G/AG/W/114  
 
16 September 2013  
(13-4906)  Page: 1/16  
Commitee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2013 
The present document compiles questions receiv ed by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
13 September 2013 as specified in WTO/AIR/4171.1 
  
_______________ 
 
                                               
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/114 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of Contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS: ARTICLE 
18.6 .......................................................................................................................... ....... 4 
1.1   Accession of Croatia to the Europe an Union ................................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Statement by the Euro pean Union (AG- IMS ID 71025) ................................................. 4  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.2.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71028) ....................................... 4  
1.3   Brazil's trade an d industry policy ................................................................................. 4  
1.3.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  71014)  .................................................................... 4  
1.4   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 5  
1.4.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 71012) ............................................................. 5  
1.5   China's cotton domestic support .................................................................................. 5  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71029) ....................................... 5  
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 6  
1.6.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71030) ....................................... 6  
1.7   India's national food security bill .................................................................................. 6  
1.7.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  71015)  .................................................................... 6  
1.8   Indonesia's stoc kholding pr ogramme s .......................................................................... 6  
1.8.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71044) ....................................... 6  
1.9   The Republic of Korea's domestic support for pork and beef ............................................. 6  
1.9.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  71016)  .................................................................... 6  
1.10   Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for po ultry and pork ................................. 7  
1.10.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71032) ..................................... 7  
1.11   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme .............................................................................. 7  
1.11.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71033) ..................................... 7  
1.11.2   Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 71018) ................................................................... 8  
1.12   Turkey's destinatio n of wheat fl our sales ..................................................................... 8  
1.12.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71034) ..................................... 8  
1.13   Ukraine's state regulation of pr oduction and realiz ation of sugar ..................................... 8  
1.13.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 71017) ................................................................... 8  
1.14   The United States of America's refined sugar re-export program ..................................... 9  
1.14.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 71019) ................................................................... 9  
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 10  
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 10 
2.1.1   Chile (G /AG/N/CH L/42) .......................................................................................... 10 
2.1.2   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38,  G/AG/N/SLV/40, G/AG/N/SLV /41) .................................. 10 
2.2   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5) ..................................... 10 
2.2.1   The European Union (G/AG/ N/EU/13) ....................................................................... 10 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 10 
2.3.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/AR G/31) ................................................................................... 10 G/AG/W/114 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.2   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/30) ......................................................................................... 11 
2.3.3   Chile (G /AG/N/CH L/40) .......................................................................................... 11 
2.3.4   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ID N/34) .................................................................................... 12 
2.3.5   Jamaica (G/AG/N/ JAM/9, G/AG/N /JAM/10) ................................................................ 12 
2.3.6   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NI C/36) .................................................................................... 13 
2.3.7   Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/A G/N/VCT/3) ..................................................... 13 
2.3.8   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/106) .......................................................................... 14 
2.3.9   Zambia (G/AG/N/ZM B/8) ........................................................................................ 14 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMEST IC SUPPORT MEASU RES (DS:2) .......................................... 14 
2.4.1   Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/52) ...................................................................................... 14 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION S (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) ................................. 15 
2.5.1   The European Union (G/AG/ N/EU/14) ....................................................................... 15 
2.5.2   Israel (G/AG/N/IS R/52) .......................................................................................... 15 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 16  
3.1   Viet Nam's de layed notifications ................................................................................. 16 
3.1.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  71035)  ...................................... 16 
 
 G/AG/W/114 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Accession of Croatia to the European Union 1.1.1  Statement by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 71025) The European Union is proud to inform the WTO Membership that on 1 July 2013 Croatia became 
the 28
th Member State of the European Union.  
 In the context of the review process in the Regu lar Committee on Agriculture, the European Union 
would like to inform Members about the arrangements concerning the relevant transparency 
obligations. These are applied in the same manner as for previous EU enlargements. Croatia will continue to notify on their own behalf the schedul ed notifications for reporting periods up to 2012. 
As for MA:2 and ES notifications covering 2013, Croatia will notify for the reporting period covering 
1 January to 30 June 2013. There will be EU-28 MA and ES notifications for reporting periods from 
1 July 2013 onwards. As far as domestic support is concerned, Croatia will be included in the European Union's annual notification covering spending in the marketing year 2012/2013.  
 
The Membership will be kept informed about arrangements concerning new and modified agricultural tariff rate quotas through the regula r MA:1 notification. Apart from notifications of 
individual arrangements, the European Union intends to provide an overall MA:1 update including 
addenda after GATT Article XXIV negotiations have been concluded.  1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.2.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71028) 
The United States of America appreciated Brazil's response to a question on PEP at the June 2013 
meeting of the Committee (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70007). In its response, Brazil said that it 
was in the process of compiling the information re quested by the United States of America on the 
quantities by commodity shipped to specific dome stic destinations as well as the quantities by 
commodity exported under the programme. 
a. Is Brazil prepared to provide the information now?  
b. If not, when does Brazil expect to provide it?  
1.3  Brazil's trade and industry policy 1.3.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71014) 
Canada has considered the responses provided at previous meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture regarding its trade and industry po licy for 2011-2014, called the Plano Brasil Maior 
("Greater Brazil Plan") and seeks further clarification. As mentioned at earlier meetings of the 
Committee, one of the plan's elements is a temporary payroll tax exemption, where the 20% 
mandatory employer's social security contribution on payrolls (contribution to the Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social or "INSS") is substituted for a flat rate ranging between 1% and 2% on 
gross earnings, excluding gross revenue from expo rts. Canada understands that only employers 
for which 50% or more revenue derived from export s of the products covered are currently eligible 
to benefit from the measure, and that the new calculation methodology exempts entirely revenues derived from exports.  
a. Could Brazil provide further details on the eligibility criteria that employers have to meet 
in order to be able to access this new methodology to calculate the social security contribution?  
b. Will the application of this new methodology be broadened to include all employers 
currently contributing to the INSS?  
c. Could Brazil elaborate on the changes brought by Plano Brasil Maior to the calculation 
methodology and how this new methodolog y helps to simplify and alleviate the 
administrative burden on eligible employers?  G/AG/W/114 
 
- 5 - 
 
  d. In light of the definition of a subsidy pr ovided in Article 1.1 (a)(1)(ii); “government 
revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected…” of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), could Brazil provide an assessment of the financial impact of the new methodology on the level of contributions collected by 
the INSS from employers?  
e. Considering the provisions of Article 3.1 (a) and paragraph (e) of the Illustrative List 
provided in Annex 1 of the ASCM, could Brazil substantiate its claim that the new 
calculation methodology does not constitute an export subsidy prohibited by the ASCM?  
1.4  Canada's dairy policies 1.4.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 71012) According to notified information, Canada has used nearly its entire revenue outlays for 
"incorporated products" and "other milk products" each year since 2003. New Zealand has recently 
seen Canadian media reports describing the deve lopment of a new dairy manufacturing plant in 
Scarborough, Ontario. New Zealand understands fr om those reports that the company’s focus will 
be on exporting the plant’s manufacturing output, and that the Canadian government may have 
granted both an export permit, and access to a supply of subsidised inputs for further processing via a Special Milk Class 5(b) Permit.  
Could Canada please confirm: 
a. Whether the Canadian Dairy Commission has granted the plant access to dairy 
ingredient inputs via a Special Milk Class?  
b. Whether exports from this plant that incorporate dairy products supplied under a Special 
Milk Class will be included in Canada’s total revenue outlays and volume limits for export 
subsidies reported to the WTO? 
c. Whether Canada is intending to provide export subsidies up to its full entitlement this 
year, and in subsequent years for dairy exports through using supply managed inputs? 
1.5  China's cotton domestic support  1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71029) 
The United States of America notes that Chin a's last domestic support notification (from 
13 October 2011 - G/AG/N/CHN/21) provided information through 2008. In that submission, China reported cotton-specific support (seeds, reserves, transportation) accounting for RMB 2.8 billion or 2.5% of the value of cotton production in 2008.  Since then, China has added a price support 
programme for cotton to those pre-existing subsidy policies noted above. China's support price for 
cotton is substantially higher than world market prices; with China's fixed external reference price for cotton, the estimated price gap in 2013 is over RMB 6,000 per metric ton. Moreover, during 
these recent four years, China has engaged in significant stock-building for cotton, which has 
affected the global supply equation, leading to generally higher than expected world prices and strong Chinese end-user preference for more ec onomically priced imported cotton. Given the 
significant attention around the world on China's cotton policies:  
a. When does China intend to notify domestic support notifications on recent years, in 
particular for years when cotton price support was applied?  
b. Can China provide the Committee information on various subsidy measures associated 
with price support as well as accumulation , maintenance, and distribution of cotton 
stocks? 
c. Can China provide the Committee with any information on how it will manage its sizable 
cotton stocks in a manner that avoids negative effects on the world cotton market?  G/AG/W/114 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.6.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71030) 
The United States of America thanks Costa Rica for notifying the WTO on 29 May 2013 
(G/AG/GEN/110) that the price support mechanism for rice will be eliminated 1 March 2014 per 
decree No. 37699-MEIC (20 May 2013) titled, "Elimination of the price fixing mechanism for rice 
and transition towards an alternative mechanism". Given the important implication of this decision to bring Costa Rica back into compliance with its domestic support commitments, a continued 
update on relevant developments will be appreciated.  
a. Please provide the status/details of the new policy including steps taken toward its 
implementation 
b. Specifically, what will be the role of the Government of Costa Rica, particularly in 
comparison to other organizations' role , in conducting the new rice policy? 
c. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system?  
d. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying them to 
the WTO? 
1.7  India's national food security bill 1.7.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71015) 
Canada notes that there have been many reports in the Indian media as well as the international 
media regarding the National Food Security Bill, 2013. 
a. Could India please clarify where the National Food Security Bill, 2013 is in India’s 
legislative process and what are the next steps with respect to its implementation? 
b. Could India please elaborate on the expected implications of the National Food Security 
Bill, 2013 on India's public stockholding prog rammes including on levels of procurement 
and spending? 
c. Canada understands that the states and the federal government share responsibility for 
agriculture. Could India please describe the mechanisms that facilitate the interaction between the states and the federal government? 
1.8  Indonesia's stockholding programmes 
1.8.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71044) 
The United States of America has additional qu estions related to questions under this topic 
resubmitted under the review of notifications belo w. Please provide updated information regarding 
new stockpiling programmes in Indonesia, e.g. for soybeans. Does Indonesia plan to expand these 
programmes further? If so, please provide information. 
1.9  The Republic of Korea's domestic support for pork and beef  
1.9.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71016) 
Canada understands that in late 2012 the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 
(MIFAFF) announced its intention to purchase abou t 2,000 tonnes of pork as part of a policy to 
support the price of pork. In addition, Canada und erstands that in approximately the same period 
MIFAFF announced its intention to provide a financial incentive to farmers to reduce the size of the Korean cattle herd in order to support the price of cattle.   
As the Republic of Korea’s most recent annual domestic support notification is for the period 
2005-2008 (G/AG/N/KOR/43) Canada seeks additional information on these measures. G/AG/W/114 
 
- 7 - 
 
  a. Canada would ask the Republic of Korea to provide information as to the approximate 
cost of the measures for pork and beef. 
b. Subsequent to this measure in the Korean pork market, has there been another policy 
by the Government of the Republic of Korea to support the price of pork? If so, Canada 
asks the Republic of Korea to provide details of this measure and its approximate cost. 
c. Subsequent to the initial action in the Korean beef/cattle market, has there been another 
one by the Government of the Republic of Korea to support the price of beef? If so, 
Canada asks the Republic of Korea to provide details of this measure and its 
approximate cost. 
1.10  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.10.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71032) 
The United States of America resubmits its questions to Saint Lucia since no response has been 
received to date from questions posed at the Ma rch 2013 meeting. The United States of America 
has modified question e. 
 
The United States of America understands, as indi cated by industry sources, that Saint Lucia's 
domestic purchase requirements for poultry increased on 29 October 2012 from 25% to 33%. The 
United States of America also understands that there is a domestic purchase requirement of 
almost 67% for pork. 
a. Please identify where these requirem ents are documented and published. 
b. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Saint Lucia's laws and regulations) for these domestic 
purchase requirements? 
c. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Saint Lucia's laws and regulations) for the increased 
domestic purchase requirement for poultry that was notified by letter to poultry 
importers on 29 October 2012? 
d. Where was the domestic notification publicly published? 
e. Does Saint-Lucia intend to submit notifications to the WTO related to poultry or pork 
market arrangements, domestic purchase requirements and/or import licensing 
requirements? 
1.11  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 1.11.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71033) 
The United States of America regrets the co ntinued non-response regarding questions on 
Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme, which were posed at the March and June 2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031 and 69032 and G/AG/W/111, 
AG-IMS ID 70011). The United States of Americ a resubmits the questions and looks forward to 
holding an informal meeting in advance of the 26 September Committee on Agriculture in order to 
explore this issue more substantively.  
a. When does Thailand expect to provide upda ted Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications that 
include information regarding the paddy pledging scheme to the WTO?  
b. Thailand previously stated that official information on rice pledging scheme could be 
found on the website of the Department of Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce. The 
United States of America notes, however, that the Department of Internal Trade has, 
since 8 October 2012, discontinued the online publication of rice exports. The Government of Thailand also discontinued publishing the rice pledging programme 
progress report online. Please indicate when this function will be restored. The United 
States of America notes that the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) reported revenue of 72 billion baht during 2012 from the Ministry of Commerce G/AG/W/114 
 
- 8 - 
 
  through sales of government-owned rice stocks . This revenue figure appears to indicate 
much larger sales than previously reported.  
c. Is this a result of significant increase in sales between September and the end of the 
year? If not, what other factors resulted in the increased revenue?  
d. Please confirm whether the Government of Thailand places any requirements or 
preferences on stocks that are released for either export or domestic use. If so, when and how does the Government of Thailand determine if sales are for export or the 
domestic market? What laws or regulations oversee/implement government practices in 
this area?  
e. Regarding Thailand's response about its rice intervention price (G/AG/W/106, 
paragraph 18):  
i. Please provide more details on how the intervention price is determined, including 
information explaining the meaning of an "appropriate profit reflecting farmer living cost."  
ii. In 2012, what were the total expenditures on benefits to millers?  
f. The United States of America appreciates Thailand's detailed response regarding the 
areas that are cultivated and harvested (G/AG/W/106, paragraph 20). The United States 
of America understands that high prices have encouraged farmers, particularly in 
irrigated areas, to shorten their growing season for each crop, so that multiple rice crops (using lower quality varieties) can be harvested.  
i. Please describe further the trend in the number of crops per year farmers are 
harvesting and the types/quality of rice being planted.  
ii. Please provide the quantities of rice pr ocured by variety for crop years 2011 and 
2012.  
1.11.2  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71018) 
Canada regrets that its questions to Thailand on its Paddy Pledging Scheme from the March 2013 
meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031) and the June 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/111, 
AG-IMS-ID 70017) remain unanswered. Canada re-submits the questions and looks forward to 
Thailand’s expeditious response. 
a. Could Thailand please provide additional details on this proposed programme?  
b. How will Thailand manage its domestic support commitments while providing what 
Canada assumes to be significant amounts of domestic support to producers of rice?  
1.12  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sales 1.12.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71034) 
The United States of America understands that the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) sells wheat to 
domestic flour mills below acquisition costs. Please provide information on the destination, whether for export and/or for the domestic market, of the flour made from such wheat sales.  
 
1.13  Ukraine's state regulation of pr oduction and realization of sugar  
1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71017) A news release dated 19 April 2013 from the Press Se rvice of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and 
Food of Ukraine notes that a draft law which, among other things, notes that "… minimal prices for 
sugar beets and A quota sugar will be abolished…". G/AG/W/114 
 
- 9 - 
 
  a. Could Ukraine please provide the Committee with an update on the status of this new 
draft law? 
b. Could Ukraine indicate if the removal of the administered prices for sugar beets and A 
quota sugar take effect immediately upon passage of the new law? 
1.14  The United States of America' s refined sugar re-export program  
1.14.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71019) The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recently undertaken several initiatives to 
avoid processors forfeiting sugar offered as co llateral to USDA when securing loans under the 
sugar programme. Amongst these initiatives, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) modified the Refined Sugar Re-export Program (RSRP) which resulted in two tranches of sugar being purchased by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) which was subsequently provided to RSRP participants in 
exchange for a minimum of 2.5 credits per metric tonne (MT) of sugar provided. There were also 
temporary waivers that permitted licensed refiners to transfer programme sugar from their license to another refiner’s license through until 30 September 2013; that increased the license limit for 
cane sugar refiners from 50,000 MT of credits to 100,000 MT through until 31 December 2014; 
and that extended the timeframe to make required exports or sugar transfers from 90 days to 270 days. To date, these actions have resulted in approximately 106,742 MT of sugar being 
purchased by the CCC and then exchanged for 311,264 RSRP credits. USDA announced a third 
tranche of exchanges on 12 September 2013, for li censed refiners to exchange license credits 
under the RSRP for an additional 77,451 MT of CCC-owned sugar. Canada has concerns that the 
modifications to the RSRP appear to provide export subsidies on sugar prohibited under 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Would the United States of America provide data on: 
i. the current and expected sugar surplus in the United States of America; 
ii. the amount of sugar outstanding under loans that could be forfeited; 
iii. the amount of sugar currently held by CCC; and 
iv. the total amount of debits and total amount of credits outstanding in licensee's 
accounts. 
b. The RSRP normally has a neutral impact on the supply of sugar in the U.S. market 
(i.e., one tonne of raw imports to 1 tonne of exports of refined sugar or equivalent in sugar-containing products). Would the United States of America explain how the 
changes to the RSRP, including the temporar y waivers and increase to the exchange 
ratio:  
i. has impacted volumes of raw sugar imports into the United States of America;  
ii. has impacted volumes of exports of refined sugar (or equivalent in sugar-containing 
products) from the United States of America; 
iii. is expected to impact these volumes in the future?  
c. How is the CCC compensated for the sugar it provides to RSRP participants?  G/AG/W/114 
 
- 10 - 
 
  2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 2.1.1  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/42) AG-IMS ID 71002: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Further to a similar question in 2011 (paragraph 12 of G/AG/W/86 refers), Australia notes that 
Chile has notified there were no imports within its tariff quota for beet sugar or other sugar in 2012 (tariff lines 1701.9920 and 1701.9990). Could Chile provide advice as to whether its 
previous explanation continues to apply? 
 2.1.2  El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38, G/AG/N/SLV/40, G/AG/N/SLV/41) 
AG-IMS ID 71026: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues 
The commitments of El Salvador comprise eleven  bound tariff quotas, while the notification for 
2011 and 2012 includes only one of them. The European Union would like to request El Salvador to include all bound tariff quotas in the notifications as a matter of transparency. This request was 
also raised at the 66
th meeting of the Committee in June 2012 (paragraph 23 of G/AG/W/96 
refers). The European Union would like to repeat this transparency related concern since the new notification under review also lacks information on ten bound tariff rate quotas. 
 
AG-IMS ID 71003: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes the fill rate for El Salvador's one operational TRQ (for cheddar, in blocks or in bars) 
was around 23% in 2012. Australia further notes this  fill rate has remained low for a number of 
years. Could El Salvador please clarify the reasons for the low utilisation of this TRQ, especially 
given that the fill rate stood at over 83% in its 2006 notification (G/AG/N/SLV/27).   
If this relates to arrangements under free trade agreements, Australia would be grateful if 
El Salvador could explain what percentage of it s total imports of the relevant products in 2012 
were covered by concessionary treatment under a free trade agreement arrangement.  
 
2.2  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5) 
2.2.1  The European Union (G/AG/N/EU/13) AG-IMS ID 71004: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Could the European Union confirm whether any SSGs were invoked during marketing year 
2011/2012. Australia notes that this question is primarily in the interests of enhanced transparency. To this same end, Australia requests the European Union clearly indicate where an 
SSG was invoked by filling in columns 3 and 4 of the relevant notification.  
 2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/31) 
AG-IMS ID 71005: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services 
Can Argentina confirm that its spending on infrastructure services excludes the provision of 
on-farm facilities? 
 G/AG/W/114 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.3.2  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/30) 
AG-IMS ID 71037: Question by the United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America notes that Brazil indicated that its domestic food aid programme was 
modified in 2009 under Law 11,947 of 16 June 2009 and resulted in the expansion of the 
programme (and expenditures) (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70053). The United States of America notes that Brazil has not provided a Table DS:2 for this modified exempt programme. Does Brazil 
intend to provide a Table DS:2 for this programme and any other modified or new exempted 
programmes?   AG-IMS ID 71036: Question by the United St ates of America - Public stockholding for 
food security purposes 
The United States of America notes that Braz il indicated (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70057 and 
70001) that the large increase in expenditures for the PAA was due to the "incorporation of data of 
the Ministry of Social Development".  
a. Please explain if there was a change in the programme in 2009/10 that resulted in this 
new data or if the programme remains unchanged, but with more accurate budgetary 
figures?  
b. If the latter, does Brazil plan to amend its past notifications?  
2.3.3  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/40) AG-IMS ID 71020: Question by Cana da - General services: research 
Canada notes that there was a 33% increase in expenditures under "research and development 
centres" from Ch$10,763,377,000 in 2010 (G/AG/N/CHL/37) to Ch$14,320,521,000 in 2011. Could Chile elaborate on the reasons for this substantial increase in support to "Research and 
development centres"?  
 AG-IMS ID 71009: Question by Australia - General services: extension and advisory 
services 
Could Chile please confirm that its support for irrigation and energy efficiency pre-investment 
programmes does not involve direct payments to producers or processors?  
AG-IMS ID 71038: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
The United States of America appreciates Chile's consistent and timely submission of domestic 
support notifications to the Committee. Simi lar to Chile's 2010 Table DS:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/CHL/37), Chile notified its agricultural insurance programme through Measure Type 2.5
2, 
direct payment to producers (G/AG/N/CHL/40). In Chile’s response to a question (AG-IMS ID 66047 of G/AG/N/CHL/37) about this notification fr om the European Union, it stated that "Chile 
considers agricultural insurance to be consistent with the considerations in paragraph 5 of Annex 
2, in particular the criteria set forth in paragraph 6(b) to (e)".  
a. Please confirm that as in Paragraph 6(e), "no production shall be required in order to 
receive such payments" (i.e., farmers would receive payment for insurance premiums 
regardless of whether or not anything is produced).  
b. Please confirm how the subsidy benefit is transferred to the producer (i.e., a direct 
payment to the producer or indirectly via payments to insurance companies to reduce 
the premium rate for producers).  
c. Please provide information on the level of production or income loss required for a 
producer to receive an insurance payment.  
                                               
2 Paragraph 5 of Annex 2 under the Agreement on Agriculture. G/AG/W/114 
 
- 12 - 
 
  d. Further, please explain how the income loss is calculated?  
2.3.4  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34) AG-IMS ID 71039: Question by the United St ates of America - General services: other 
The United States of America resubmits its questions to Indonesia since no response has been 
received to date from questions posed at the June 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 
70025). In the years covered by Indonesia's prior notifications (G/AG/N/IDN/30 and G/AG/N/IDN/34), what programmes has Indonesia administered that subsidize loans taken out by 
farm producers (for instance, the Kredit Ketahanan Pangan—Food Security Credit)?  
a. What was the amount of government spending to subsidize the loans? How many 
farmers received the loans?  
b. Have any of the loans been forgiven?  
c. Please indicate how such measures are accounted for in Indonesia's recent notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 71031: Question by the United St ates of America - Public stockholding for 
food security purposes 
The United States of America notes that Indonesia states that stocks are procured at administered 
prices, which take market prices into account (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70026). 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. Further, the Un ited States of America understands 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. Please explain and clarify these policies and 
notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 71040: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for relief from natural disasters 
The United States of America notes that the measur e reported as a direct payment for relief from 
a natural disaster, as described in respon se to AG-IMS ID 70029 and 70071 in G/AG/W/111 
compensates producers for a production loss due to a natural disaster with payments-in-kind (rice). Further, such payments have no specific conditions for payment.  
a. How does this measure meet the criteria set out in paragraph 8(a) of the Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, which requires producers to sustain a loss of more than 30% 
to receive payment? 
b. Are payments limited to agricultural producers or available to all residents in the affected 
disaster area?  
c. If the latter, could Indonesia explain why this measure is not notified as a domestic food 
aid programme?  
2.3.5  Jamaica (G/AG/N/JAM/9, G/AG/N/JAM/10) 
AG-IMS ID 71027: Question by the European Union - General services: extension and 
advisory services 
a. Jamaica's expenses for general services "extension and advisory services" have 
decreased by more than 40% according to the 2009 notification compared to the 
previous notification for 2008/09. 
Could Jamaica explain the reasons behind this major decrease? G/AG/W/114 
 
- 13 - 
 
  b. In 2009 Jamaica discontinued to notify for fiscal years and commenced to notify for 
calendar years.  
i. Could Jamaica explain the reasons behind this change of periods? 
ii. How has the risk of double counting been solved? 
AG-IMS ID 71041: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
inspection services 
The United States of America appreciates Jamaic a's notification to update the Committee on the 
relevant applied domestic support policies of Jamaica. In Supporting Table DS:1 (G/AG/N/JAM/9 
and G/AG/N/JAM/10), it is noted that expenses related to plant quarantine nearly doubled in 
2008/2009 as compared to all other years notified.  
a. Please provide information about changes in plant quarantine programmes that caused 
this budgetary increase. 
b. Additionally, is there a rationale for not providing the general DS:1 table characterizing 
the level of non-exempt support? 
2.3.6  Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/36) 
AG-IMS ID 71042: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
The United States of America appreciates Nicaragua’s notification (G/AG/N/NIC/36) to update the 
Committee on the relevant applied domestic support  policies. The United States of America notes 
that Nicaragua has previously stated (AG-IMS ID 69067) that the general objective of the Food Production Program (PPA) is to eradicate hunger, chronic malnutrition, extreme poverty, and unemployment in poor rural households through a quantitative and qualitative increase in 
production and consumption proteins. This is accomplished through the issuance of vouchers, 
which the government supplies animals, on-farm in frastructure, seeds, plants and plant materials 
for both animal and human consumption and training/technical assistance. The programme 
appears to have multiple dimensions, which include input subsidization and training/extension 
services for poverty-stricken households that are captured across a variety of exempt domestic support categories with the ultimate consequenc e being increased food consumption, but not the 
direct provision of food for consumption or direct subsidization of food purchases.  
a. Could Nicaragua explain why this programme may not be better captured under 
paragraph 2 of Annex 2 and/or under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Additionally, the cover note to this notification explains that during the reporting year in 
question all support is of the exempted char acter. Is there a rationale for not providing 
the general DS:1 table characterizing the level of non-exempt support?  
2.3.7  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/AG/N/VCT/3) 
AG-IMS ID 71043: Question by the United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciates St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ recent domestic support 
notification updating the Committee on the relevant applied agricultural policies. The provision of 
the type of "investment" support outlined in Su pporting Table DS:1 can represent important policy 
steps toward strengthening infrastructure for agricultural producers, which is increasingly being highlighted as essential to expanding any domestic agricultural system's capacity to produce more 
and/or more efficiently. 
a. Please provide the total value of agricultural production relative to the notified support.  
b. Also, the cover note to this notification explains that during the two years in question all 
support is of the exempted character. Is th ere a rationale for not providing the general 
DS:1 table characterizing the level of non-exempt support?  G/AG/W/114 
 
- 14 - 
 
  2.3.8  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/106) 
AG-IMS ID 71006: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services 
Chinese Taipei's spending on "Infrastructural services: Planning and construction of 
irrigation/drainage facilities and rural roads, land consolidation for agricultural sector and 
establishment of rural community" increased fr om NT$9,119.81 million  in 2008 to NT$16,856.92 
million in 2010. Can Chinese Taipei please confirm that this expenditure relates to capital works only, especially that component described as for the "establishment of rural community". Can 
Chinese Taipei also please confirm that these paym ents do not extend to subsidized provision of 
on-farm facilities?  AG-IMS ID 71021: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Under the general services category, payments for infrastructural services have increased 
significantly from year to year, from NT$ 9,119.81 million in 2008 to NT$13,265.68 in 2009 to NT$16,856.92 million in 2010, in other words, 45% and 27%, respectively. Could Chinese Taipei 
elaborate on the reasons for these increases each year? 
 AG-IMS ID 71007: Question by Australia- Market price support 
With regard to its domestic support commitments notified in Supporting Table DS:5, can Chinese 
Taipei please advise how and when its planned purchase of rice is notified each year in support of its approach in calculating market price support on the basis of actual purchases rather than total value of production?  
 
AG-IMS ID 71023: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes that in each year a substantial amount of the non-product specific support reported 
was attributed to payments under the "Agricultural Fertilizer Price Difference Subsidy" which 
makes its first appearance in 2008.  
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide more details regarding the methodology used to determine 
the preferential price for fertil izer for agricultural use?  
b. Is this preferential price for fertilizer for agricultural use determined on an annual basis? 
2.3.9  Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/8) AG-IMS ID 71008: Question by Australia - Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
Can Zambia please confirm that its government food security stockholdings for purposes are made 
at market prices?   
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTI C SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.4.1  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/52) AG-IMS ID 71010: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
In relation to the "development and climate chan ge project", Australia seeks further advice about 
the basis of Uruguay's classification of this programme, particularly in relation to financial assistance to encourage investment in production systems. What are the specific conditions that 
are required to be met under the government programme and what measures are in place to 
ensure that payment is limited to the extra costs in complying with the government programme?   G/AG/W/114 
 
- 15 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 71022: Question by Cana da - Classificati on of measures 
Canada thanks Uruguay for submitting a Table DS:2 notification describing the new measure 
development and climate change adaptation project (Proyecto de Desarrollo y Adaptación al Cambio Climático, DACC).  
 
Paragraph 3(b) describes the objectives of measures that will be employed to assist farmers to mitigate and/or adapt to the effects of climate change. One such objective is identified as 
increasing production.  
 
a. Firstly, could Uruguay clarify under which category of exempt support, e.g. Annex 2, 
Article 6.2 or Article 6.5 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture that the development and 
climate change adaptation project is being notified?  
b. If the development and climate change adap tation project is being notified under 
Annex 2, then could Uruguay please elaborate on paragraph 3(b) which includes as one 
of the objectives as being to increase production in individual farm holdings as Annex 2 
is clear that payments must not be linked to production? 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.5.1  The European Union (G/AG/N/EU/14) 
AG-IMS ID 71011: Question by Australia - Transparency issues Following on from Australia's question at the 68
th Committee on Agriculture meeting 
in November 2012 (paragraph 8 of G/AG/W/106 refers), and on-going concerns about the 
European Union's compliance with its sugar export subsidy obligations, Australia asks the 
European Union to please confirm its physical volume of out-of-quota sugar exports on a year-to-year basis and then follow-up as soon as the data is available on physical exports for the 
whole marketing year. Can the European Union also  confirm its actual and planned licences issued 
for the 2012/13 marketing year?   
AG-IMS ID 71024: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues 
Brazil understands that the European Union is still notifying under Table ES:1 the total of 
subsidized exports on the basis of licenses issued and not on the basis of the actual exports in a 
given market year. This is an issue of concern to Brazil, already highlighted in previous Committee 
on Agriculture meetings and in the General Council. Brazil firmly believes that the European 
Union's WTO obligations are not complied with by simply guaranteeing that the number of export 
licenses issued with reference to a particular year is not above the European Union's scheduled 
commitments. Brazil considers that the actual exports of a Member in any given year should not 
be in excess of its WTO schedule commitments. Members should not lose sight that it is the actual export of subsidized products that affect the international markets. As a matter of fact, Brazil 
knows that for MY 2011-2012 the European Union' s exports of out-of-quota sugar were above 
the European Union’s reduction commitments. In light of the information above, Brazil would encourage the European Union to bring their current practice into conformity with its WTO obligations and ask whether actual exports of out-of-quota sugar may exceed again 
the European Union's export subsidies commitments in MY 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.  
 2.5.2  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/52) 
AG-IMS ID 71013: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Australia acknowledges the considerable reductions Israel has made to its use of export subsidies 
on vegetables and fruits, and also the elimination of  export subsidies on citrus fruits. Could Israel 
please explain its current policy regarding export subsidies and possible domestic consideration or 
discussion about eliminating the use of all forms of  export subsidies? Israel notified the use of 
export subsidies in 2011/12 but in its latest trade policy review (8 May 2013) it was stated that Israel does not use export subsidies for agricultural products.   
 G/AG/W/114 
 
- 16 - 
 
  3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Viet Nam's delayed notifications 3.1.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71035) 
Vietnam has not submitted domestic support notifications to the Committee on Agriculture since 
acceding to the WTO in 2007. Could Vietnam please indicate when it intends to submit these 
overdue notifications to the WTO? 
__________