latest  available average cost of  production figures (on a 
per metric tonne basis) for those In dian raw sugar producers that have 
received incentive payments fo r the export of like product? 
g. For the same like product, can India provide the average domestic price (on a 
per metric tonne basis)? 
h. Part (4) of paragraph 2 of the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules, 
2014 states that the incentive payment w ill be recalculated every two months 
after March 2014 taking into account the average exchange rate of the Indian 
rupee vis-à-vis U.S. dollars. Under this bi-monthly review, is it possible for India to terminate the incentive paymen t for reasons other than movement in 
the average exchange rate?  
i. Can India provide the anticipated total value of the incentive payments over 
the expected duration of the scheme?  
j. Under the scheme, is there a maximum cap applicable to the per metric tonne 
incentive payment? 
k. In accordance with the Bali 2013 Minist erial Declaration, can India explain 
what, if any, steps it took to exercise  utmost restraint with regard to its 
decision to implement the incentive payments? 
l. Can India indicate when an export subs idy notification covering this scheme 
will be issued? 
Answer by India 
As 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, it was decided to promote product diversification in the Indian 
sugar industry by incentivizing raw sugar production, since the industry traditionally 
produces white sugar.  
The model of the Indian sugar industry is quite different from the models in many other 
countries. The sugar mills in the country neither own the sugarcane fields nor undertake 
contractual cultivation. The raw material for the sugar industry, sugarcane, is cultivated by estimated 5 million farmer families on individual land holdings which are extremely small and scattered and in general range from 0.5 to 2 hectares.  
The 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.  
c. The intervention is effective from 28 February 2014. The current incentive levels are 
expected to be reviewed before the co mmencement of 2014-15 sugar season or even 
earlier. 
d. No payment has been made under this scheme since 28 February 2014.  
e. To date no payment has been made. 
f. So far no incentive payments have been made for the exports of raw sugar. 
g. No other domestic product is comparable with this new product, raw sugar. 
h. Yes, the central government may amend or modify or discontinue the scheme at any 
time as indicated in the notification.  
i-k. The incentive budget will be reviewed from time to time.  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 16 - 
 
  l. The scheme will be covered in the notification for the relevant year, which is under 
preparation. 
1.10.2  Question by Brazil (AG-IMS ID 73068) 
Brazil is concerned with the impact in the world market and with the potential adverse 
effects to the interests of other Members caus ed by subsidized sugar exports from India. 
According to India's Official Gazette, date d 28th February 2014, raw sugar exporters 
from India are entitled to export subsidies amounting to 3,300 Rupees per metric ton for 
February and March, 2014. These subsidies w ill be subject to recalculation every two 
months taking into account the average ex change rate of the Rupee vis-à-vis the 
US Dollar. 
In this regard, Brazil would like to raise the following questions: 
a. Could India confirm whether these expo rt subsidies for sugar have been 
approved? 
b. Could India indicate the amount of expo rt subsidies it will grant in budgetary 
outlays and subsidized quantities? 
c. Given that there has been to date no legally-binding decision by the WTO to 
extend the application of Article 9.4 of  the Agreement of Agriculture, what 
would be the legal basis for the provision of these export subsidies? 
d. Could India confirm whether these subsid ies are intended to reduce marketing 
and/or transportation costs? If yes,  how the actual costs incurred in the 
marketing and/or transportation of expo rted sugar impact the provision of the 
subsidy? 
e. Could India explain:  
i. the rationale for increasing so significantly the provision of export subsidies 
for sugar; and  
ii. the steps it took to ensure complia nce with the Ministerial Declaration 
adopted in MC-9 according to which Me mbers shall exercise utmost restraint 
with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies? 
Answer by India 
See above. 
1.10.3  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 73055) 
According to media reports, Indian Cabinet of Ministers approved on 12 February 2014 
an export subsidy of Rs 3,333 per tonne for export of four million tonnes of raw sugar. 
Could India please confirm that such export subsidies have indeed been approved and if 
so confirm the budget and the quantities concerned?  
Answer by India 
See above. 
Follow-up : Converting the sugar export subsidy of Indian Rupees 3,300 per metric tonne into 
US$0.054 per kilogramme or US$0.024 per pound based on the current exchange rate, Australia 
pointed out that this export subsidy was significan t, as it equated to roughly 16% to 14% of the 
current world price based on the ICE NO.11 futures market for raw sugar which had been at around US$0.16 - 0.17 per pound over the last month. Australia was concerned about the 
possibility that domestic stocks of sugar in India were being exported into the world market with 
export subsides. In Australia’s view, as India was the world 3
rd largest exporter of sugar, this G/AG/W/126 
 
- 17 - 
 
  policy had the potential to seriously disrupt the world price for sugar, which had been already very 
low. Australia was strongly concerned that such measure would not be consistent with the recent Bali ministerial declaration to exercise the utmost restraint with regard to any forms of export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, and also constituted a breach of India's 
WTO obligations. Australia was particularly interested in a response from India to one question 
that had not been answered - the legal basis of th is export subsidy. As producers and exporters of 
sugar, Colombia, El Salvador and Paraguay shared Australia’s concern. Colombia stated that this 
subsidy not only had given rise to concern to some of Colombia’s sugar producers but also could 
have a negative impact on the world sugar market. Brazil noted that points c, d and e of their questions to India remained unanswered. Canada, the European Union, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand and the United States of America registered concern. Pakistan joined Australia and Brazil 
in demanding India to respond to unanswered questions.  
 1.11  India's wheat stocks and exports 
1.11.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 73003) 
Canada thanks India for its responses and would like to follow-up on questions posed at 
the January meeting of the Committee on Ag riculture. India confirmed that 2 million 
metric tonnes of wheat were indeed approv ed for exports in August 2013 at US$300 per 
tonne and that, in keeping with market tr ends, the base price was lowered to US$260 
per tonne. India also indicated that lowering the base price does not necessarily imply 
t h a t  p r o d u c t  w i l l  b e  s o l d  a t  t h a t  p r i c e ,  a n d  t h a t  s o  f a r ,  e x p o r t  p r i c e s  w e r e  b e t w e e n  FOB US$279.52 and US$289.90 per tonne. Canada understands that the Food Corporation of India, which according to In dia is holding stocks of 28 million metric 
tonnes as of January 2014, purchases its whea t from producers at administered prices 
through a minimum support price mechanism. 
a. Could India elaborate on the specific elements considered under the ambit of 
market trends when determining base price for wheat exports? 
b. Could India elaborate on the process wh ereby its government determines what 
volume of wheat stocks will be approv ed for export and what factors are 
considered when determining timing of the export tenders? 
c. Could India indicate what costs in additi on to those related to market trends 
are taken into consideration in determining an export price for wheat, for example, transportation costs, storage costs? 
d. Could India indicate if there is any inte ntion to approve more exports of wheat 
at the base price of US$260 per tonne once the 2 million metric tonnes have 
been exported? 
Answer by India 
a and c. See answer to AG-IMS ID 73039. b. During the current year a total quantity of 2 million tonnes has been approved for export 
from the Central Pool stocks, to be completed by 30 June 2014 and accordingly 
individual tenders are being floated. 
d. Presently there is no new proposal for export of wheat on government account. 
1.11.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73039) 
Expanding the background on the question submitted during the January Committee on 
Agriculture meeting, the United States of America notes that export tenders published 
by the state Trading Corporation of India Li mited (STC), Minerals and Metals Trading 
Company (MMTC), and Project and Equipmen t Corporation of India (PEC) between 
15 November 2013 and 23 January 2014, report the government of India tendered more 
than 1 million tonnes of wheat at prices ranging from US$278.20 - 289.90 per tonne. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Further, the Food Corporation of India has pu blished that the total economic cost of the 
acquisition and distribution of wheat in 2013/2014 was US$316.79 per tonne, well 
above the noted tender prices.  
The United States of America resubmits its January 2014 Committee on Agriculture 
question to India:  
The United States of America is concerned th at India is exporting wheat at prices well 
below acquisition costs. For example, Indi a's Commission on Agricultural Costs and 
Prices in its discussion paper no 2 estimate d that the cost of storing, handling, and 
distributing wheat purchased by the govern ment's Food Corporation of India equals 
40% of the acquisition cost. For example,  if India procured wheat in 2013/2014 at 
13,500 rupees per tonne or US$221 per tonne (US$1 = 61 rupees), the United States of 
America calculates a cost to port of US $310 per tonne. An export price of US$260 per 
tonne is well below this cost to the India government.  
a. Please provide figures on the cost to th e Indian government of wheat at export 
ports named in export tender documents published by the State Trading 
Corporation of India Limited (STC), Minerals and Metals Trading Company 
(MMTC), Project and Equipment Corporatio n of India (PEC), and any other such 
entity; broken down by acquisition c ost, storage cost, transport cost, other 
cost.  
b. Please also provide the winning bids on  wheat export tenders for MMTC, STC 
and PEC via this port.  
Answer by India 
The inferences drawn by the United States of  America in the chapeau to the resubmitted 
question are unwarranted. 
a. The acquisition cost and incidental charges for 2 million tonnes of wheat exports from 
the Central Pool stocks of FCI during 2013-2014 (December 2013 – February 2014 period) include pooled cost of grains to FCI, handling charges, gunny cost, 
administrative charges, statutory taxes and storage charges for a period of six months.  
b. Details of the bids cannot be provided because of commercial considerations. 
Follow-up: Australia, Pakistan and Ukraine shared Canada's and U.S. interest in India's export 
policies on wheat. In view of the large number of questions raised to India, the United States of 
America considered a plurilateral meeting as sugg ested by India useful to address some of the 
issues. With respect to India's notifications, the United States of America sought clarification regarding the timeline for submission. Pakistan and Ukraine supported the U.S. request. India 
clarified that it had not proposed a plurilateral meeting but would consider it based on Members' 
suggestions. India reiterated the challenges involved in the process of preparing notifications for developing countries.  
 
1.12  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.12.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73040) 
The United States of America welcomes Saint Lucia's notification of its import licensing 
procedures and the copies of the law and orde r that implement such requirements to the 
WTO Import Licensing Committee (G/LIC/N/1/LCA/4 and G/LIC/N/1/LCA/4/Corr.1). 
The United States of America notes that the External Trade Act at Section 3 (1) states 
that "The Minister may by order published in  the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating 
in the island… (b) prohibit absolutely or limit the importation of any goods if in his or 
her opinion such action is in the interest of the island and may for the same reason 
make by order any such imports subject to su ch conditions as he or she may think fit". 
Based on the External Trade Act, Section 3( 1), it appears that the domestic purchase 
requirements for chicken and pork would co nstitute "conditions" that should be 
published as an order. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. Please state whether an order establishi ng that an importer must purchase 
domestic product in order to receive an import license for chicken or pork was 
published, and if so, where. 
b. Additionally, please explain how Saint Lu cia's domestic purchase requirements 
for poultry and pork are consistent with Saint Lucia's WTO obligations, 
including Article 4.2 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture and Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994. 
c. When will Saint Lucia respond fully to the questions asked by the United States 
of America during COA meetings in September 2013 (AG-IMS 71032) and 
January 2014 (AG-IMS 72055)? 
Answer by Saint Lucia 
Saint Lucia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
1.13  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 73004) 
Canada appreciates Thailand's participation in informal consultations on this issue. 
However, Canada regrets that its questions to Thailand on its Paddy Pledging Scheme 
since the November 2012 meeting remain unanswered.  
a. Could Thailand indicate whether it intends to answer these questions in the 
near future? If so, could Thailand provide information on the timelines for providing the requested information?  
b. While the Committee is still expecting Tha iland's domestic support notifications 
for 2007 and subsequent years, could Tha iland please provide an estimate of 
government expenditures related to th e purchase of rice under the Paddy 
Pledging Scheme? 
Preliminary Answer by Thailand 
b. Under the current paddy pledging scheme, the government operates the scheme mainly 
with revolving funds in the procurement. Th e government expenditures accordingly will 
cover the payment of different rates of interests, administrative cost, and other fixed cost in 
operation. Because of the nature of the progra mme, Thailand will not be able to know the 
exact expenditure until the closing of account for each year. 
1.13.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73041) 
There have been a number of press reports regarding Thailand's rice policy recently. 
These reports have indicated that Thailand may suspend or end its current rice policy. 
a. Please provide an update on the status  of Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme. 
Please provide specific details with re gards to if and how the programme will 
be continued going forward. 
b. If the policy is being permanently elim inated, what steps, if any, is the 
government considering in order to replace it with a new policy scheme? 
The United States of America notes press repo rts indicating that in February Thailand 
tendered 600,000 tonnes of rice from govern ment stocks to exporters at an estimated 
10,000-11,000 baht (US$307-338) per tonne. In  January, Thailand reportedly tendered 
150,000 tonnes of rice at prices 7-19% belo w market prices. The United States of 
America also understands from press reports that Thailand will be seeking to sell 1 
million tonnes of rice per month. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 20 - 
 
  c. Please provide data to confirm the volume and price of these and other 
tenders. 
d. What steps will Thailand take to ensure export prices remain in line with its 
WTO commitments? 
The United States of America also resubmit s its question from the January Committee 
meeting: 
e. The United States of America notes th a t  T h a i  r i c e  p r i c e s  h a v e  d e c l i n e d  
dramatically in 2013. Further, Thaila nd has gone from the highest-priced 
supplier to one of the lowest over the past two years. In AG-IMS ID 71033, 
Thailand indicated that it was taking measures to minimize the impact on markets of its release of go vernment rice stocks. Press reports in Thailand have 
also indicated that Thailand has sol d rice at below market prices. 
i. What factors have contributed to this dramatic decline in Thailand's export 
prices? 
ii. Has Thailand evaluated whether it need s to take any additional steps to 
minimize the impact of its stock releas es on markets, including displacing 
exports of other countries due to its low prices? 
f. Press reports in Thailand note that even at these low prices, Thailand is finding 
it difficult to find buyers for its rice an d is simultaneously under pressure to sell 
stocks in order to fund its rice subsid y programme, which is currently late in 
making payments to its producers. Give n the current situation, what, if any, 
changes does Thailand plan to make to  its rice pledging scheme to address 
these concerns? 
g. Please provide an update on the following  aspects of Thailand's rice pledging 
scheme. 
i. How much rice has been procured by the government in the current crop 
year? 
ii. How much rice does Thailand curre ntly have in government stocks? 
iii. What is the current support price for rice in Thailand? 
iv. What is the support price for the upcoming rice crop year? 
h. Thailand last made a domestic suppo rt notification for the year 2007. 
Thailand's rice domestic support has und ergone several reforms since that time 
and is much different today than it was seven years ago. The United States of America notes this significant delay in no tifications and requests an update on 
when Members can expect Thailand to come into compliance with its 
notifications requirements. 
Preliminary Answer by Thailand 
On the information that the Unite States of America requested on many aspects of the 
pledging scheme, Thailand will make the best effort to gather the information. Thailand 
would also like to note that some of the information is commercially confidential under the law. 
a. The existing pledging scheme began on 1 October 2013 and ended on 
28 February 2014 except for the rice plante d in the south for which the programme 
will end on 31 July 2014. Since the disso lution of parliament in December 2013, 
the government agencies are currently functioning under the caretaker 
government. Any new programme will only be subject to the new administration. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 21 - 
 
  As for the current pledging scheme, as ex plained previously, Thailand is gathering 
information and data from the provinces and the final expenditures will be notified 
when Thailand closes the account for the scheme.  
e.  
i. In 2013 world prices of rice fell overall due to the increasing volume of rice in the 
world market, and Thai rice price was no exception. In any case, according to different statistics, Thailand's rice export volume has decreased for the past few 
years and so has Thailand's export share in the world market. When compared with 
other countries’ rice prices at the equivalent quality, Thai rice prices are still relatively high.  
Follow-up: The United States of America raised concern on press reports about Thailand selling 
730,000 tonnes of rice stocks at US$380 per tonne, which implied huge losses given the value of 
the stock per tonne was considerably higher than the sale price. The European Union and Pakistan 
shared the concern. Canada and the European Union welcomed Thailand's upcoming domestic 
support notification for 2008. Uruguay indicated interest in the issue. 
 1.14  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies 
1.14.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 73056) 
a. Given that Turkey has not submitted domest ic support (DS:1) and export subsidies 
(ES:1) notifications to the Committ ee on Agriculture since 2001 and 2000 
respectively, could Turkey please indicate when it intends to submit these overdue 
notifications to the WTO? 
 b. In the meantime, could Turkey please conf irm that since 2001 its budgetary outlays 
and eligible quantities of subsidized ex ports, including for citrus fruits, have 
remained within its commitments?  
 
c. Could Turkey please confirm that its AMS has remained since 2002 below its de 
minimis level? 
 
Answer by Turkey 
The Relevant Turkish institutions, mainly the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Food, 
Agriculture and Livestock have been working on  Turkey's overdue notifications. However, 
the process is still ongoing and has not been co mpleted yet. Therefore, Turkey will be able 
to submit the notifications only after the work is finalized. 
Follow-up : The European Union reiterated its request for Turkey to update its notifications, and 
sought Turkey' specific reply to the question on citrus fruits. The Philippines registered continued 
interest in this issue.  
1.15  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.15.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73042) 
The United States of America appreciates Turkey's response to AG-IMS ID 72057 
regarding sales of Turkish wheat flour made  from the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) wheat 
sales. 
In Turkey's response, it states that "As a le gal entity truly autonomous in its activities, 
TMO determines purchase and sale prices of pr oducts within its area of activity through 
decisions taken by the Board of Directors". 
a. Does the Board of Directors have the auth ority to operate TMO at a profit loss 
resulting from procurement prices set ab ove world prices and sales prices set 
at world prices? If so, how is the profit loss covered? G/AG/W/126 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Turkey also states that "TMO currently does not make wheat purchases as part 
of inward processing schemes". 
b. Does TMO sell wheat to domestic mills specifically for the export of flour? If so, 
please provide the volume of TMO wheat sold to millers specifically for export 
for the past three years. Please also include data listing the quantity of bran 
exported and nationalized against the inward processing system for wheat 
flour exports. 
c. Please share data for the last three ye ars listing the quantity and quality of 
wheat imported and quantity and quality of flour exported under Turkey's inward processing system.  
Answer by Turkey 
a. TMO is a fully autonomous entity in its commercial activities and the same applies to the 
responsibility of TMO's Board of Directors in its management activities. Responsibility for the management of TMO is in line with the principles specified in related legislation. As 
an autonomous entity, TMO operates both its commercial and management activities 
according to the requirements of the economy. 
b. TMO carries out both purchasing of grain directly from producers and selling of grain to 
domestic users by only taking stock adequacy, climate, production, world prices, 
domestic market conditions, profitability and efficiency into account. 
c. See Annex 2. 
Follow-up : T a k i n g  n o t e  o f  T u r k e y ' s  r e s p o n s e  t o  t h e  p r e v i o u s  q u e s t i o n  t h a t  i t  w a s  p r e p a r i n g  
outstanding notifications, the United State of America believed that those notifications might 
provide answers to some of the U.S. questions. The Russian Federation as an exporter of wheat 
and wheat flour and the Philippines expressed interest  in the issue. The European Union flagged its 
continued concern.  
1.16  U.S. Farm Bill 
1.16.1  Question by Indonesia (AG-IMS ID 73043) 
On 7 February 2014, a new Farm Bill (the Ag riculture Act of 2014) was signed into law. 
The cost of the Act is estimated at US$956 billion. The Bill is issued in an environment of 
high farm income. As one of the biggest agri culture spenders in absolute and per capita 
terms, any policy related to subsidy in the United States of America always has an 
outsized impact on global food security prospect.  
United States of America is one of Indone sia's main trading partners especially on 
agriculture. Any policy change in the United States of America will have direct influence 
on the agriculture market and on the fate of large portion of vulnerable farmers in 
Indonesia. In this regard, Indonesia would lik e to ask some preliminary questions to the 
United States of America: 
a. The Bill is estimated to cut US$8 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program or SNAP (food stamp)  by changing eligibility rules. Can the 
United States of America explain furt her the new eligibility requirements to 
receive food stamps?  
b. The Bill will end income transfer prog ramme to price support to producers. 
What are the reasons for this shifting? 
c. For eligible crops, the Bill requires U.S.  farmers to make an irrevocable choice 
between two programmes for countercyc lical price protection: Price Loss 
Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Co verage (ARC). The choice will be in 
effect for the 2014 to 2018 crop years.  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 23 - 
 
  i. Could the United States of America ex plain the eligibility criteria for the 
producers to enrol in the two schemes? 
ii. How does the Price Loss Coverage operate? 
iii. How does Agricultural Risk Coverage operate? 
iv. What is the difference between Agricultural Risk Coverage based upon 
county and individual revenue level? 
d. Relating to Price Loss Coverage, the Unit ed States of America sets "reference 
prices" for all programme crops, amon g others: wheat, corn, rice, soybean, 
other oilseeds, peanuts, dry peas, grai n sorghum, barley, oats, lentils, small 
chickpeas, large chickpeas.  
i. How are "reference prices" calculated for such products? 
ii. What elements are taken into account  in setting the "reference price"?  
iii. What is the relation between "reference prices" and market prices for the 
crops under the programme? 
iv. Will the "reference prices" be adapted? 
e. It seems that the crop insurance beco mes the foundation of the Farm Bill and 
the primary safety net for producers. The federal crop insurance programme 
makes available subsidized crop insuranc e to agriculture producers. More than 
100 crops are insurable. The Bill increases funding for crop insurance relative to baseline levels by an additional US$5.7 billion over 10 years. Could the 
United States of America explain the reason of the huge increase in crop 
insurance? 
f. The Agricultural Risk Coverage will provid e payment if actual crop revenue falls 
below established revenue guarantee.  
i. How is the threshold amount for the revenue guarantee set?  
ii. What factors are taken into account in establishing such threshold? 
iii. How are insurable yields established?  
iv. Will the production history determine the revenue guarantee threshold?  
v. Can the United States of America explain rice margin insurance?  
g. The Bill also creates a Supplemental Cove rage Option. Could the United States 
of America explain how this programme operates? 
h. The Bill will provide livestock indemnity payment to eligible producers on farms 
that have excessive livestock l osses due to adverse weather.  
i. How is the parameter of excessive losses determined? 
ii. Is there any cap to such payment? 
i. In many occasions, the United States of America advocates the importance of 
reform in agriculture by minimizing government intervention to the market. 
Could the United States of America explai n to what extent the Farm Bill reflects 
the U.S. interest in reforming trade in agriculture? G/AG/W/126 
 
- 24 - 
 
  j. Can the United States of America guar antee that the implementation of the 
Farm Bill will comply with the U.S. commitments in WTO? 
Answer by United States of America The United States of America appreciates Indone sia's interest in the Agricultural Act of 2014 
(2014 Farm Bill). The 2014 Farm Bill does make some major changes to U.S. food and farm 
policy. With respect to spending, it reduces estimated spending by US$17 billion a year. Further, around 80% of spending in the 2014 Farm Bill (US$756 billion over 10 years) is 
projected for nutrition assistance for low-income and food insecure households for the 
purchase of any food product, domestic or imported.  
a. Most U.S. states have considered Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
(LIHEAP) payments in their calculation of SNAP benefits. Close to one-third of states 
have issued nominal LIHEAP payments (typically US$1 to US$5 dollars per year) to 
increase SNAP benefits. The 2014 Farm Bill amends how LIHEAP payments are treated in the calculation of SNAP benefits, which is  expected to reduce SNAP benefits and 
accounts for most of the estimated cuts in SNAP.  
b. The 2014 Farm Bill does not end income-support programmes in favour of price support 
programmes for producers. The Bill does en d the direct and countercyclical payment 
programmes and the Average Crop Revenue Election programme. Most producers who 
participated in the repealed programmes may choose to enrol in either the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programme, a new counter-cyclical type programme, or the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) programme, a revenue -loss programme. There are no new price 
support programmes under the 2014 Farm Bill and the market price support programme 
for dairy products is eliminated.  
c.  
i. The 2014 Farm Bill has not yet been fully implemented. As a result, the 
administrative provisions for these and other programmes have not yet been established. The text of the 2014 Farm Bill states that "actively engaged producers on 
a farm" are permitted to enrol in these programmes. However, the 2014 Farm Bill 
leaves this term to be defined by the Se cretary of Agriculture. The 2014 Farm Bill 
also places a limit on eligibility to receive farm programme benefits based on income. Under the new bill, an individual with an annual adjusted gross income (AGI) above 
US$900,000 (including nonfarm income) is ineligible to receive payments from these 
and other commodity and conservation programmes. The 2014 Farm Bill also limits total payments from PLC, ARC, and the marketing assistance loan programme to 
US$125,000 for each individual actively engaged in farming. A spouse may receive up 
to an additional US$125,000.  
ii. The Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programme is a new countercyclical price programme 
that makes payments to producers when market prices fall below the legislated 
reference price. The PLC programme is decoupled from production and is based on historical "base" acres. The payment rate is the difference between the reference price and the annual national-average market price (or marketing assistance loan 
rate, if higher). For each enrolled commod ity, the payment amount is the payment 
rate, multiplied by 85% of base acres of the commodity, multiplied by the historical "payment" yield. Producers may choose which of their covered commodities to enrol 
in PLC, but once the election is made it remains in place for the life of the 2014 Farm 
Act.  
iii. The Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) programme is a new revenue-based 
programme that makes payments to pr oducers when revenue drops below a 
percentage of the "benchmark" revenue. As with the PLC programme, the ARC programme bases payments on 85% of historical "base" acres. Further, producers may choose county-based or individual coverage.  
 County-based Coverage G/AG/W/126 
 
- 25 - 
 
  For producers choosing county-based ARC, payments are provided to producers 
with historical "base" acres when county crop revenue (actual average county yield times national farm price) drops below 86% of the county benchmark revenue (5-year Olympic average county yield times 5-year Olympic average of 
national price or the loan rate—whichever is higher for each year). For each 
covered commodity enrolled on the farm, the county ARC payment amount is the difference between the per-acre guarantee (as calculated above) and actual per-
acre revenue, times 85% of base acres of the commodity.  
 Individual Coverage 
For producers choosing individual ARC coverage, payments are based on the 
difference between an individual farm guarantee and actual individual farm 
revenues. The farm's individual ARC guarantee equals 86% of the farm's 
individual benchmark guarantee, defined as the ARC guarantee price (the 5-year Olympic average of national price or the loan rate—whichever is higher for each 
year) times the 5-year Olympic average individual yield, summing across all 
crops on the farm and weighting by plantings. The payment amount is the individual farm payment rate (the difference between the individual farm 
guarantee and actual individual farm revenue, but no greater than 10% of the 
farm's benchmark revenue) times 65% of base acres for all covered commodities for the individual farm.  
iv. See response to how ARC operates. 
d.  
i. Reference prices were determined by Congress and fixed for the duration of the 2014 
Farm Bill. 
ii. A variety of factors were used to determine the reference prices, including but not 
limited to market conditions, market outlooks/forecasts, and policy implications. 
iii. The difference between the reference price and the annual national-average market 
price is used to determine the payment rate in the PLC programme.  
iv. The reference prices are fixed for the life of the 2014 Farm Bill.  
e. Most of the funding increase stems from two new insurance products, the Stacked 
Income Protection Plan (STAX) and the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO).  
f.  
i. The ARC revenue guarantee is set at 86% of historical revenue at either the county 
o r  f a r m  l e v e l .  A R C  p a y m e n t s  a r e  l i m i t e d  t o  n o  mo r e  t h a n  1 0 %  o f  t h e  b e n c h m a r k 
revenue. The programme was designed to provide payments only for losses not 
already covered by traditional crop insurance, where typical coverage is 50-75% of losses.  
ii. See response to how the revenue guarantee is set.  
iii. The ARC programme is a revenue-based programme that makes payments to 
producers on a commodity basis when revenue drops below a percentage of the "benchmark" revenue. ARC does not insure yields. Revenue (i.e., price times yield) is 
calculated, in part, using either the 5-year Olympic average county yields or 5-year 
Olympic average individual yields, depending on enrolment.  
iv. The ARC programme only provides a revenue guarantee for producers with historical 
"base" acres of covered commodities on a commodity-basis.  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 26 - 
 
  v. The 2014 Farm Bill mandates the U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture Risk Management 
Agency (RMA) to develop and approve a margin coverage policy for rice producers for the 2015 crop year, but is not related to the ARC programme. RMA has not yet developed this policy, but as with other crop  insurance products, it will be developed 
as an actuarially sound programme.  
g. The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) offers producers additional area-based 
insurance coverage in combination with coverage by traditional crop insurance policies. 
The SCO offers producers the opportunity to purchase revenue coverage based on 
county average yield or revenue. SCO coverage is not available to producers who elect to participate in the ARC programme or St acked Income Protection Plan (STAX).  
h.  
i. The Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) provide compensation to eligible livestock 
producers who have suffered livestock death losses in excess of normal mortality due to adverse weather and attacks by animals reintroduced into the wild by federal 
government or protected by federal law.  
ii. LIP payments are equal to 75% of the market  value of the applicable livestock on the 
day before the date of death. Individuals are limited to a total of US$125,000 
annually in payments under the LIP, LFP, and ELAP programmes.  
i. The United States of America continues to advocate for reform in agriculture and 
minimizing government interventions in markets. The 2014 Farm Bill reduced overall 
agricultural spending and has further reduced the U.S. government's direct interventions 
in agricultural markets with the elimination of the Dairy Product Price Support Program 
and the Dairy Export Incentive Program. Furthe r, the United States of America believes 
that all Members are permitted to provide domestic support that is within their 
commitments. The United States of America repeatedly advocates for Members to make 
reforms that will ensure their compliance with WTO rules. The 2014 Farm Bill remains 
fully within U.S. WTO obligations.  
j. Compliance with WTO obligations was one of  the key objectives of the Congress when 
developing this Farm Bill. The Farm Bill is expected to keep support levels well below the WTO maximum allowed level.  
Follow-up: Argentina and Pakistan voiced appreciation for the U.S. presentation at the informal 
session and requested the presentation to be circulated to the whole Membership. Argentina 
wished to continue monitoring U.S. compliance with its WTO commitments and with the framework of Doha Round negotiations regarding substantial reduction of domestic support and export 
subsidies. Canada indicated interest and reserved th e right to follow up on this matter. Noting that 
the new bill resulted in a decrease in Amber Box programmes but at the same time shifted some Green Box measures to Amber Box measures even though the shift depended on prices, Pakistan 
intended to monitor the impact of the bill. Pakistan further suggested other Members to conduct 
similar exercises if new bills were adopted.   2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
2.1.1  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/2) AG-IMS ID 73005: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Australia welcomes the Russian Federation's notification and seeks clarification on the 
basis of the quota allocations for dry whey. Au stralia suspects that the description in the 
notification may contain a typographical error. 
Answer by Russian Federation G/AG/W/126 
 
- 27 - 
 
  The Russian Federation thanks Australia for this question and would like to confirm that 
there was a typographical error in the above mentioned notification. The Russian Federation would like to draw Members' attention to the Corrigendum of the notification (G/AG/N/RUS/2/Corr.1) which has been circulated to Members.  
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/38) AG-IMS ID 73044: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
The United States of America notes that in  the footnotes of G/AG/N/ECU/38, Ecuador 
states that "no in-quota imports were record ed given that the tariffs in force in 2012 
were below the maximum in-quota rate. Th e exception is subheading 02071400, the 
tariff level of which was higher than that of  the quota, but no imports were requested". 
a. What is the official process for requesting imports of 02071400? 
b. Where can importers and exporters find information about the request 
procedure?  
Answer by Ecuador 
a. This tariff heading is subject to automatic import licensing, and the relevant sanitary 
requirements must be met before an import licence can be issued.  
b. Importers and exporters can obtain informatio n on import procedures from the national 
notification bodies. 
Follow-up : The United States of America sought clarification regarding whether import licenses 
would automatically be given to importers once  sanitary requirements were met. Ecuador 
confirmed this in its written response.  
 2.2.2  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/74) 
AG-IMS ID 73058: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The commitments of Norway comprise more than 230 bound tariff quotas, while the 
notification includes only about 20 of th em. The European Union would once again like 
to request Norway to include all bound tariff quotas in the notification as a matter of 
transparency. 
Answer by Norway 
The notification of imports under TRQs for the calendar year 2001 (G/AG/N/NOR/38) was 
the first notification in which Norway did not include TRQs for which a tariff only regime 
applies. In accordance with the Norwegian schedule, the in-quota tariff rates for the majority of the current access quotas have been at the level of the bound MFN tariff for the 
corresponding tariff line as of calendar year 2000. Since Norway has fulfilled its 
commitments for the current access quotas with a tariff-only regime, these have not been included in the notifications, as has been explained on the cover sheet of every 
TRQ notification since the notification of TRQ commitments for the calendar year 2001 
(G/AG/N/NOR/38, G/AG/N/NOR/46, G/AG/N/N OR/50, G/AG/N/NOR/53, G/AG/N/NOR/56, 
G/AG/N/NOR/63, and G/AG/N/NOR/67). Norway therefore does not notify these TRQs. 
Follow-up : The European Union reserved the right to raise follow-up questions on this issue.  
 G/AG/W/126 
 
- 28 - 
 
  2.2.3  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/44) 
AG-IMS ID 73057: Question by Euro pean Union - Tariff quota fill 
Tunisia notified that it imported 1,831 tonn es of cheese under a TRQ of 1,500 tonnes in 
calendar year 2012. Could Tunisia please cl arify why it notified imports beyond the 
TRQ volume? 
Answer by Tunisia 
Tunisia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/19) AG-IMS ID 73045: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Compared to Botswana's previous domestic support notification, Botswana has 
introduced several new programmes includin g "Agricultural Research", "Disease and 
Pest Control", "National Master Plan for Arable Agriculture and Dairy Development", 
"Cattle Identification" and "Foot and Mouth Disease Compensation". According to 
Article 18.3 of the Agreement on Agricultur e, it appears that these newly notified 
programmes should have corresponding Table DS:2 notifications. Is Botswana planning 
to provide these notifications? 
Answer by Botswana 
All the programmes referred to (except NAMPAADD) were introduced before 1995 
(i.e. before G/AG/2 came into force, a document which instructs all Members to notify new 
measures) and therefore, were not considered to be new. These programmes have been 
included in every notification except those years when no support was provided. NAMPAADD 
was introduced in 2002 and has also been included in Botswana's previous notifications 
(G/AG/N/BWA/10 and G/AG/N/BWA/13) except when no support was provided. Botswana 
regrets the lack of the corresponding Table DS:2 notification that is clearly an oversight and 
Botswana will do all that is necessary to make sure that it will be submitted in due course. 
AG-IMS ID 73046: Question by United St ates of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture 
Botswana notifies a transport subsidy under "investment subsides generally available to 
agriculture" as per Article 6.2. Please provide details with regards to how the 
transportation subsidy is implemented. 
Answer by Botswana 
The transportation subsidy is administered by a state agency, Botswana Agricultural 
Marketing Board (BAMB). BAMB was set up to provide alternative market for cereal crops 
produced by low-income or resource-poor farmers who constitute majority of farmers. The subsidy is aimed at transporting produce from remote rural areas to the markets 
(i.e. villages, towns and cities). Due to di stance to the markets, the government of 
Botswana provides a transport subsidy to BAMB in order for BAMB to hire private transport to transport produce from the remote rural areas to BAMB depots.  
2.3.2  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/32) 
AG-IMS ID 73031: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Please explain why debt rescheduling is re ported under both Supporting Table DS:2 
and DS:9?  
Answer by Brazil G/AG/W/126 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Debt rescheduling was reported under those two tables because it encompasses the 
rescheduling of both (i) production credit for agricultural inputs available to family farmers and investment credit generally available to  producers, falling under Art 6.2; and (ii) 
production credit available to all producers (excluding family farmers), which is included in 
Brazil's non-product-specific AMS. 
AG-IMS ID 73032: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
a. No support is reported for cotton and coffee, although programmes exist for 
these products. Please explain why Brazil has not reported any support. 
b. No support for maize is reported in 2011 in Supporting Table DS:4, although 
substantial support (US$423 million) is reported in 2010. Please explain why 
support is not reported for 2011.  
Answer by Brazil a. No such report was made because no effective support was granted in the covered 
period for coffee and cotton. 
b. The amount of supported production varies according to market prices and the budget 
available at the time. 
AG-IMS ID 73006: Question by Canada - General services: research  
Canada notes that in Calendar Year 2012 und er General Services, Brazil has notified a 
measure called "Agricultural research prog ramme" with payments of US$224.9 million. 
a. As this measure has not been in previo us notifications, could Brazil elaborate 
on the types of agricultur al research projects that  have received funding? 
b. As this appears to be a new measure, co uld Brazil indicate when it will submit a 
Table DS:2 notification to provide the Committee with more information? 
Answer by Brazil 
a. The programme encompasses all the regular research carried out by EMBRAPA, including 
activities related to particular products as well as environmental aspects. 
b. The programme does not constitute a new measure, for it merely presents pre-existent 
activities under a new title. However, Brazil will evaluate whether to submit a Table DS:2 notification. 
AG-IMS ID 73007: Question by Canada - General services: extension and advisory 
services 
Canada notes under extension of advisory se rvices that the expenditures related to 
"Acquisition of equipment by municipalities for services in rural areas" has increased 
three-fold from US$243 million in 2011 to US$749 million in 2012. 
a. Could Brazil elaborate as to the types of  equipment purchased by municipalities 
to provide services in these rural areas?  
b. Could Brazil outline the process whereb y the municipalities apply or request 
the purchase of this equipment?  
c. Could Brazil also provide a list of municipalit ies that were in need of this type 
of equipment?  
Answer by Brazil G/AG/W/126 
 
- 30 - 
 
  a. The main types of equipment purchased ar e tractors, excavators, motor graders, 
compactors and trucks, given that the main extension service provided by Brazilian municipalities is the maintenance of unpaved roads. 
b. Usually the federal government signs agreemen ts with the concerned municipalities at 
their request. 
c. The requested information is not available at this moment. 
AG-IMS ID 73008: Question by Canada - General services: extension and advisory 
services 
Canada notes that payments related to "E xtension services on rural development" 
increased from US$16.4 million in 2011 to almost US$190 million in 2012. Could Brazil 
elaborate as to the reasons for this phenomenal increase in expenditures over the 
course of a year?  
Answer by Brazil 
The increase was due to the importance of m eeting public policy objectives through these 
expenditures, as well as to the greater availab ility of funds for them in the Federal Budget 
for the period in question. 
AG-IMS ID 73028: Question by United States  of America - General services: extension 
and advisory services 
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1 (1) (vi) – Extension, the United States of America 
notes that spending on extension services in 2011 (US$1.6 billion) increased to almost 
double the level reported in 2009 (US$78 0 million). Please explain the substantial 
increase.  
Answer by Brazil 
The increase was due to the importance of m eeting public policy objectives through these 
expenditures, as well as to the greater availab ility of funds for them in the Federal Budget 
for the period in question. 
AG-IMS ID 73009: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Canada notes that under public stockholding  for food security purposes expenditures 
related to "management of public stockholdi ng program" decreased substantially from 
US$283 million in 2011 to US$0.38 million in 2012. Canada understands that 
expenditures are for the management of th e food supply system and pest and disease 
control related to public stocks. Could Brazil elaborate on the reasons for this change in 
expenditures?  
Answer by Brazil 
As noted by Canada, expenditures for the management of the food supply system used to 
be included in this item. Nonetheless, in 2012 the Federal Budget as a whole has been significantly altered, and as a result it now contains only information on general 
management expenditures, without disaggregation by programmes. The figures for 2012 are 
smaller because they include only the expend itures on pest and disease control, which 
represent a lesser part of the management expenditures for public stocks 
AG-IMS ID 73010: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Canada notes that, under public  stockholding for food security purposes, expenditures 
related to "Programme of acquisition of ag ricultural products from family farming" 
increased significantly from US$20.2 million in 2011 to US$203.4 million in 2012.  
a. Could Brazil elaborate as to the reasons for this increase in expenditures?  
b. Could Brazil provide a list of the types of agricultural products that are acquired 
from family farms and thei r respective volumes?  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil 
a. The correct figure that should have b een notified for 2011 is US$465.2 million. A 
corrigendum will be submitted soon. 
b. In 2012, 390 different kinds of foodstuff were purchased under the programme. The 
information on the products and the volumes acquired is not available at the moment.  
AG-IMS ID 73029: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1 (2) – Pub lic Stockholding, the United States of 
America notes that spending declined su bstantially in 2010 (US$304 million) and 2011 
(US$205 million) from the figure reported in 2009 (US$653 million). Please explain why 
Brazil has moved away from this type of programme.  
Answer by Brazil 
T h e  c o r r e c t  f i g u r e  t h a t  s h o u l d  h a v e  b e e n  n o t i f i e d  u n d e r  t h e  " P r o g r a m  o f  a c q u i s i t i o n  o f  
agricultural products from family farming" for 2011 is US$465.2 million. Accordingly, the 
correct figure for Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes in 2011 should have been 
US$749.1 million. A corrigendum will be submitted soon.  
The correct numbers in Supporting Table DS:1 (2) – Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes should be (values in million US dollars): 237 in 2008/2009, 653 in 2009/2010, 
749 in 2010/2011, and 205 in 2011/2012.  
The expenditures under the programme decrea sed in 2012 due to the drought that occurred 
in the northeast of the country. 
AG-IMS ID 73011: Question by Canada - Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Canada notes that the expenditures relate d to the "Warranty-Crop Fund" (government 
sponsored agricultural insurance) increase d significantly from US$77.7 million in 2011 
to US$302 million in 2012. 
Could Brazil confirm that this programme meet s the criteria of paragraph 8(a), Annex 2, 
more specifically, the production loss exceed s 30% in either: (a) the average production 
in the preceding three-year period or (b) a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry.  
Answer by Brazil 
Brazil considers that the measure, which provides relief for natural disasters, complies with 
the criteria set out in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Ministry 
of Agrarian Development is in charge of the Warranty Crop Program, a social programme 
which granted R$640.00 in 2011 and R$680.00 in 2012 per family farmer applying for it 
(the payment of a fee is required for the application) in the event that the government formally recognizes that a natural disaster occurred. Family farmers can benefit from the 
programme whenever their losses reach at le ast 50% of their production. In addition, 
incurred losses should be of at least 50% of the crop. The programme does not cover the entire Brazilian territory, as it is confined geographically to the northeast region and the north of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo Stat es, areas with high drought incidence. The 
reason for the increase of the expenditures was the drought that occurred in the northeast 
region in 2012. 
Follow-up: Canada requested Brazil to clarify whether the reference period for the "Warranty-Crop 
Fund" was a 3-year average or an Olympic 5-year average. 
AG-IMS ID 73030: Question by United St ates of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture 
Are the investment credits noted in Suppo rting Table DS:2 generally available?  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil 
Yes. They are available for all producers and cooperatives under the same conditions. 
AG-IMS ID 73033: Question by United St ates of America - Market price support 
a. Regarding Supporting Table DS:5, the Unit ed States of America notes that the 
minimum support price for wheat went down from US$329.05/tonne in 
2010/2011 to US$254.19/tonne in 2011/2012.  Please explain why there was 
such a large decrease within one year.  
b. Please explain why total production is not used for the minimum support price 
calculation if the wheat is grown in locations eligible to receive the government's minimum support price.  
Answer by Brazil 
a. The increase was due to the definition of the minimum price for the product at a lower 
level in the 2011/2012 crop-year.  
b. The total production is not used as a reference for the support because the benefited 
production is actually limited and depends on the available budget outlays. Distinct 
programmes may apply for the same product, although with different beneficiaries, in the same region and crop year. Similar situations occur regularly, as showed in Brazil's 
notifications.  
Follow-up : The United State of America indicated its intention to raise follow-up questions such as 
whether "debt rescheduling" (AG-IMS ID 73031) reported in two supporting tables were different 
programmes.  
2.3.3  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/10/REV.1, G/AG/N/EU/17) 
AG-IMS ID 73047: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States of America notes that the revision to the European Union's domestic 
support notification for 2009/2010 now includ es eligible production in Supporting 
Table DS:5 for barley. The result is an incr ease in the Total Aggregate Measurement of 
Support. The United States of America also notes that the European Union stated in 
AG-IMS ID 69053 that the Health Check of th e CAP set the limit of  buying of barley, 
among other commodities, at "zero" as provid ed in Article 13.1(a) of Council Regulation 
(EC) 1234/2007 and therefore public interven tion is not automatically available for 
these products. 
a. Please confirm this was the result of  a public intervention in 2009/2010. 
b. What specific factors were used to dete rmine the use of the public intervention 
in 2009/2010? 
Answer by European Union The European Union's notification G/AG/N/EU/ 10 which covers spending in the marketing 
year 2009/2010 includes the changes resulting fr om the decisions of the Health Check of the 
CAP, which sets limits of buying into public intervention at zero for durum wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and paddy rice as provided for in Article 13(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. As a result, public interven tion is not automatically available for these 
products. The notification has been revised (G/AG/N/EU/10/Rev.1) in order to correct the 
market price support for barley and sorghum, for which the limits of buying into intervention at zero entered into force only from marketing year 2010/11, as reflected in the latest 
notification G/AG/N/EU/17. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 33 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 73012: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada appreciates the European Union prov iding a revised notification indicating a 
change from zero product specific su pport for both barley and sorghum to 
EUR 2,109.7 million and EUR 9.5 million, respectively. Could the European Union 
elaborate on the reasons for revising these amounts in G/AG/N/EU/10/Rev.1?  
Answer by European Union 
See above. 
AG-IMS ID 73015: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Canada notes that payments related to infr astructural services have increased from 
EUR 1,866 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 2,311 m illion in 2010/2011. Could the European 
Union elaborate on the reasons for this increase in spending?  
Answer by European Union 
Spending on rural development measures in the European Union takes place under the 
7-year programming framework on the basis of national/regional rural development 
programmes prepared by European Union memb er states. Within this period there are 
variations in the level of spending from one year to another. The variations are related to the rhythm of implementation and financial execution of the programmes in the member 
states. Payments may be delayed during the first years when the programmes have to be 
drawn up, adopted and implemented. Also the fi nancing of the projects requires preparatory 
work by the managing authority of the progra mme. There is indeed a general increase in 
expenditure in 2011-2013 compared to the previous years. 
AG-IMS ID 73013: Question by Australia - General services: other 
Australia notes that the European Union notifi es "farm relief" under other farm services 
(General Services, paragraph v iii). In its answer to a question by the United States of 
America in 2012 (AG-IMS 66058), the European Union explained that farm relief 
included "sickness schemes which aim to help  farmers in the smooth running of their 
operations". Could the European Union ad vise whether its fa rm relief programmes 
constitute direct payments (including payments in kind) to producers, and if so, how 
this complies with the requirements of Anne x 2 Paragraph 2 that general services shall 
not involve direct payments to producers?  
Answer by European Union 
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) provides support to cover 
costs arising from the setting up of farm relief services. This support is not a direct payment to farmers, as the beneficiary of the support is the service provider. The support decreases 
over a maximum period of five years from the setting up of the service. 
AG-IMS ID 73016: Question by Canada - General services: other 
Canada notes that the payments related to other farm services have increased from 
EUR 813.4 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 1, 489 million in 2010/2011 and that the 
description of the measure references member states' measures.  
a. Could the European Union elaborate on the reason(s) for this increase in 
spending?  
b. Could the European Union indicate which member states also provide payments 
related to other farm services and the respective amounts?  
Answer by European Union 
Spending on rural development measures in the European Union takes place under the 
7-year programming framework on the basis of national/regional rural development programmes prepared by European Union memb er states. Within this period there are 
variations in the level of spending from one year to another. The variations are related to G/AG/W/126 
 
- 34 - 
 
  the rhythm of implementation and financial execution of the programmes in the member 
states. Payments may be delayed during the first years when the programmes have to be drawn up, adopted and implemented. Also the fi nancing of the projects requires preparatory 
work by the managing authority of the progra mme. There is indeed a general increase in 
expenditure in 2011-2013 compared to the previous years.  
The measures notified under "other farm services" are measures which relate to improving 
the quality of life in rural areas, diversification of the rural economy and local development 
strategies. These measures have been implemented in all EU Member States. The amount of 
expenditure by member state is proportional  to their expenditure in the total Rural 
Development envelope. 
AG-IMS ID 73048: Question by United Stat es of America - General services: other 
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1, "Other farm  services" increased substantially from 
2009/2010 to 2010/2011. What was the reason for this increase? 
Answer by European Union 
See above. 
AG-IMS ID 73014: Question by Australia - Direct payments: income insurance and 
income safety-net programmes 
Australia notes that the European Union's expenditure under (e) Income Insurance and 
Safety-net Programmes has increased by around 30% from 2009/2010 to 2010/2011. Could the European Union kindly explain the reasons for this increase?  
Answer by European Union 
Spending on income insurance and safety-net programmes fluctuates from one year to 
another. The slight increase from 2009/2010 to 2010/2011 was caused by an increase in the number of beneficiaries. Australia will note that the 30% increase corresponds to an 
increase of five million euro. 
AG-IMS ID 73017: Question by Canada - Pa yments based on fixed areas or yields 
Canada notes the dramatic decrease in per hectare compensatory payments to 
producers of cereals, oilseeds, protein crop s, grass silage, including set aside from 
EUR 1,434.9 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 3.8 million in 2010/2011. Could the European 
Union account for this change?  
Answer by European Union 
The 2003 CAP Reform introduced a decoupled direct payment scheme, the Single Payment 
Scheme. The Health Check reform (presented in the Table DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/11) further extended the decoupling of direct support to farmers to almost all sectors and 
abolished many coupled payments. The decrease  in spending for many Blue Box payments 
that is visible in the latest EU notification is  due to the implementation of the Health Check 
reform. In particular for the schemes mentione d by Canada, the specific quality premium for 
durum wheat, the supplementary aid for durum wheat and the arable crop area payments 
are abolished from 1 January 2010, while the b eef special premium and the beef slaughter 
premium are abolished from 1 January 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 73018: Question by Canada - Pa yments based on fixed areas or yields 
Could the European Union explain the dramat ic drop in payments for quality premium 
and supplements to per hectare compensa tory payments to durum wheat from 
EUR 129.3 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 0.5 million in 2010/2011? 
Answer by European Union 
The 2003 CAP Reform introduced a decoupled direct payment scheme, the Single Payment 
Scheme. The Health Check reform (presented  in the DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/11) 
further extended the decoupling of direct support to farmers to almost all sectors and G/AG/W/126 
 
- 35 - 
 
  abolished many coupled payments. The decrease  in spending for many Blue Box payments 
that is visible in the latest EU notification is  due to the implementation of the Health Check 
reform. In particular for the schemes mentione d by Canada, the specific quality premium for 
durum wheat, the supplementary aid for durum wheat and the arable crop area payments 
are abolished from 1 January 2010, while the b eef special premium and the beef slaughter 
premium are abolished from 1 January 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 73019: Question by Canada - Live stock payments made on a fixed number of 
head 
Could the European Union explain the drop in payments under the special premium for 
producers holding male bovine animals from EUR 105.3 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 82.3 million in 2010/2011?  
Answer by European Union 
The 2003 CAP Reform introduced a decoupled direct payment scheme, the Single Payment 
Scheme. The Health Check reform (presented  in the DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/11) 
further extended the decoupling of direct support to farmers to almost all sectors and 
abolished many coupled payments. The decrease  in spending for many Blue Box payments 
that is visible in the latest EU notification is  due to the implementation of the Health Check 
reform. In particular for the schemes mentione d by Canada, the specific quality premium for 
durum wheat, the supplementary aid for durum wheat and the arable crop area payments 
are abolished from 1 January 2010, while the b eef special premium and the beef slaughter 
premium are abolished from 1 January 2012. 
AG-IMS ID 73020: Question by Canada - Live stock payments made on a fixed number of 
head 
Could the European Union explain the drop payments under the slaughter premium 
within nationally fixed maximum numbe r of head (calves and adults) from 
EUR 335.1 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 61.5 million in 2010/2011?  
Answer by European Union 
The 2003 CAP Reform introduced a decoupled direct payment scheme, the Single Payment 
Scheme. The Health Check reform (presented  in the DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/11) 
further extended the decoupling of direct support to farmers to almost all sectors and abolished many coupled payments. The decrease  in spending for many Blue Box payments 
that is visible in the latest EU notification is  due to the implementation of the Health Check 
reform. In particular for the schemes mentione d by Canada, the specific quality premium for 
durum wheat, the supplementary aid for durum wheat and the arable crop area payments 
are abolished from 1 January 2010, while the b eef special premium and the beef slaughter 
premium are abolished from 1 January 2012. 
AG-IMS ID 73021: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes the inclusion of a new measure called "temporary exceptional support 
measures (Green harvesting and non-harv esting)" and the associated payment of 
EUR 128.7 million. 
a. Could the European Union describe the circumstances requiring this temporary 
exceptional support? 
b. Could the European Union elaborate on the differences, if any, between this 
measure's green harvesting and non-ha rvesting compared with the measure 
called "green harvesting and non-harvesting"? 
Answer by European Union The temporary exceptional support measures fo r the fruit and vegetables sector that are 
notified in the EU's notification G/AG/N/EU/17 are related to the fruit and vegetables market 
crisis that followed the Escherichia coli outb reak in May 2011. The sudden loss of consumer 
confidence due to the perceived public health risks caused significant disturbance of the G/AG/W/126 
 
- 36 - 
 
  European Union fruit and vegetables market. In  order to cope with the crisis, exceptional 
support was granted to increase financing for some of the measures existing in the fruit and vegetables sector. The spending on the measures under the temporary exceptional support was notified separately for transparency purposes in order to allow Members to clearly 
distinguish between the spending on the usual measures in the sector and the exceptional 
spending related to the crisis. 
2.3.4  Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/45) 
AG-IMS ID 73049: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
a. Please confirm that domestic support  programmes listed in G/AG/N/GTM/45 
come from Guatemala's domestic funding sources and not from outside donors 
(e.g., WFP, FAO, U.S. Departme nt of Agriculture, etc.). 
b. Does Guatemala intend to submit a Table DS:2 notification for new or modified 
domestic support measures such as PR ODERT, PROCHUCH, and Special Training 
Program for Food Security (PESA)?  
Answer by Guatemala 
a. Annex 3 contains a table showing which of the measures in question have domestic 
funding sources, and which ones have external sources.  
Information for 2002 and 2003 is not available yet: the fact that there was no Integrated 
Accounting System at the time means that it will take longer time to gather the information. 
b. Guatemala is currently preparing the relevant DS:2 Tables which it will then submit 
through the appropriate channels. 
AG-IMS ID 73050: Question by United St ates of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
Please describe how the training for silo ma nufacturers and delivery of silos to rural 
families adheres to Annex 2, paragraph 2( g), which states that "In all cases the 
expenditure shall be directed to the provisio n or construction of capital works only, and 
shall exclude the subsidized provision of on-f arm facilities other than for the reticulation 
of generally available public utilities". 
Answer by Guatemala 
Post-harvest support focuses on effective post-harvest handling at national level in order to 
achieve the sustainability of post-harvest activities. 
The measure is promoted by the international community and is articulated through the 
FAO. Its purpose is to help preserve and ensure  the protection of staple grains as a means 
of supporting food security among rural fami lies. The issue of post-harvest handling of 
staple grains and the food crisis are a worldwide concern, and at its seventh special session 
in 1975, the United Nations General Assembly accordingly adopted a resolution assigning 
priority to post-harvest handling and setting the goal of reducing post-harvest losses by 50%. 
Objectives 
Its objectives include reducing staple grain losses for small and medium size producers that 
make proper use of post-harvest technology, by manufacturing metal silos for post-harvest grain storage by rural families; strengthening th e transfer and ensuring the sustainability of 
post-harvest activities, by consolidating the silo manufacturers' entrepreneurial development 
and enabling them to make their own organizational arrangements. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Justification 
Guatemala regards this as an infrastructure service that does not include subsidies to inputs 
or operating costs, or preferential user ch arges, and is not related to the subsidized 
provision of on farm facilities. This measure is therefore considered to fall within the scope 
of Annex 2, paragraph 2(g). 
AG-IMS ID 73051: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
under regional assistance programmes 
Please describe how the credit support for sm all producers in the Chorti area meets the 
requirements listed in Annex 2, paragraph 13. 
Answer by Guatemala 
The Agricultural Development Project for Small Producers in Zacapa and Chiquimula  
(PROZACHI) covers 1,290 km2 in the departments of Zacapa and Chiquimula, in the 
northwestern part of Guatemala. The department  of Zacapa includes the municipalities of 
Zacapa and La Unión, and the department of  Chiquimula includes those of Jocotán, 
Camotán, Olopa, Quezaltepeque, San Juan Ermita and San Jacinto. 
Target group The target group comprises all agricultural  producers in the project area, that is, 
approximately 12,500 rural families, of which 5,200 – or 40% - are direct beneficiaries, and 
of these it is hoped to benefit 3,200 women (61%). Given the state of poverty of the local population, the project will be of direct benefit to families living in the area. 
Objectives and components 
The general objective of the programme is to ra ise the real income of poor farmers in the 
area by boosting food productivity and produc tion through the diversification of economic 
and household-related activities. 
The specific objectives of the PROZACHI project are: (a) to increase productivity and 
production of staple grains; (b) to increase the production of permanent cash crops and improve the coffee processing and marketing systems; (c) to raise nutrition levels by 
promoting small-scale livestock development activities; (d) to improve, diversify and 
streamline production activities carried out by women in rural areas; (e) to make appropriate use of the land in order to minimize  the risk of erosion, with due regard for the 
real income of rural families; and (f) to develop the region's basic and social infrastructure. 
Justification 
Guatemala considers that the measure comes under Annex 2, paragraph 13, because 
payments made under the project are for prod ucers from disadvantaged regions, within a 
specific geographical area that is regarded as being disadvantaged. The payments are not 
related to the type or volume of production, and are available to all producers. 
2.3.5  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
AG-IMS ID 73054: Question by Pakistan - In put subsidies availabl e to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Below are follow-up questions on non-prod uct specific subsidies under Article 6.2 
(AG-IMS ID 72004). 
It is Pakistan's understanding that inpu t subsidies exempted under Article 6.2 are 
available to all farmers, whether they are gr owing for their own food (resource-poor low 
income producers) or they are growing in commercial quantities. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 38 - 
 
  a. Could India please inform that which steps have been taken to ensure that 
Article 6.2 input subsidies (seed, fertilizer, diesel, electricity etc.) are used only 
by the low-income resour ce poor producers?  
b. Is it correct that input subsidies (non-product specific) are available to the 
producers of all rice varieties? 
c. Are there any product-specific input subs idies reported previously or provided 
under Article 6.2? 
d. Could India please indicate the total (n on-product specific) subsidies of the 
type exempted under 6.2 in G/AG/N/IND/7 that were provided in the last two years (2011-2012 and 2012-2013)? 
Answer by India 
Input subsidies covered under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture are generally 
available to low income or resource poor producers. In India such producers account for the vast majority of farmers. 
The total non-product specific subsidies of th e type exempted under Article 6.2 for the two 
years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 will be indicated in  the notifications for these two years. 
These notifications are under preparation. 
Follow-up: Pakistan insisted that India provide re sponses to points b and c of its question. India 
was also requested to explain the distinction between low-income or resource-poor farmers and 
those who produced at a commercial scale. In Pakistan's understanding, no country could become a world's top exporter of a product if all produc ers were at subsistence level and therefore there 
must be commercial production in India. On point b, India confirmed that input subsidies were 
available to all low-income or resource-poor produc ers of rice. On point c, India asked Pakistan to 
refer to its notifications. Concerning the follow-up question, Pakistan was invited to refer to India's 
agricultural census regarding the average size of India's farms and to the AGST table for the 
definition of low-income or resource-poor farmers.   
The United States of America also raised a follow- up question as follows: "The United States of 
America understands that Indian landholding laws have been framed by state governments. Therefore ceilings on individual land holding size  v a r y  f r o m  s t a t e  t o  s t a t e .  H o w e v e r ,  o v e r a l l ,  a  
farmer is not allowed to have more than 10 hectares of irrigated land. Therefore, it is the U.S. 
understanding that from a legal perspective, many Indian farmers are legally bound to the 
definition of 'low-income or resource-poor' since owning less than 10 hectares is the criteria. The United States of America would like to ask India to provide statistics from any Indian statistical 
study or survey or from other sources regarding the distribution of average household income with 
website links or copies of cited studies or survey s. With this, the United States of America would 
like a breakdown of input subsidies by type, includin g seed, fertilizer, diesel, electricity, etc." India 
made some preliminary comments. It stated that the criterion of holding no more than 10 hectares 
of land was the definition for low-income or resource-poor producer as indicated in India's AGST table. As for the land ceiling law, certain types of  lands were exempted such as coffee plantation. 
Finally India invited the United States of America to consult its next domestic support notification 
for the breakdown of input subsides. 
 2.3.6  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30, G/AG/N/IDN/34) 
AG-IMS ID 73052: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
The United States of America repeats questi ons previously asked in AG-IMS ID 71031 
and AG-IMS ID 72036 since Indonesia has not notified Supporting Tables DS:4 and DS:5, 
nor submitted a revision to its notification  for administered prices during 2001-2004. 
Could Indonesia please explain and provide fu rther clarity regarding the acquisition of 
stocks for its public stockholding for food  security purposes programme in light of G/AG/W/126 
 
- 39 - 
 
  seemingly contradictory information in its no tifications and responses to questions in 
the Committee? Please address the following points: 
a. The United States of America notes th at Indonesia states that stocks are 
procured at administered prices, which ta ke market prices into account but are 
not the sole determining factor (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70026). 
b. The United States of America also notes that Indonesia has not provided a 
Supporting Table DS:4 or Supporting Table DS:5 to account for the use of 
administered prices per footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
c. Further, the United States of America und erstands Indonesia's response to part 
(b) of AG-IMS ID 70031 to state that no  administered price was reported after 
2001 due to Indonesia's procurement being for buffer stock operations. This 
appears to be inconsistent with the aforementioned footnote 5.  
Answer by Indonesia 
Indonesia has a programme named credit prog ramme for energy and food sustainability. 
This programme is intended to support low-income resource-poor farmers to develop their staple food crops such as rice, cassava, sugarcane, and other food commodities. 
Through this programme, farmers will be able to get loans from state-owned enterprise 
banks for around US$10,000 per farmer with commercial interest rate around 10.5% - 11.5%. This interest rate is relatively higher compared to other countries, including neighbouring Asian countries. Therefore, the government has to provide the interest rate 
subsidy to enable low income resource poor farmers to take advantage of the loan scheme 
to continue their production. 
Around 50% of the interest loan will be borne by the government and farmers will have to 
pay another 50%. Indonesia would like to clar ify that in 2012, the total amount of the 
interest rate subsidy that was paid by the government was IDR 196 billion or around US$20 million. From 2007-2012, the total amount was IDR 630 billion or around 
US$66 million. 
Regarding the U.S. question on administered price, the price is set by government taking 
into account previous domestic market pric e and cost of production by farmers. The 
administered price is used for domestic procurement for low-income resource-poor farmers. 
However, in most cases, the administered price is below the market price. This encourages 
farmers to sell their commodities to traders or to the market. This condition makes BULOG as a state trading enterprise responsible for rice procurement to procure its stock at the 
market price both from domestic source and international market. 
For the last 3 years, the administered price has been set at IDR 6,600 and has not changed 
since then and it is always below the market pr ice of rice. This administered price is only 
applied to very limited volumes, around 5%-10% of total domestic consumption for rice. 
Concerning the notification on Supporting table DS:4 and DS:5, the capital is still preparing 
the notification. Indonesia expects to notify Supporting table DS:4 and DS:4 as soon as possible. 
2.3.7  Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/16) 
AG-IMS ID 73022: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada would like to reiterate its appreciation for Jordan's commitment to transparency 
in providing both unadjusted and adjusted num bers in its notification to the Committee 
and would like to follow-up on Jordan's resp onse. In light of Jordan's response, Canada 
understands that, in calculating a Member's Current Total AMS, paragraph 8 of Annex 3 
of the Agreement on Agriculture requires th e external reference price to be fixed. 
Canada recognizes that Article 18.4 provides  that in the review process, Members (the G/AG/W/126 
 
- 40 - 
 
  Committee) shall give due consideration to th e influence of excessive rates of inflation 
on the ability of a Member to abide by it s domestic support commitments. However, 
Canada is of the view that Article 18.4 does not provide a methodology for adjusting a 
Member's fixed external reference prices, and does not provide a methodology that 
would consider accumulated inflation since th e fixed external reference prices' reference 
period, as a measure of excessive inflation affecting a Member's ability to abide by its 
domestic support commitments. 
a. Is Jordan planning on implementing changes in its domestic support 
programmes to ensure that its unadjusted Current Total AMS for subsequent years falls within its domestic support commitments? 
b. Could Jordan provide any other inform ation that could help the Committee 
understand the particular methodology it has used, including the timing and 
the basis for it? 
Answer by Jordan 
a. Currently there is no plan to change domestic support programmes. 
b. Article 18.4 did not provide for the methodology for adjusting fixed external reference 
price due to influence of excessive rates of  inflation. Therefore, Jordan based the 
calculation of inflation rate on average cons umer price index for cereal from 1997-2010. 
2.3.8  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/73) AG-IMS ID 73059: Question by European Union - Market price support 
The European Union notes that Norway's market price support for barley increased by 
more than 27% in 2012 compared to 2011. What are the reasons behind this increase? 
Apart from an increase in the applied admini stered price and in production, have there 
been policy changes? 
Answer by Norway 
No, there have not been policy changes. The main  reason for the increase in AMS for barley 
from 2011 to 2012 is the increase in production volume. This is a "natural" variation due to, 
for instance, weather conditions influencing the annual production levels. In addition the 
administered price was increased for all types of grain. For barley the increase was 0.07 NOK/kg, from 2.12 NOK/kg in 2011 to 2.19 NOK/kg in 2012.  
2.3.9  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/18) 
AG-IMS ID 73023: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada observes that product-specific suppo rt provided to hops production, under a 
measure which provides "compensation of cost s of production", amounted to 119% of 
that product's value of production in 2009,  95% of value of production in 2010 and 
115% of value of production in 2011. Could Ukraine provide an explanation as to how 
payments can exceed the value of production for hops?  
Answer by Ukraine 
Financial support for the development of hop cultivation is provided in accordance with the 
procedure for charging fees and use of funds fo r the development of viticulture, horticulture 
and hop cultivating, approved by the Resolution  of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine #587 
of 15 July 2005. 
Financial support is provided to entities engage d in hop cultivation, to compensate for their 
expenses related to:  
 carrying out works on laying the plants (design, soil preparation and planting, 
construction of trellis) and the acquisition of hanging materials for hops according to the G/AG/W/126 
 
- 41 - 
 
  standards of the cost per hectare, which ar e defined depending on planting schemes and 
other technological features and costs of the relevant works; 
 care for productive plantations of hops with  consideration of their average yield, the 
volume of the hop products sold during the preceding three years (for new enterprises 
the average yield in Ukraine for the past three years is taken into consideration) with 
quality indicators defined in accordance with the National Standard of Ukraine 
7067:2009 "Hops. Specifications, National Standard of Ukraine 4099:2009 Hops. 
Sampling rules and test methods" within th e established standards (25% of the budget 
allocated for hop development);  
 purchase of machinery and appliances (including imported items, which are not 
produced in Ukraine) for hop manufacturing operations 
AG-IMS ID 73024: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada observes that Ukraine has again inde xed the reference price for sugar produced 
from sugar beets. In Supporting Table DS:5, regarding the calculation of market price 
support for sugar produced from sugar be ets, document, WT/ACC/SPEC/UKR/1/Rev.12, 
specifies that Ukraine's fixed external re ference price for 2004–2006 is Hrv 1,747.33 per 
tonne. Canada would like to once again point to  the provisions contained in Paragraph 8, 
Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture, wh ich require the external reference price to 
be fixed. Ukraine has not adequately demo nstrated so far how the indexing of the 
reference price follows the rules of the agreem ent. Canada raised similar questions, as 
did Japan, the European Union, Norway  and Australia, during the June 2011 and 
November 2012 meetings of the Committee and notes that Ukraine's response 
repeatedly cited Article 18.4 as providing accommodation for its methodology. Ukraine 
also indicated that it intends to use this me thodology in future notifications. Canada 
would like to reiterate that the appropriat e methodology for calculating market price 
support is described in paragraph 8, Anne x 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture after 
which due consideration shall be given, by this Committee, regard ing the influence of 
excessive inflation on a Member's ability to  abide by its commitments as described in 
Article 18.4. 
Could Ukraine please indicate when it w ill provide revised notifications which would 
include the accurate fixed external referenc e price of Hrv 1,747.33 per tonne for sugar 
produced from sugar beets and revised Current Total AMS numbers for 2009, 2010 and 
2011? 
Answer by Ukraine 
In the calculation of the market price support for sugar produced from sugar beets, the fixed 
external reference price 1747.3 UAH/tonne was adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index each year after the base period.  
The application of external reference price without adjustment for inflation would be 
incorrect and would not reflect the actual level of product support because applied administered price increases annually due to excessive inflation and corresponding increased cost of inputs for sugar production. 
At present, the national sugar-beet industry faces a number of problems that need to be 
legally regulated. In particular, the sale of sugar produced in excess of quota "A" and the 
abolition of the minimum prices for sugar beets and quota "A" sugar as sugar (produced of 
beets) is subject to government price regula tion and the approval of minimum prices is 
regulated by other current regulation.  G/AG/W/126 
 
- 42 - 
 
  As the WTO Members have been previously info rmed, the Ministry of Agrarian Policy of 
Ukraine has prepared the draft Law of Ukraine "On amending the law of Ukraine 'On state regulation of production and sale of sugar'  (the production and supply of sugar to the 
domestic market)" (registration number 2856 from 18 April 2013). The draft law is aimed 
at: 
 maintaining the productive capacity of the sugar industry; 
 formation of pro-market investment, credit and pricing policies for factory beets and 
sugar; 
 settling the issue of sale of sugar produced over quota "A"; 
 preservation and improvement of the qu oting mechanism for manufacturing and 
supplying on the domestic market of sugar (quota "A"); and 
 abolition of minimum prices for sugar beets and sugar quotas "A". 
The abovementioned draft law has already been considered by the Committee of the 
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Agrarian Policy and Land Relations. Due to the current 
changes in the government of Ukraine, th e abovementioned draf t law of Ukraine "On 
amending the law of Ukraine 'On state regulati on of production and sale of sugar'" is 
submitted for reconsideration and re-approval by the responsible governmental bodies. 
2.3.10  United States of America (G/A G/N/USA/80/REV.1, G/AG/N/USA/89/REV.1, 
G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 73060: Question by Europe an Union - General services: other 
The European Union notes that spending under  "underwriting gains to insurers" notified 
under General Services varies considerably over the period 2009 – 2011 reflected in the 
three recent notifications. At the same time  the other elements of the administrative 
spending of the Risk Management Agency no tified under General Services remain quite 
stable.  
a. Could the United States of America expl ain the substantial variations of the 
"underwriting gains" from one year to another? 
b. Could the United States of America explai n how it is that "underwriting gains" 
record a positive spending amount in the notifications in the years when loss claims exceed premium income? (On th e basis of the information on the 
website of the USDA's Risk Manageme nt Agency, premium income exceeded 
the claims under the federal crop insura nce in 2010, while loss claims exceeded 
premium income in 2009 and 2011). 
Answer by United States of America 
a. Underwriting gains to insurers vary from year to year according to the amount of insured 
losses that occur, whereas administrative and operating reimbursements to insurers are based on premium volume, which is relatively more stable from year to year. Risk 
Management Agency administrative and op erating expenses are budgeted costs for 
operating the government administrative structure for the crop insurance programme and not tied to specific programme parameters. 
b. The U.S. government and insurance comp anies share underwriting gains and losses 
according to the terms set out in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement. Underwriting 
gains generally vary from year to year according to the amount of insured losses that occur. The United States notifies underwriting gains on a fiscal year basis for constancy 
with the notification of other programmes  in Supporting Table DS:1. The underwriting 
gains reported on a fiscal year basis, rather than on a crop year basis, obscures the timing of the underwriting gain payments. A larger share of underwriting gains for a 
given crop year can end up being reported in the next fiscal year at the expense of the G/AG/W/126 
 
- 43 - 
 
  previous fiscal year, depending on the accuracy  of the projections at the time. Reporting 
on a crop year basis provides the better representation of the actual timing of underwriting gain payments to insurance companies. However, in the long run the total underwriting gains, on a crop-year or fiscal-year basis balance out, with both showing a 
total of about US$12 billion paid to insurance companies during 2003 to 2013. 
AG-IMS ID 73061: Question by European Union - Market price support 
Regarding G/AG/N/USA/80/REV.1, 
a. In relation to the explanation in footnote  2, could the United States of America 
explain the reason behind the temporary increase in the applied administered 
prices for the two dairy products in 2009? 
b. Could the United States of America expl ain how they identified the "eligible 
production" of nonfat dry milk and cheddar cheese for the purpose of the 
calculations made in Supporting Table DS:5? 
c. The MPS for butter, nonfat dry milk and cheddar cheese do not seem to add up 
to the "total dairy" amount. Could the United States of America confirm the 
calculations? 
Answer by United States of America 
a. The temporary increase in the applied administered price was made to address falling 
market prices at the time. The increase was made temporary to minimize longer term interventions in the dairy sector. 
b. "Eligible production" is the reported annual production quantity for each product as 
provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 
c. This was an error in the revision to the notification as the "Total market price support" in 
column 8 was not included for cheddar cheese and nonfat dry milk at the applied 
administered price of US$2,491.223/tonne and US$1,763.698/tonne, respectively. The 
value in column 8 should read US$1,615.394 for cheddar cheese and US$270.730 for nonfat dry milk. The correct information can also be found in G/AG/N/USA/80. 
AG-IMS ID 73062: Question by European Union - Non-product-specific AMS 
In the latest notifications presented by th e United States of America, the European 
Union observes a substantial increase in sp ending on premium subsidies to producers 
under the crop and revenue insurance subsidised by the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation (in Supporting Table DS:9). 
a. Could the United States of America indi cate what percentage of farmers made 
use of this insurance over the three latest years notified 2009 - 2011?  
b. How is "revenue" defined for the purpose of the insurance? 
Answer by United States of America a. The United States of America does not trac k the percentage of farmers who enroll in 
crop insurance. In 2009, 2010, and 2011, the net acres insured did not change 
substantially (approximately 265 million acres) indicating that there was not a significant 
change in the crop insurance participation rate. The increase in spending to producers under the crop insurance programme instead is mostly accounted for by an increase in 
commodity prices. An increase in commodity prices increases insured liabilities which, in 
turn, increase the amount of the premium and subsidy. 
b. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency defines revenue as yield 
times market price. G/AG/W/126 
 
- 44 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 73064: Question by European Union - Classification of measures 
In G/AG/N/USA/80/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/89/Rev.1, the United States of America 
notes that the reporting on the Rural Energy for America was corrected in the notifications. Could the United States of Am erica explain why they consider this change 
was necessary?  
Answer by United States of America 
The Rural Energy for America programme provides grants and loan guarantees to both farm 
and non-farm rural small businesses to purchase renewable energy systems and make 
energy efficiency improvements. Specific data on what share of grants and loan guarantees 
were awarded to farmers and ranchers are not available. Further, the programme has been 
changed through legislation over time, and in light of those changes, the United States of 
America reviewed how the programme is notified. The United States of America has decided 
to report this as non-product specific support since some of the expenditure may be providing direct assistance to producers in  upgrading energy systems on their farms. 
2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.4.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/33) AG-IMS ID 73065: Question by European Union - Government involvement 
Could Brazil provide information on the PA A programme (Programa de Aquisição de 
Alimentos) as applied by the Brazilian govern ment? According to the publicly available 
data, the Brazilian government purchased 830,000 tonnes of food amounting to a cost of 
R$1,75 billion in 2012 under the PAA and this amo unt is partly or fully exported as food 
aid. Are those amounts reflected in the Br azilian export subsidies or in any other 
notification? Could Brazil explain how the me asures applied by the government in the 
context of this programme comply with the definition of export subsidies as laid down in 
Article 1(e) of the Agreement on Agricultur e, given that the purchased products are 
exported? 
Answer by Brazil 
The amounts mentioned in the question do not reflect the Brazilian official data. According to 
the Federal Budget, the total cost of the programme was R$422.5 million in 2012, notified as a Green Box measure under the "program of acquisition of agricultural products from family farming". The quantity purchased und er the programme was 297,600 tonnes of food, 
according to CONAB's Annual Report, the operat ional body of the programme. The products 
that are the object of international food aid have come either from government stockpiles (mostly purchased under Marketing Price Support Program, as notified in the Supporting 
Tables DS:5) or acquisitions for international humanitarian purposes. None of the modalities 
of purchase are contingent upon export performance. 
2.4.2  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/18) 
AG-IMS ID 73025: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Australia notes the reported remarks of the European Commissioner for Agriculture and 
Rural Development on 16 January 2014, in particular that:  
"Since 1 January, EU legislation is also very clear: export refunds have ceased to exist as 
a means of systematically su pporting a sector. Moreover, I would like to tell you this 
evening, in the framework of preferenti al partnership agreem ents with African 
countries: I am prepared to go one step furthe r. I am ready to propose to stop, once and 
for all, the use of export refunds to those developing country destinations – even in 
times of crisis when this instrument can still be used. This commitment will bring our 
agricultural policy fully into line with EU development policy." 
Australia recognises this statement as refl ecting both reform undertaken, and also a 
proposal for another further step in the right direction. At the same time, Australia considers that while welcome, this reform will continue to fall short of the commitment 
to the parallel elimination of all forms of ex port subsidies and disciplines on all export G/AG/W/126 
 
- 45 - 
 
  measures with equivalent effect, as se t out in the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial 
D e c l a r a t i o n ,  a n d  t h e n  r e a f f i r m e d  b y  M i n i s t e r s  i n  B a l i .  I n  t h i s  c o n t e x t ,  A u s t r a l i a  n o t e s  that while the European Union pays no export  refunds, its level of export subsidies on 
sugar has generally remained at or above its export subsidy commitment levels. Will the 
European Union ensure that the physical quan tity of EU sugar exports subject to export 
subsidies for the 2013/2014 marketing year complies with its obligations. Consistent with Ministers' commitment to enhance transparency and to improve monitoring in 
relation to all forms of export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, 
Australia reiterates its previous request for the European Union to provide data on the 
physical volume of sugar exports. 
Answer by European Union 
The European Union fully supports the objective of parallel elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies and disciplines on all export measures with equivalent effect as was reaffirmed by Ministers in Bali. The European Union has always respected its bound commitments and also 
intends to do so in the future, including on export subsidies for sugar. EU trade statistics, 
including on sugar exports, are available via EU statistical office Eurostat
2. 
                                               
2 See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/newxtweb/setupdimselection.do#  
 G/AG/W/126 
 
- 46 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
CHART OF MONTHLY AVERAGE U.S. SPOT PRICE AND A-INDEX FOR COTTON 
(AG-IMS ID 73035) 
 
Source: Cotton report by USTR for March 2014 G/AG/W/126 
 
- 47 - 
 
  ANNEX 2 
TURKEY'S COMMON WHEAT IMPORTS (TOTAL) (AG-IMS ID 73042) 
YEAR Quantity (tonnes) 
2011 4,729,257 
2012 3,490,343 
2013 3,463,294 
 
TURKEY'S COMMON WHEAT FLOUR EXPORTS (TOTAL) 
YEAR Quantity (tonnes) 
2011 1,984,515 
2012 1,993,012 
2013 2,142,771 
 
  
  G/AG/W/126  
 
- 48 - ANNEX 3 
FUNDING SOURCES OF GUATEMALA'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT PROGRAMMES LISTED IN G/AG/N/GTM/45 (AG-IMS ID 73049) 
Measure type Name Description of measure with 
reference to criteria in 
Annex 2 Source of funding  
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 
DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED 
General Services, 
Agricultural Research 
Services (Annex 2, 
paragraph 2(a)) Institute of Agricultural 
Science and Technology Research and development 
of seed varieties X  X  X X X  X X  X  X  X  X  
Restructuring 
of agrifood production Agrifood research  X X X X X X X X X X X X       
Extension and training 
(Annex 2, paragraph 2(c)) Agricultural training 
schools (EFAS) Agriculture-oriented basic formal 
education and technical training for students in rural areas X
  X  X  X   X  X X X  X  X  
Fruit-growing 
and Agroindustry 
Development Project 
(PROFRUTA) Support for fruit-growing 
and agroindustry development in 
the form of training and technical 
assistance for producers X  X   X  X X   X  X     
Maya Center agrifood 
services Technical assistance and  training 
for small and medium-size producers in agriculture-, 
livestock-, agroindustrial 
development- and gender-related matters   X   X X  X X   X  X X    
PRODER T Implementation of  production 
projects X X X X               
PROCUCH  Implementation of  production 
projects X X X X  X             
Comprehensive project 
for Chortí communities Implementation of  production 
projects X X                 
Special Programme for 
Food Security (PESA) Training and technical assistance 
for food production  X X X  X  X           
Watershed conservation Watershed management 
and conservation       X  X  X X  X X X    
  G/AG/W/126  
 
- 49 - Measure type Name Description of measure with 
reference to criteria in 
Annex 2 Source of funding  
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 
DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED DS ED 
 Rural Development 
Programme, Phase One: The Western Region Implementation of
 production 
projects             X X X X   
Support for rural 
economies  Training and technical assistance 
to galvanize the rural economy              X     
PROBOTEN  Technical assistance in  managing 
and maintaining forest plantations              X     
g. Infrastructure 
services 
(Annex 2, 
paragraph 2(g)) Post-harvest 
management Training for silo manufacturers 
and delivery of silos to rural 
families X X X X  X  X X  X X X      
h. Domestic food aid (Annex 2, paragraph 4) Food security support Food aid for vulnerable segments 
of the population  X
  X   X X  X X  X X X  X X X X 
i. Structural adjustment 
assistance provided 
through investment 
aids 
(Annex 2, 
paragraph 11) PLAMAR / DIAPRYD Credit support for irrigation 
systems in agricultural 
areas affected by seasonal water 
deficit  X X X X X X  X X X X X X      
Pest and disease 
control 
(Annex 2, paragraph 2(b)) Integrated pest and 
transfer management Integrated pest management 
       X   X  X X X      
Aid for relief from 
natural disasters 
(Annex 2, paragraph 8) Support for the 
population affected 
by Tropical Storm 
Agatha, Government 
Decision No. 15-2010 (Food aid)              X X     
Environmental 
programmes (Annex 2, 
paragraph 12) Forests and Water Trust 
Fund for Concord Guatemalan 
Government-initiated project for 
the reforestation of municipally 
owned areas and/or areas without forest cover, with financial incentives for former civil patrol members to restock 
an anticipated 25,000 hectares 
of deforested soil             X  X  X  
c. Domestic food aid 
(Annex 2, paragraph 4) "Supertortillas" 
for enhanced nutrition Provision of enriched flou r                 X  
DS/Domestic Source                     
ED/External Donors                     
__________