G/AG/W/ 217 
 
4 March 2022  
(22-2019) Page: 1/52 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 15 -16 MARCH 2022  
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of noon 
of 2 March  2022 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/55.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO  THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  ..... 7 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.1  Argentina's export restrictions of wheat (SIM 717)  ................................ ..........................  7 
1.1.1  Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100062)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.2  Australia's ethanol tax (SIM 718) ................................ ................................ ..................  7 
1.2.1  Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100002)  ................................ ............  7 
1.3  EU's agricultural policies funded by national resources (SIM 719)  ................................ ...... 7 
1.3.1  Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100072)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.4  Guyana's Prohibition of rice exports (SIM 720 ) ................................ ................................  8 
1.4.1  Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100110)  ................................ ........................  8 
1.5  India's mung beans import restrictions (SIM 721)  ................................ ...........................  8 
1.5.1  Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100100)  ................................ ................................ .. 8 
1.5.2  Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100111)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.6  India's Dairy Sahakar scheme (SIM 722)  ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
1.6.1  Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100112)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.7  India's increased budget for subsidy support farmers use of fer tiliser (SIM 723)  ..................  9 
1.7.1  Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100113)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.8  Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions (SIM 724)  ................................ ...........................  9 
1.8.1  Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100118)  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
1.9  Kazakhstan's quantitative export restrictions on agricultur al products (SIM 725) .................  10 
1.9.1  Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100010)  ................................ ...........  10 
1.10  Malaysia's rice import system (SIM 726)  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100011)  ................................ .........  10 
1.11  Oman's Vision 2020 plan (SIM 727)  ................................ ................................ ............  10 
1.11.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100013)  ................................ .........  10 
1.12  Philippines' SSG application on instant coffee (SIM 728)  ................................ ................  11 
1.12.1   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 100120)  ................................ ..............................  11 
1.13  Turkey's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  ................................ ...... 11 
1.13.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100126)  ................................ ................................ ... 11 
1.14  Turkey's freight support (SIM 730)  ................................ ................................ .............  11 
1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100014)  ................................ .........  11 
1.15  UK's forest risk commodities provisions (SIM 731)  ................................ ........................  12 
1.15.1   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 100127)  ................................ ..............................  12 
1.16  U.S. Market Facilitation Programme (MFP) (SI M 732)  ................................ ....................  12 
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100129)  ................................ ...............................  12 
1.17  U.S. Partnership to Ease Port Congestion and Restore Disrupted Shipping Services to U.S. 
Grown Agricultural Commodities (SIM 733)  ................................ ................................ .........  13 
1.17.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100132)  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
1.18  U.S. USD 800 million subsidies for biofuels from agricultural products (SIM 734)  ..............  13 
1.18.1   Question by European U nion (AG -IMS ID 100133)  ................................ .....................  13 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 3 - 
 
  SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ .........  13 
1.19  Angola's import policies (SIM 660)  ................................ ................................ .............  13 
1.19.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100058)  ................................ .....................  13 
1.20  Argentina's export restrictions on beef (SIM 710)  ................................ .........................  14 
1.20.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100001)  ................................ .....................  14 
1.20.2   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100063)  ................................ ................................ ... 14 
1.21  Canada's review of the TRQ system (SIM 536)  ................................ .............................  14 
1.21.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100059)  ................................ ...............................  14 
1.21.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100039)  ................................ .....................  15 
1.21.3   Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 100065)  ................................ .....................  15 
1.22  Canada's compensation to dairy farmers after trade concessions (SIM 512)  .....................  15 
1.22.1   Question by European U nion (AG -IMS ID 100040)  ................................ .....................  15 
1.23  Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  ................................ ..............................  15 
1.23.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100064)  ................................ .........................  15 
1.24  Canada's Dairy Policies (SIM 18)  ................................ ................................ ................  15 
1.24.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100107)  ................................ .........................  15 
1.25  EU's deforestation and forest degradation strategy (SIM 558)  ................................ ........  16 
1.25.1   Question by Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 100071)  ................................  16 
1.25.2   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 100103)  ................................ ..............................  17 
1.25.3   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 1001 30) ................................ ...............................  18 
1.26  EU's environmental policies (SIM 560)  ................................ ................................ ........  18 
1.26.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100070)  ................................ ................................ ... 18 
1.26.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 100041)  ................................ ................................ .... 18 
1.27  EU's Product Environment Footprint (PEF) (SIM 388)  ................................ ....................  19 
1.27.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100073)  ................................ .........................  19 
1.28  India's rice exports (SIM 333)  ................................ ................................ ...................  19 
1.28.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 100086)  ................................ ................................ . 19 
1.29  India's pulses policies (SIM 442)  ................................ ................................ ................  19 
1.29.1   Question by Canada, European Union and the United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 100008)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  19 
1.29.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 100087)  ................................ ................................ . 20 
1.29.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 100135)  ................................ .................  20 
1.30  India's export subsidies for skim milk powder (SIM 651)  ................................ ...............  21 
1.30.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100115)  ................................ .....................  21 
1.31  India's Scheme for Remission of Duties and  Taxes on Exported Products (SIM 628)  ...........  21 
1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100003)  ................................ .........  21 
1.32  India's support to sugar and biofuels (SIM 674)  ................................ ...........................  22 
1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100009)  ................................ .........  22 
1.33  India's oi lseeds policies (SIM 673)  ................................ ................................ ..............  22 
1.33.1   Question by the United States of America and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 100004)  ................  22 
1.34  India's public stockpiling (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ ............  23 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.34.1   Question by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Thailand, United States of America 
and Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 100005)  ................................ ................................ ......................  23 
1.34.2   Question by Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, Thailand, United 
States of America and Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 1000 06) ................................ ............................  23 
1.35  India's cotton support (SIM 698)  ................................ ................................ ................  23 
1.35.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100085)  ................................ ...............................  23 
1.36  Mongolia's quota regime for importation (SIM 463)  ................................ .......................  24 
1.36.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 100131)  ................................ .................  24 
1.37  Russian Federation's grain export duties (SIM 682)  ................................ ......................  24 
1.37.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 100122)  ................................ ................................ .... 24 
1.38  South Africa's Review of tariff structure for poultry meat imports (SIM 701)  .....................  25 
1.38.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100124)  ................................ .....................  25 
1.39  U.S. Domestic support policies and notifications (SIM 571)  ................................ ............  25 
1.39.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100134)  ................................ .........................  25 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL  NOTIFICATIONS  .....................  25 
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  ................................ .. 25 
2.1.1  El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/72)  ................................ ................................ ...................  25 
2.1.2  European Union  (G/AG/N/EU/72)  ................................ ................................ ..............  25 
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ...... 26 
2.2.1  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/51, G /AG/N/ISL/52, G/AG/N/ISL/53)  ................................ ...........  26 
2.2.2  India (G/AG/N/IND/26)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  26 
2.2.3  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/85)  ................................ ................................ .........  26 
2.2.4  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/109)  ................................ ................................ ................  26 
2.2.5  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/109, G/AG/N/ZAF/110)  ................................ ......................  27 
2.2.6  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/110)  ................................ ................................ ................  28 
2.2.7  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/113)  ................................ ................................ ................  28 
2.2.8  United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ .... 28 
2.2.9  United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6)  ................................ ................................ ..............  29 
2.2.10   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6, G/AG/N/GBR/6/REV.1)  ................................ ............  30 
2.3  Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ....................  30 
2.3.1  Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/80)  ................................ ................................ ....................  30 
2.4  Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................  30 
2.4.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/142)  ................................ ................................ ....................  30 
2.4.2  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/142)  ................................ ................................ ......................  31 
2.4.3  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/54, G/AG/N/ISL/55, G/AG/N/ISL/56)  ................................ ...........  32 
2.4.4  India (G/AG/N/IND/18, G/AG/N/IND/25)  ................................ ................................ .... 33 
2.4.5  India (G/AG/N/IND/25)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  34 
2.4.6  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/67, G/AG/N/IDN/68)  ................................ .............................  35 
2.4.7  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/68, G/AG/N/IDN/69)  ................................ .............................  35 
2.4.8  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/81)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  36 
2.4.9  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/55)  ................................ ................................ ........................  38 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.4.10   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/19, G/AG/N/NGA/20, G/AG/N/NGA/21)  ................................ ..... 38 
2.4.11   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/119)  ................................ ................................ ....................  38 
2.4.12   Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/26)  ................................ ................................ .......................  39 
2.4.13   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/78)  ................................ ................................ ..................  39 
2.4.14   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/23)  ................................ .............................  40 
2.4.15   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/114) ................................ ................................ ...............  40 
2.4.16   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/206, G/AG/N/TPKM/207)  ................................ .............  40 
2.4.17   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/21)  ................................ ................................ ... 40 
2.4.18   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/135)  ................................ ............................  40 
2.4.19   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/150, G/AG/N/USA/157)  ................................ .. 41 
2.4.20   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/157)  ................................ ............................  41 
2.5  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ ..............  44 
2.5.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/141)  ................................ ................................ ....................  44 
2.5.2  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/68)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  44 
2.5.3  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/71)  ................................ ................................ ..............  45 
2.5.4  United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/9)  ................................ ................................ ..............  45 
2.5.5  United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/156)  ................................ ..............................  46 
2.6  Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ...............  47 
2.6.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/137)  ................................ ................................ ....................  47 
2.7  Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ ............................  47 
2.7.1  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/119)  ................................ ................................ .....................  47 
2.8  Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  ................................ ........  47 
2.8.1  United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/160)  ................................ ..............................  47 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 48 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIMS)  ................................ ................................ ..... 48 
3.1  Côte d'Ivoire's Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  ................................ ...........................  48 
3.1.1  Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100139)  ................................ .......................  48 
3.2  Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products (SIM 223)  .............................  48 
3.2.1  Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100137)  ................................ ................................ ..... 48 
3.2.2  Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100138)  ................................ ................................ ..... 49 
3.3  China's one -off subsidy to farmers (SIM 712)  ................................ ................................  49 
3.3.1  Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100136)  ................................ ................................ . 49 
INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ............................  50 
3.4  India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  50 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ .........................  50 
4.1.1  Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  50 
4.1.2  Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  50 
4.1.3  Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  50 
5  EXPORT COMPETITION ................................ ................................ ...............................  51 
5.1.1  Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  51 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 6 - 
 
  5.1.2  China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  51 
5.1.3  Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  51 
5.1.4  India ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  51 
 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Argentina's export restrictions of wheat (SIM 717)  
1.1.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100062)  
a.  
i. Japan recognizes that Argentina introduced export restriction on wheat on 
17 December 2021. However, the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accord ance with Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Could Argentina provide the reason behind and please make the 
notification on this measure in near future.  
ii. Could Argentina explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the 
measure on imp orting Members' food security, as required in Article  12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
b.  
i. According to Bolsa de Comercio de Rosario, BCR, the wheat production in 2021/2022 
will record the highest amount ever. Could Argentina explain how the measure meets 
the conditions required in Article 11 of General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade  (GATT): namely i) essentiality of the products, ii) criticalness of the shortages, 
and iii) temporality of the measure.  
1.2  Australia's ethanol tax (SIM 718)  
1.2.1   Question by United Sta tes of America (AG -IMS ID 100002)  
According to the Australian Taxation Office webpage on excise duty rates, domestically produced 
denatured ethanol for use as fuel in an internal combustion engine is taxed at the rate of AUD  0.142 
per liter.  
(Source: https://www.ato.gov.au/business/excise -on-fuel-and-petroleum -products/lodging, -
paying -and-rates---excisable -fuel/excise -duty-rates-for-fuel-and-petroleum -products/ )  
  
According to the Australian Border Force webpage, the rate charged for imported items under 
subheading 2207.20.10, ethanol for use as fuel in an internal combustion eng ine, is $0.433 AUD 
per liter.  
(https://www.abf.gov.au/importing -exporting -and-manufacturing/tariff -classification/current -
tariff/schedule -5 and https://www.abf.gov.au/importing -exporting -and-manufacturing/tariff -
classification/current -tariff/schedu le-3/section -iv/chapter -22) 
  
This appears to subject imported ethanol for use as fuel in a combustion engine to a different 
customs duty rate than the rate applied to domestically produced denatured ethanol for use as fuel 
in an internal combustion engine . 
Please explain why imported ethanol for use as fuel in an internal combustion engine is subject to a 
higher duty rate than domestically produced denatured ethanol for use as fuel in an internal 
combustion engine.  
1.3  EU's agricultural policies funded by nat ional resources (SIM 719)  
1.3.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100072)  
The Italian Government, through its Ministro delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali , Stefano 
Patuanelli, has announced a series of additional measures to support its agricultural producers:  
 
"Se com la PAC l'Italia ha a disposizione, final al 2027, oltre 50 milliardi di euro, il PNRR contempla 
interventi in ambito agricolo per um ammontare pari a 7,9 miliardi di euro (...)".  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 8 - 
 
   
"A queste risorse si aggiungone ulterior 2 miliardi di euro messi a disposizione dall'ultima Legge di 
Bilancio".  
 
(Sources: 
https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/17528#:~:text=%2
D%2054%20milioni%20di%20euro%20nel,gli%20agricoltori%20diretti%20under%2040%3B&text
=%2D%20Proroga%20del%20Bonus%20Verde%2C%20per,e%20la%20cura%20del%20verde ;  
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=5123724144352946&id=932754746783261 ;  
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=5007240626001299&id=932754746783261 ). 
  
Brazil would appreciate if the EU could provide a clarification, in what regards the information 
contained in its notification, of the relationship between agri cultural policies funded by the CAP and 
agricultural policies funded by national resources.  
 
In that sense, is the domestic support provided through national resources, not related to the CAP, 
discernible in the EU's DS:1 notification (for instance, Brazil  notices that some policies are described 
as "national aid" or "national support" type of measures)?  
1.4  Guyana's Prohibition of rice exports (SIM 720)  
1.4.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100110)  
European importers of paddy rice from Guyana were informed in mid-November that exports of 
paddy rice from this origin are prohibited by the government, reportedly due to high domestic rice 
prices. This measure was not notified to the CoA as obliged by Article 12 paragraph 1(b) of the WTO  
AoA. 
 
a. Is Guyana planning to notify this measure a posteriori?  
b. Can Guyana explain the need for this restriction terms of its domestic market? When will 
the restriction be lifted? Does Guyana have any clear policy guidelines in place for possible 
future occurrences of perceived food sh ortages?  
1.5  India's mung beans import restrictions (SIM 721)  
1.5.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100100)  
Australia welcomes the Indian Government's announcement of 12 February regarding the temporary 
reduction in the effective tariff rate for lentil imports from  11% to zero until 30  September  2022. 
Notwithstanding this, Australia notes the announcement from the Gazette of India on 
11 February  2022, notification (S.O. 624 E) that restricts the import of mung beans.  
 
a. Could India please explain why it is restrictin g imports of these pulses?  
b. Could India please outline what other less trade -distorting measures could be adopted to 
address the underlying objectives of India's decision to implement these import 
restrictions on pulses?  
1.5.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100111 ) 
Brazil would like to consult India on its decision to restrict the import of moong beans with immediate 
effect as of 11 February, reverting a decision from December 2021 to allow imports under the "free" 
category provided that the bill of lading is issued by 31  March  2022 and customs clearance is 
completed by 30  June 2022.  
  
The decision is negatively affecting contracts between importers and exporters and shipments 
already on their way to India.  
  
Could India provide an explanation for the trade -restrictive measure affecting the imports of moong 
beans, taking into account its obligation not to impose quantitative restrictions on trade?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.6  India's Dairy Sahakar scheme (SIM 722)  
1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100112)  
According to Dairy Industry New sletter on 9 -11-2021, India has made available USD 671  m to dairy 
co-ops.  
 
India's Cooperation Ministry have launched 'Dairy Sahakar', a Rs  5,000 crore (USD  671 m) scheme 
to provide loans to the dairy sector through the National Cooperative Development 
Corporation  (NCDC).  
 
a. Who are the beneficiaries?  
b. Could India explain more in detail how this scheme works, eligibility criteria for 
beneficiaries and the level of interest rates on the loans granted that the beneficiaries has 
to pay. How is this rate compared  to current market rates from bank loans?  
c. What is the redemption period of the loans?  
1.7  India's increased budget for subsidy support farmers use of fertiliser (SIM 723)  
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100113)  
On 12 October, the Indian Union Cabinet ap proved an additional subsidy of INR  286 billion 
(USD  3.8 billion) for the kharif season (1 October 2021 - 31 March 2022) to assist farmers in the 
face of rising prices of di -ammonium phosphate (DAP) and nitrogen, phosphorus and 
potassium  (NPK) fertilizers.  
 
a. Can India indicate how much the original budget for fertiliser subsidy, to which this 
additional INR  286 billion is added.  
1.8  Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions (SIM 724)  
1.8.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100118)  
a.  
i. Palm oil is very important material for J apanese firm activities and consumers, 
therefore Japan concerns about a possible negative impact that Indonesia's export 
restriction on palm oil would cause. Due to suspension of scheduled shipping 
permission for Japan in the end of January caused producti on rescheduling and 
inventory adjustment.  
ii. Japan recognizes that Indonesia introduced export restriction on palm oil on 
24 January  2022,  but finds that the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article 12  of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Could Indonesia provide the reason behind the lack of notification? Please 
indicate by when this information will be notified.  
iii. Palm oil is one of the major oil s used by Japanese food industry, and we have received 
voices o f concerns from the industry, some of which have already been affected by the 
delay in shipment due to the measure. According to a media report, 20% of Domestic 
Market Obligation (DMO) in Indonesia will possibly remain even after the international 
price is  stabilized. Could Indonesia provide further details of the current measure, 
including how it is concretely operated, and when it intends to cease the measure?  
iv. Could Indonesia explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the 
measure on impo rting Members' food security, as required in Article  12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 10 - 
 
  b.  
i. Could Indonesia explain how the measure meets the conditions required in Article  11 
of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essentiality of the 
products, ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii) temporality of the measure.  
1.9  Kazakhstan's quantitative export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 725)  
1.9.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100010)  
In a press releas e by Prime Minister's Office ( https://primeminister.kz/en/news/kr -ukimeti -ulttyk -
bankpen -birlesip -inflyac iyany -bakylau -zhonindegi -sharalar -keshenin -azirledi -1804613 ), the 
Republic of Kazakhstan announced in January 2022 ( https://primeminister.kz/en/news/kr -ukimeti -
ulttyk -bankpen -birlesip -inflyaciyany -bakylau -zhonindegi -sharalar -keshenin -azirledi -1804613 ) that 
its Ministry of Agriculture is taking a number of operation and systematic measures, including several 
quantitative export restrictions on agricultural products. These include:  
 
• quantitative restrictions on the export of sunflower seeds and sunflower oil for a period up 
to 1 July 2022;  
• a ban on the export of potatoes and carrots for a period of three month s;  
• a ban on the export of live cattle and small cattle for a period of six months;  
• a ban on the export of grain forage is being introduced.  
 
a. Noting that Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 requires 
such export restrictions  to be temporary in nature, please provide the length of time the 
ban on export of grain forage will be implemented.  
b. Please provide the harmonized tariff codes for all agricultural products subject to the 
announced export prohibitions.  
c. Noting that Kazakhs tan has not notified these export restrictions, when can Members 
expect Kazakhstan to notify these measures to the Committee on Agriculture as required 
by paragraph 1(b) of Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.10  Malaysia's rice import system (SIM  726)  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100011)  
The United States notes that Malaysia recently extended BERNAS's monopoly on rice imports 
until 2031, despite press reports indicating that it was considering alternative options that would 
enable a more open rice market without compromising the nation's food security. BERNAS states 
that its mission is to protect the domestic rice industry, and it is understood that BERNAS charges 
an estimated 35% mark -up on all imports of rice. This limits the a bility to import rice into Malaysia 
and the competitiveness of imported rice.  
  
a. Please explain what other import systems were considered, and why the Government of 
Malaysia ultimately decided to maintain the current import system until 2023.  
1.11  Oman's Vision 2020 plan (SIM 727)  
1.11.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100013)  
The United States understands that the Government of Oman, as part of its Oman Vision 2020, aims 
to increase exports of agricultural products and that the Ministry of Agriculture a nd Fisheries  (MoAF) 
formulates policies, sponsors research, and provides technical assistance to farmers.  
 
a. Please confirm if participants or beneficiaries of any of the agriculture measures that are 
part of Oman Vision 2020 through MoAF are required to be involved in export activities in 
order to participate or benefit.  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.12  Philippines' SSG application on instant coffee (SIM 728)  
1.12.1   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 100120)  
Indonesia notes that the application of SSG for Indonesia's instant coffee ha s been implemented for 
nearly four years, since 2018 to 2022 and there is no indication to revoke.  
 
Regarding this,  
 
a. Could the Philippines please explain the objective of this measure and the urgency behind 
its application that it has been applied continu ously in the last four years?  
b. Could Philippines please provide any information and data, including how significant is the 
impact of the change regarding the prices, volumes and economic conditions for instant 
coffee in Philippines for four years so that th e SSG instrument continuously been applied?  
Referring to Article 5.7 of the AoA regarding the aspects of transparency and the review of the 
implementation of the SSG:  
c. Has there been any efforts or policy taken to improve Philippines domestic economic 
condition of inequality and price competitiveness of these products outside the use of  SSG 
instantly?  
d. Please provide the justifications of the extension of the implementation of SSG; also could 
Philippines please inform the policy -making review mechanism in th e Philippines that SSG 
has continuously been implemented?  
1.13  Turkey's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  
1.13.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100126)  
a.  
i. Japan recognizes that Turkey introduced export restriction on agricultural products, 
such as tom ato and chicken, published on 27 January  2022 
(https://resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/01/20220127 -7.htm ), but finds that the 
required notification to the Committee on Agriculture ha s not been made in accordance 
with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Could Turkey provide the reason 
behind and please make the notification on this measure in near future.  
ii. Could Turkey explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of  the measure 
on importing Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
b.  
i. Could Turkey explain how the measure meets the conditions required in Article 11 of 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essen tiality of the products, 
ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii) temporality of the measure.  
1.14  Turkey's freight support (SIM 730)  
1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100014)  
The United States understands that the Turkish Ministry of Industry and Trade reimburses freight 
costs for certain agricultural products exported from Turkey beginning in 2016, as reported by 
various exporter associations and trade consulting firms, such as here: 
(https://igeme.com.tr/ihracat -tasimalarina -navlun -destegi/ ). The Turkish Ministry of Industry and 
Trade's KUSGEM agency describes the purpose of the measure is to "increase both the export level 
of enterprises and the export level to the spec ified countries by support in the freight expenses in G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 12 - 
 
  the exports… " (translated from: 
https://www.kosgeb.gov.tr/site/tr/ulusaldestekler/destekkategorileri/ 13/pazara -giris). 
  
a. Please provide a copy of or link to the legal measures authorizing these subsidies, 
specifically a 2016 decision entitled "İhraç Taşımalarına Navlun Desteği Sağlanması 
Hakkında Karar"  (Decision on Freight Support for Exports) and subsequent implementing 
measures.  
b. What products are eligible to receive freight support?  
c. What are the eligible destinations?  
d. How is the freight support determined? How much may an exporter receive per shipment?  
e. Please confirm the years and periods within each year that Turkey has authorized such 
freight support since 2016, including for 2022 and beyond, if applicable.  
f. Please provide quantities of goods receiving support by tariff code (at least the 4 -digit 
level) and the total amount of subsidy and amount of subsidy per tariff code. In addition, 
please identify the quantities and total amount of subsidy for goods exported to the United 
States, including for dry milled corn products (HS 1104.23).  
g. Noting t he apparent contingency on export performance and understanding these 
measures were introduced following the 2015 Nairobi Decision on Export Competition and 
may still be authorized to provide support, please explain how these measures comply 
with Turkey's export subsidy scheduled commitments and its commitments under the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
1.15  UK's forest risk commodities provisions (SIM 731)  
1.15.1   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 100127)  
Indonesia has known the UK due diligence on forest risk c ommodities provisions.  
 
a. Could the UK please explain scientifically the possible negative impact of this policy to the 
loss of livelihoods for small farmers in developing countries and LDC's?  
b. It is certain that several agricultural commodities will be impac ted in the future such as 
cocoa beans, rubber, coffee and plantation commodities that Indonesia produces, 
including palm oil. Could the UK please explain the impact of implementing this policy in 
the long term, such as the effect to the market access of ag ricultural products related to 
Article  4.2 of the AoA?  
Could the UK please explain the contradictions in implementing these policies by achieving the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the spirit of reforming the AoA imbalances, especially 
in the Ag ricultural Market Access pillar?  
1.16  U.S. Market Facilitation Programme (MFP) (SIM 732)  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100129)  
Australia thanks the US for its previous answer to Australia's question (AG -IMS ID 99085) on the 
Market Facilitation Program (MFP) notified in its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/USA/150. In its answer, 
the US said that 'producers received payments based on total acreage of eligible commodities at a 
single, per acre rate'.  
 
a. Could the US please clarify how it has calculated these payments, i ncluding how it has 
derived the single county -level payment rate?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.17  U.S. Partnership to Ease Port Congestion and Restore Disrupted Shipping Services 
to U.S. Grown Agricultural Commodities (SIM 733)  
1.17.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100132)  
Last January, the USDA  released the "Partnership to Ease Port Congestion and Restore Disrupted 
Shipping Services to U.S. Grown Agricultural Commodities". Among other incentives, it was 
announced that "USDA will also help cover additional movement logistics costs at USD  125 per 
container."  
 
(Source: https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2022/01/31/usda -announces -partnership -
ease-port-congestion -and-restore ) 
  
Could the US provide further information about the payment of USD  125 per container, including 
which party is going to receive such aid?  
1.18  U.S. USD 800 million subsidies for biofuels from agricultural products (SIM 734)  
1.18.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 100133)  
USDA on 8 December announced that "USDA to Make Up to $800 Million Available to Provide 
Economic Relief to Biofuel Producers and Restore Renewable Fuel Markets Hit by the Pandemic ".  
 
The announcement includes the following explanation "to increase significantly the sales and use of 
higher blends of bioethanol and biodiesel by expanding the infrastructure for renewable fuels 
derived from U.S. agricultural products ". This indicates that the program is established to 
support the agricultural raw material, can the US therefore explain how it intends to notify this 
support in DS:1?  
 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.19  Angola's import policies  (SIM 660)  
1.19.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG -IMS ID 100058)  
On 14 January 2019, Angola published Presidential Decree 23/19, i.e., "The Regulation of the 
Commercial Chain of Supply of Goods of Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origin ", 
which provides new import rules on 54  products, mainly agricultural goods. This Presidential Decree 
seeks to support domestic production and economic development by restricting importers' access to 
imports, including through an import licensing system that appears to prioritize the use of dom estic 
production, similar to an import substitution policy. Given the potential impacts on EU's exports to 
Angola of agricultural products covered by Presidential Decree 23/19, the EU would appreciate if 
Angola could provide clarifications on the following  points:  
 
• Could Angola provide additional information on the agricultural products covered by the 
scope of Presidential Decree 23/19, including the specific HS codes for each commodity, 
as well as a list of specific goods produced in the Special Luanda -Bengo Economic Zone 
that are subject to the Decree?  
• Could Angola explain how the restrictions are implemented, and notably if licenses are 
used to manage these restrictions?  
• Could Angola elaborate on the process importers and wholesalers have to follow to b e 
eligible for an import licence, including on the specific steps required?  
• Could Angola provide additional clarifications on the quantitative restrictions laid down by 
Article  11 of the Decree, especially on how the assessment of the existence of interna l 
capacity for import substitution is conducted?  
• Angola previously indicated that cancellation of the Decree will depend on the achievement 
of its objectives.  
• Could Angola elaborate on the methodology and process for the assessment of the 
achievement of t hose objectives?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.20  Argentina's export restrictions on beef  (SIM 710)  
1.20.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100001)  
According to information in World Beef report issue no 1454 (7 December 2021) the Argentinian 
Government intends to maintain export restriction s for beef during 2022. According to Article  12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture Members shall give notice in writing to CoA on such measures.  
 
a. Can Argentina explain how the export restrictions for beef will be applied for the different 
beef products and c ountries as applicable in calendar year 2022?  
b. Does Argentina intend to send ER:1 notification for the 2022 export restrictions on beef 
export?  
According to the same article measures would also be announced for wheat and maize.  
 
c. Can Argentina explain the same questions for these measures as well?  
1.20.2   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 100063)  
Japan recognizes that Argentina has introduced another export ban and restriction on some parts of 
beef from the 3rd of January 2022, announced in Decreto  911/2021. 
(https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/255612/20220103 ) Could Argentina 
answer the following questions?  
 
i. Although Japan appreciates the information provide d by Argentina on its domestic 
legislation in its reply to AG -IMS ID  98117 and AG -IMS ID 99096, Japan regrets that 
the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. We  would appreciate if 
Argentina could inform us when the ER notification would be submitted complying with 
the Article 12 of AoA. Japan considers it important that the ER notification shall be 
submitted "as far in advance as practicable ", for the predictabi lity and transparency of 
the measure.  
ii. We understand the current measures include export ban on many products while the 
previous measures were export quotas 'equivalent to 50% of the monthly average of 
the total tonnage of meat products exported in the peri od July December 2020'. Could 
Argentina illustrate the details of the current measures imposed from January  2022, 
as well as provide the background including domestic supply -demand situation that 
lead to the modification of the measures?  
iii. We understand the current measure has been announced to be implemented until 
31st December 2023. Could Argentina explain how the measure meets the condition of 
Article 11 of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that the measure shall 
be "temporarily applied to prev ent or relieve critical shortages "? 
1.21  Canada's review of the TRQ system  (SIM 536)  
1.21.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100059)  
Australia thanks Canada for updating the membership with its Comprehensive Review of the 
Allocation and Administration of Tariff Rate Q uotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products (Phase  II). 
Australia notes from its response to previous questions that Canada has paused the review as a 
result of Canada 's federal election.  
 
a. As it has been almost a year since public consultations have closed and some months since 
its federal election, could Canada please provide a further update to the membership on 
when it expects to finalise and announce the conclusions of its review?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.21.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100039)  
From January to March 2021, Canada has held consultations about its management of tariff -rate 
quotas. The European Union would like to ask what conclusions were drawn from these consultations, 
whether Canada intends to review its quota management system, and what timeline is envisage d. 
1.21.3   Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 100065)  
The United Kingdom thanks Canada for its response to Ag -IMS questions AG -IMS IDs 99099 
and 99110. We note that the results of Canada's Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and 
Administration of supply mana ged TRQs have not yet been announced. Could Canada please provide 
an update as to when these results are expected to be released?  
1.22  Canada's compensation to dairy farmers after trade concessions  (SIM 512)  
1.22.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100040)  
In Augu st 2019, Canada has announced a Dairy Direct Programme, and later on it published a call 
for applications, covering CAD 937 million, CAD 469 million  for the years 2021 -2022 and CAD 468 
million for 2022 -2023.  
  
The European Union would like to ask about the rate of uptake of this programme, and when the 
programme will be notified in Canada 's notifications.  
1.23  Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme  (SIM 26)  
1.23.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100064)  
New Zealand has previously raised questions around Canada 's milk classes 7 and 4. In particular 
milk Class 4 continues to have a significant trade impact due to the resulting increase in production 
and export of Canadian value -added protein products onto the world market.   
 
To follow -up from question AG-IMS ID 99098, New Zealand would welcome further information on 
how the cost of milk production for fat and protein is calculated in the Canadian Dairy Commission 
annual cost of milk production survey, and the why there is a difference to the milk class 4(a) protein  
price paid by processors for product which is then exported onto the global market. How does Canada 
view the linkages, if any, between the implementation of Classes 6 and 7 and now class 4(a) and 
the recent increase in exports of Canadian skim milk powder , skim milk powder blends, and high 
value milk protein products (such as MPC 70, MPC85, MPI, WPC, WPI and casein)?  
1.24  Canada's Dairy Policies  (SIM 18 ) 
1.24.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100107)  
New Zealand notes the announcement that the third payment under C anada 's Dairy Direct Payment 
Program (DDPP) is now available to producers. 
https://www.dairyreporter.com/Article/2021/12/23/Th ird-round -of-compensation -available -for-
Canadian -dairy-farmers .  
 
The owner of a farm with 80 dairy cows will be awarded compensation in the form of a direct payment 
of approximately CAD 38,000 each year. Based on their milk quota, dairy farmers will receive 
compensation payments totalling up to CAD 469 million for this fiscal year, with another CAD 468 
million will be available in 2022 -2023.  
 
Canada has committed to provide CAD 1.75 billi on to dairy producers for market access concessions 
made under the Canada -European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 
and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). All 
payments are set to be mad e by 2023. New Zealand appreciates these will be notified appropriately.  
New Zealand considers the compensation being offered to dairy farmers disproportionate to any 
demonstrated negative impact of preferential trade agreements.  
 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 16 - 
 
  How does Canada reconci le the anticipated negative impact of trade agreements with the severe 
underfill of tariff rate quotas on supply managed products currently occurring under the WTO 
and FTA quotas?  
1.25  EU's deforestation and forest degradation strategy (SIM 558)  
1.25.1   Question by Argentina, Brazil  and Paraguay  (AG-IMS ID 100071)  
Brazil would like to consult the European Union on its proposed regulation on 'deforestation -free 
products ' ("Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the making 
available on the Union market as well as export from the Union of certain commodities and products 
associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010").  
  
Brazil understands that such regulation will ban imports into the EU of some agricultural products, 
according to criteria allegedly associated with deforestation and forest degradation.  
  
It is worth highlighting the background of the proposed regulation:  
  
In 2019, approximately 34% (20 GtCO2 -eq) of global GHG emissions c ame from the energy sector, 
24% (14 GtCO2 -eq) from industry, 22% (13 GtCO2 -eq) from agriculture, forestry and other land 
use (AFOLU), 15% (8.7 GtCO2 -eq) from transport and 6% (3.3 GtCO2 -eq) from buildings (IPPC).  
  
Additionally, in comparison with developing country Members, such as Brazil, the EU in average and 
its largest economies in particular have not only higher percentages of agricultural land as a 
percentage of land area, but also lower percentages of forest area as a percentage of land 
area (World Bank), owing to deforestation -led processes of development.  
 
 
 
G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 17 - 
 
   
 
Finally, it has been observed in Europe "(…) an increase in the harvested forest area (49 %) and an 
increase in biomass loss (69 %) over Europe for the period of 2016 –2018 relative to  2011–2015, 
with large losses occurring on the Iberian Peninsula and in the Nordic and Baltic countries. Satellite 
imagery further reveals that the average patch size of harvested area increased by 34 % across 
Europe, with potential effects on biodiversity,  soil erosion and water regulation " 
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586 -020-2438-y). 
  
In the light of the above, Brazil poses the following questions:  
 
Taking into account the data ment ioned above related to agricultural land and forest area, could the 
EU explain the rationale of adopting import bans to curb deforestation and forest degradation instead 
of less trade -restrictive measures?  
  
Taking into account the data mentioned above re lated to the increase in harvested forest area in 
the EU, how does the EU plan to enforce an equivalent ban to domestically -traded products?  
  
Could the EU elaborate on how it intends to carry out its border control of imports that will be subject 
to the new legislation? Will the EU require the submission of an application or other documentation 
as a prior condition for importation?  
  
Considering the overarching goals included in the European Green Deal, why has the EU chosen to 
apply import bans focused on agricultural goods and land use policies (therefore, to discriminate 
against developing countries which rely on the agricultural sector to foster its development), 
vis-à-vis industrial goods and the use of "dirty" sources of energy in production process es?  
  
How does the EU justify such measures in the light of Article 4 of the AoA?  
1.25.2   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 100103)  
Indonesia and all Members have known and observed carefully the EU Green Deal and all related 
implementing policies especially Fores t Policy Deforestation.  
 
G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 18 - 
 
  a. Could the EU please explain scientifically the possible negative impact of this policy to the 
loss of livelihoods for small farmers in developing countries and LDC's?  
b. It is certain that several agricultural commodities will be impa cted in the future such as 
cocoa beans, rubber, coffee and plantation commodities that Indonesia produces, 
including palm oil. Could the EU please explain the impact of implementing this policy in 
the long term, such as the effect to the market access of a gricultural products related to 
Article 4.2 of the AoA?  
Could the EU please explain the contradictions in implementing these policies by achieving the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the spirit of reforming the AoA imbalances, especially 
in the Agricultural Market Access pillar?  
1.25.3   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 100130)  
EU has recently announced the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the making available on the Union market as well as export  from the Union of certain 
commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing 
Regulation (EU) No 995/2010.  
  
a. Could the EU provide the clear guidance and requirements for imported products that are 
covered by this p roposal?  
b. Could the EU specify the product coverage of this proposal?  
c. Does the EU have plan to expand the list of products in the future?  
1.26  EU's environmental policies (SIM 560)  
1.26.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100070)  
According to publicly available information, "EU countries will implement the new CAP with a 
CAP strategic plan at national level. Each plan will combine a wide range of targeted interventions 
addressing the specific needs of that EU country and deliver tangible results in relation to EU -level 
objectives, while contributing to the ambitions of the European Green Deal."  
 
a. Considering the relationship between the Strategic Plans and the EGD, therefore, with the 
Farm to Fork and biodiversity strategies, what is the criteria for the EU to eval uate the 
Strategic Plans in what they relate to climate and environmental targets/policies in the 
agricultural sector and the Eco -Schemes?  
b. Are the criteria of Annex 2 paragraphs (1) and (12) of any significance in their assessment 
or is the compliance with  Eco-Schemes an additional eligibility requirement for direct 
payments under Annex 2 paragraphs (1) (5) (6)?  
c. Furthermore, if available, could the EU provide information on expected changes - if any 
- on its green box programmes and outlays?  
1.26.2   Question by Ind ia (AG -IMS ID 100041)  
In response to the question asked in AG -IMS ID 99015, European Union responded that the basic 
legal acts in a political agreement on CAP -Reform post 2022 have not yet been adopted. As per a 
news item dated 7 December 2021 on the offic ial website of the EU, it is found that the new CAP 
regulations have entered into force ( https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/new -cap-regulations -enter-
force-2021-dec-07_en). When would the DS:2 notification in this regard be made?  
  
India notes that the EU's latest submitted DS:1 notification is for the marketing year 2018 -19 
(G/AG/N/EU/69). By when can the European Union notify the pending notifications?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.27  EU's Product E nvironment Footprint (PEF)  (SIM 388)  
1.27.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100073)  
New Zealand understands that the Product Environment Footprint (PEF)  aims to provide a 
comprehensive way of measuring the environmental performance  of products among European 
Union (EU) member States and encouraging more  sustainable consumption. This includes products 
imported by third countries  into the EU.  
 
Under the PEF, the proposed PEF Category Rules (PEFCRs)  cover a range of products, including a 
number of agricultural products of  export interest to New Zealand.  
 
New Zealand would like to request an update on the PEF  process and timelines for PEF method 
implementation, including for the PEFCRs.  
 
New Zealand is supportive of efforts to increase sustainable  production and consumption and many 
of our exported products have very high  sustainability credentials compared to similar products in 
other countries. We  therefore seek to ensure that existing sustainability efforts are appropriate ly 
recognised, taking in to account differences in geography and production  systems.  
 
What steps are the EU taking to engage with trade partners  to ensure th at PEF does not discriminate 
against its trading partners?  
1.28  India's rice exports  (SIM 333)  
1.28.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 1000 86) 
According to a press release from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry from 16 December  2021, 
India's exports of Basmati and non -Basmati rice in the 2020 – 2021 period rose by 87% to 
17.72  million tonnes from 9.45 million tonnes in 2019 -2020.  India's top five export markets for 
Basmati rice were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, United Arab Emirates accounting for 64% exports 
and the top five export markets for non -Basmati rice were Nepal, Benin, Senegal, Bangladesh and 
Togo accounting for 40% of export s.  
  
Indian rice exporters project that India 's rice exports could amount to more than the combined total 
exports of Thailand, Vietnam and Pakistan, the three next largest rice exporters.   
 
a. Could India clarify if any of these rice exports were from public  stocks and if so, what 
volumes?  
b. As a significant exporter of rice and to support transparency of information on the trade 
of agricultural products when does India plan to provide this Committee with data on its 
rice exports through Table ES:2?  
1.29  India's pul ses policies  (SIM 442)  
1.29.1   Question by Canada, European Union  and the United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 100008)  
Quantitative restrictions on the importation of various pulses into India have been a longstanding 
agenda item in the Committee on Agriculture (se e for example AG -IMS ID 98084). The United States 
was pleased to see that most of these restrictions had been lifted as of the last meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture with the exception of yellow peas, as noted in response to AG -IMS 
ID 99101. It was r eported in the media on 14  February  2022 that India would be reinstating 
restrictions on the import of moong beans.  
 
a. Please confirm the nature and length of the restriction on the import of moong beans.  
b. Please confirm that this will be a temporary measure that will not be extended beyond the 
date identified in response to part a.  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 20 - 
 
  c. Please identify any other quantitative restrictions on the import of any pulses, including 
yellow peas, moong, tur (pigeon peas), or urad, that are currently in place. Please indic ate 
the nature and length of the restriction on imports for each type of pulse.  
1.29.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 100087)  
The restrictive measures on the import of yellow peas continue through an annual import quota of 
150,000  MT, a minimum import price of 200  INR/kg and imports are only allowed through the port 
of Kolkata.   
  
a. Could India elaborate on its reasons for restricting the import of a high-quality  plant 
protein and source of micro -nutrients thereby limiting its availability to Indian consumers?   
1.29.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 100135)  
The Russian Federation continues expressing its concerns regarding India's policy with respect to 
import of yellow peas. As for 1 March 2022 the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under 
the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MOCI) of India has not issued a notification on the import 
policy on yellow peas for the fiscal year 2021/2022. The delay in pu blication is almost of one year.  
 
a. Regarding AG -IMS IDs 99101 and 98096, India did not provide answers to the questions 
posed by the Russian Federation. Could India provide answers to those questions? For 
more convenience, the questions were the following (a-c):  
i. When is India going to eliminate its quantitative restriction on pulses? Is India planning 
to make regular use of such measures?  
ii. For 31 August 2021 India has still not announced measures for 2021 -22 with respect 
to import of yellow peas. Does it me an that import of yellow peas in the fiscal 
year 2021-22 is de facto prohibited? When is India going to publish an official 
notification on its import regime bearing in mind Article X:1 of the GATT  1994, which 
states that all laws, regulations, judicial de cisions and administrative rulings pertaining 
to restrictions or prohibitions on import shall be published promptly in such a manner 
as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them?  
iii. Bearing in mind the fact that in response to  AG-IMS ID  98096 , India stated that 
minimal import price requirement and port of entry restriction continues to remain 
applicable in the fiscal year 2021 -22 the Russian Federation wonders about the reasons 
why these additional trade -restrictive measures are still in  place. When is India going 
to eliminate minimum import price requirement and port of entry restriction?  
b. Please, provide the reasons why the notification about import policy for yellow peas for 
the fiscal year 2021/2022 was not published?  
c. How the absence o f such notification complies with Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, which 
states that all laws, regulations and administrative rulings pertaining to restrictions or 
prohibitions on import shall be published promptly in such a manner as to enable 
governments an d traders to become acquainted with them?  
d. When is India going to publish the notification on import policy for yellow peas for the 
fiscal year 2022/2023? What will be the allowed volumes, if any?  
e. In January 2020, India introduced a minimum import price req uirement on the import of 
pulses. Could India provide a rational reason for the introduction of this measure. What 
are the consequences of introduction of this measure on domestic and international market 
of pulses? Could India please provide the data on d omestic market prices on pulses 
in 2020-2021?  
f. Moreover, the number of ports of entry for the imported yellow peas was limited to only 
one seaport – Kolkata. We urge India once again to provide a detailed information on the G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 21 - 
 
  reasons for the introduction of this measure. Could India please elaborate how the 
measure co mplies with  the provisions of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994?  
g. In its answers to the questions in AG-IMS ID 99101 , India stated that the import of yellow 
peas (07131010) during 2020 -21 (April – February) was 33,831.58 metric tonne s. Bearing 
in mind that the allowed volume for import of yellow peas was zero tonne, could you please 
elaborate how were these 33,831.58 metric tonnes  of yellow peas imported? From which 
countries and under what conditions was this volume of yellow peas imported?  
h. Please, provide answers to the question AG -IMS ID 96056 considering the causal link 
between the protection of public morals, human, plant or animal life or health and import 
restrictions and import prohibition on ye llow peas.  
i. We note India's statements that these measures have been applied temporarily 
since 2018. When will these temporary measures stop existing?  
1.30  India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  (SIM 651)  
1.30.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100115)  
In its questions to India AG -IMS ID s 96053 and 98091 the EU did not receive a satisfactory reply to 
the queries. The EU would like to request India to complete its replies with the following information:  
 
a. Can India confirm that Amul is being paid a subsidy of USD 680 per tonne of SMP that is 
exported?  
b. How was the level of subsidy calculated? Which elements or criteria were used?  
According to the press report this export subsidy is granted due to an internal support measure for 
the dairy sector in India. The sub sidy would thus not appear to fall within the exceptions for 
developing countries in Article 9:4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. How is this export subsidy 
justified in relation to India 's commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
Point 1 of the Nairobi Ministerial decision (WT/MIN(15), WT/L/980) reads: "Members  reaffirm  their 
commitment, pursuant to the 2013  Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition, to exercise 
utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies and all export measures 
with equivalent effect. " How does this export subsidy respect this provision?  
 
c. In its previous reply to questions AG -IMS ID s 96053 and 98091 India stated that the 
measure was introduced in 2020 for a temporary time frame of six months. Can India 
confirm that the measure is no longer in force?  
d. In addition, the EU notes that the latest export competition notification dates from  2013. 
When will India submit its lacking notifications on export competition?  
1.31  India 's Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products  (SIM 628)  
1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100003)  
In response to AG -IMS ID s 97020 and 95033, India was unable to provide responses at those times.  
 
The United States now notes t hat the Government of India in 2021 announced the rates for tax 
refunds under the Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (RoDTEP) for 
8,555  products including agricultural and food products, such as chocolates, cotton, rice, rum, sug ar, 
wheat, dairy products, etc.  
 
a. Please provide a description of RoDTEP, a copy of its guidelines, and an update on the 
operational status.  
b. Please provide a comprehensive list of agricultural and food products by HS code at the 
national tariff line level e ligible under this measure.  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 22 - 
 
  c. Please provide an explanation of this measure, including what specific duties and taxes 
are eligible for refund for agricultural products, using as examples cotton, rice, and sugar.  
d. Please provide the total level of support, inc luding both quantity and budgetary 
expenditures, for agricultural products covered by RoDTEP.  If unable to provide this 
information, please explain why.  
1.32  India's support to sugar and biofuels (SIM 674)  
1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100009 ) 
In March 2021, the United States in AG -IMS ID 97011 inquired about measures announced in 
December  2020 regarding India's sugar and biofuel policies, to which India responded that the 
details sought were not available at that time. The United States repea ts the question below for the 
requested information:  
  
In December 2020, India's Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) announced that it has 
run a surplus of sugar production for more than a decade and has been providing financial assistance 
to exp ort the surplus stocks. The press release goes on to state that this financial assistance will be 
discontinued in 2023 and an interest subvention grant of INR 45.7 billion (USD 626 million) was 
approved to help divest excess sugar production for ethanol. I t is worth noting that the Indian sugar 
sector benefits from a price support scheme that has incentivized overproduction, and India imposes 
an import tariff on ethanol as high as 150%.  
  
The United States recognizes the importance of biofuels in addressin g climate and environmental 
concerns, but also emphasizes the importance of addressing these issues in the least -distorting 
manner possible.  
  
a. Please indicate when the interest subvention grant will be implemented.  
b. Please provide additional details on how  the grant will be implemented.  
1.33  India's oilseeds policies  (SIM 673)  
1.33.1   Question by  Paraguay and  the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 100004)  
The United States refers to AG -IMS ID 97009, submitted in March 2021 on India 's oilseed policies, 
to which India responded that the scheme was yet to be implemented and the details sought were 
"not available at this stage ". The United States understands that the Union Cabinet of India approved 
a new National Mission Edible Oils - Oil Palm on 18 August  2021 with a budget of INR 110.4 billion.  
 
The government 's press release ( https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1746942 ) 
states "Due to heavy dependenc e on imports for edible oils, it is important to make efforts for 
increasing domestic production of edible oils… " It is understood that India will provide a price 
assurance to oil palm farmers and will substantially increase the assistance of inputs/interv entions.  
a. Please provide additional details with regards to the recently announced price assurance 
scheme for oil palm farmers, including how this measure is implemented and eligibility 
requirements for farmers to receive said price assurance, along with a ny limitations either 
at the farmer, state, or national level.  
b. Please provide additional details with regards to increases in assistance of 
inputs/interventions for oil palm.  
c. Please provide a link to the operational guidelines and any laws or implementing measures 
for the price assurance scheme, the input/interventions scheme, and any other measures 
introduced in 2021 or 2022 aimed at the edible oils sector.  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.34  India's public stockpiling  (SIM 525)  
1.34.1   Question by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Thailan d, United States of 
America  and Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 100005)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 99103, itself a follow up to AG-IMS ID 98103, the United States continues 
to seek clarification from India.  
  
The United States and other WTO Members had requested India's  annual quantitative levels of 
current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice stocks since 2010, to which India 
replied that such information was already duly noted in its domestic support notifications.  
  
In that same question, the Unit ed States and other WTO Members also inquired if India publishes 
summaries of consultative meetings between the government and the Food Corporation of India 
(FCI), which are held to assess the availability of wheat and rice for procurement at Minimum 
Suppo rt Prices (MSP) in order to meet the food security requirements of citizens, to which India 
replied that such information could also be found in its domestic support notifications.  
  
Please recreate the requested information here as it was not obvious where such information could 
be found in India's domestic support notifications.  
1.34.2   Question by Australia, Brazil, Canada , European Union, Japan, Paraguay, Thailand, 
United States of America  and Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 100006)  
Again in AG -IMS ID 99005, whi ch was a follow -up question to AG -IMS ID 98099 which was asked 
by a number of WTO Members, India stated it would respond "in due course " with the requested 
information regarding state bonuses provided, in addition to the minimum support price provided 
for both wheat and rice.  The information has been requested repeatedly in this Committee.  The 
United States and other Members have provided India with both official state government 
announcements and reports in the media.  Further, India has not explained the r eason for the delay 
in providing this information or if this is the relevant support that India has referenced but not 
notified in its recent domestic support notifications as "other support for rice, that is, other than 
public stockholding for food securi ty purposes, will be notified subsequently. " 
 
a. Is India in a position to provide the requested information in AG -IMS IDs  99005, 98099, 
97010, 97012, 97060, 95032, 93271, 93251, 92009?  
b. If not, please update this Committee on what issues India is experiencing  that has 
prevented it from providing this longstanding requested information in a timely manner.  
1.35  India's cotton support  (SIM 698)   
1.35.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100085)  
Australia notes a 10 November 2021 press release that the Indian Cabinet approved p rice support 
of INR 17,408.85 crore for the cotton seasons from 2014 -15 to 2020 -21. Australia also notes this 
report states that the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) has procured around one third of India 's 
cotton production for cotton season 2019 -2020 an d 2020 -21.  
a. Could India please explain what the factors were for the CCI increasing the ceiling of the 
Minimum Support Price for cotton?  
b. Could India please explain why the approved price support extends back as far as 
the 2014-15 season?  
c. Could India please indicate h ow much the CCI procured for the cotton season 2014 -15, 
2015-16, 2017 -18 and 2018 -19? G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.36  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  (SIM 463)  
1.36.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 100131)  
The Russian Federation would like to reiterate its concern about the u ncertainty in trade conditions 
with respect to wheat flour and liquid milk. As for 1 March 2022 these products are still not excluded 
from the list of agricultural products subject to quota regime. We continue referring to the answer 
AG-IMS ID 93072, where  Mongolia stated that import quotas would be applied only before the Law 
on the Enrichment of Food Products comes into force. In context of this, the Russian Federation 
expects to receive the following information from Mongolia:  
  
a. Could Mongolia please cla rify its quota regime policy for liquid milk and wheat flour 
for 2022? We kindly ask to provide references to the particular legislation.  
b. When will Mongolia exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products 
subject to the annual im port restrictions?  
c. When will Mongolia present a confirmation that quota regime for these products will be 
eliminated?  
d. We refer to the question AG -IMS ID 99104 and would like to ask Mongolia the following. 
In the Trade Policy Report in March 2021 Mongolia stated that the issue of "restrictions on 
wheat flour and liquid milk were included in the guidelines for improving the Mongolian 
legislation until 2024 and shall be amended in accordance with the WTO rules and 
principles by 2021 ". Could Mongolia please cl arify particular amendments that are planned 
to be developed and implemented? When will these amendments come into force?  
1.37  Russian Federation's grain export duties  (SIM 682)  
1.37.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 100122)  
a. India acknowledges Russia's response to quest ion AG-IMS ID 99016 and requests to clarify 
the following in the context of the export duties imposed on grains:  
i. How does the Russian Federation see the impact of such measures on the food security 
of importing countries?  
ii. In view of the short duration of implementation of these export duties, India would 
like to know if these export duties have stabilised prices for the products in the 
domestic market?  
iii. How does the Russian Federation calculate the impact of these measures on domestic 
prices and internation al prices?  
b. As per a recent announcement by the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, the Russian 
Government plans to allocate additional funds to compensate farmers for part of the costs 
of creating and modernising agricultural facilities, purchasing f odder, and implementing 
the mechanism for preferential rural mortgages. India requests the Russian  Federation to 
provide information on the following:  
i. When would these funds be allocated?  
ii. Under what provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture would these fu nds be 
categorised?  
iii. What would be the estimated sum allocated for compensation?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.38  South Africa's Review of tariff structure for poultry meat imports  (SIM 701)  
1.38.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 100124)  
The European Union would like to support Brazil 's question AG -IMS ID 98137 and ask South Africa 
to provide clarification on its review of tariff structure for poultry meat imports. When will it be 
finalised? Is advance information foreseen?  
1.39  U.S. Domestic support policies and notifications  (SIM 571)  
1.39.1   Questi on by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 100134)  
New Zealand notes a report that USDA is making USD 150 million of American Rescue Plan Act 
funding available through the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP). USDA is 
offering grants of up to $25 millio n each to expand processing capacity through a variety of activities, 
including but not limited to construction, expansion of existing facilities, and acquisition of 
equipment.  
 
Grant funds can be used to expand processing capacity by supporting activities  such as:  
• Building new – or modernizing or expanding existing – processing facilities ; 
• Developing, installing, or modernizing equipment and technology ; 
• Ensuring compliance with packaging and labelling requirements ; 
• Upholding occupational and other safety r equirements ; 
• Modifying facilities or equipment to protect food safety ; 
• Paying for voluntary grading services on value -added processed products ; 
• Offsetting costs associated with becoming an inspected facility ; 
• Supporting workforce recruitment, training, and  retention . 
 
New Zealand appreciates that the US will notify in due course any payments made in accordance 
with commitments. How does the US intend to classify these payments?  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  
2.1.1   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/72)  
AG-IMS ID 100075: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues  
El Salvador has consistently notified in its MA:1 notifications (since 1998) only the quota for SLVQ007 
- cheddar chees e. However, section I -B of its schedule of commitments includes other quotas such 
as tariff quotas for poultry and sugar, among others.   
 
Could El Salvador explain why the other quotas have not been notified in its MA:1?  
 
In the case of poultry, we note that, in the past, this has even been subject to GATT Article XXVIII 
negotiations to raise bound tariff levels.   
2.1.2   European Union  (G/AG/N/EU/72)  
AG-IMS ID 100066: Question by Paraguay - Other administration arrangements  
We tha nk the EU for submitting its MA:1 notification for the fiscal year 2022 and calendar 
year 2022/23. We are pleased to note that, once again, the EU excludes the United Kingdom from 
the erga omnes  quotas in this notification. Does the EU consider an exclusio n of the United Kingdom 
from these quotas in its schedule of commitments as an alternative to the submission of an annual 
notification that does not have the same legal effect?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 26 - 
 
  2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Iceland (G/AG/N/I SL/51, G/AG/N/ISL/52, G/AG/N/ISL/53)  
AG-IMS ID 100053: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union would like to thank Island for submitting the MA:2 notifications for the 
marketing years 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 and looks f orward to reviewing the 
MA:2 notification for the marketing year 2020/2021, as soon as this will be available. The European 
Union notes the extremely low fill rate for the butter TRQ (ISLQ088) during the last three marketing 
years.  
a. Could Iceland explain t he reasons for the significant under -fill of this quota?  
b. Given that most of Iceland 's WTO tariff rate quotas have not been opened in the last three 
marketing years due to a more favourable applied rate in comparison with the in -quota 
duty rate,  has Iceland  considered a reform of its tariff quota system to consolidate the 
number of tariff quotas and simplify its schedule?  
2.2.2   India (G/AG/N/IND/26)  
AG-IMS ID 100060: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
In AG -IMS ID 99030 India was requested to provide an exp lanation of the continually low fill rates 
of two of India 's TRQs (INDQ001, INDQ002). Australia notes that in G/AG/N/IND/26 the fill rate of 
quotas INDQ001, INDQ002 and INDQ003 were either nil or very close to zero. Australia again kindly 
asks:  
a. Was this th e result of market forces, preferential imports or tariff quota administration?  
b. What is India doing to improve fill rates?  
c. Has India taken any actions that might have discouraged importers from using the TRQs?  
Furthermore, India responded to AG -IMS ID 9803 4 that the Handbook of Procedures would be 
extended until 30 September 2021.  
d. Australia asks if a new edition of the handbook has been made available or if another 
extension has been granted?  
2.2.3   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/85)  
AG-IMS ID 100067: Question by  Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
a. Could the Republic of Korea explain the reasons for the low use of the following tariff 
quotas:  
i. KORQ057 sesame seeds: 15%  
ii. KORQ063 oilcake and other solid residues of sesame seeds: 0%?  
b. Is the Republic of Korea considering the possibility of modifying quota administration 
systems to improve use thereof?  
2.2.4   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/109)  
AG-IMS ID 100069: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
a. Could South Africa explain the reasons for the low use of the following t ariff quotas:  
i. ZAFQ00 meat of bovine animals: 1.6%  
ii. ZAFQ025 wheat: 45.5%  
iii. ZAFQ029 maize: 0%  
iv. ZAFQ051 other cereals - 0% G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 27 - 
 
  b. Is South Africa considering the possibility of modifying quota administration systems to 
improve use thereof?  
c. Could South Africa explain the  footnotes to the ZAFQ040 (sugar) quota and provide the 
list of "traditional suppliers "? 
AG-IMS ID 100061: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the fill rates for a number of tariff rate quotas is very low or zero.   
  
Could South Africa  explain the : 
  
a. 1.6% and 2.1% fill rates for ZAFQ001 (meat of bovine animals) for 2019 and 2020, 
respectively ; 
b. zero fill rates for ZAFQ002 (meat of swine) for 2019 and 2020 ; 
c. zero fill rate for ZAFQ018 (dried peas) in 2020 following a 66.2% fill rate in 201 9. 
2.2.5   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/109, G/AG/N/ZAF/110)  
AG-IMS ID 100042: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
South Africa reports on its latest MA:2 notifications, pertaining to calendar years 2019 and 2020, 
that the fill -rate for tariff -rate quotas ZAFQ001 (Meat of bovine animals); ZAFQ029 (Maize or maize 
equivalent); ZAFQ052 (Tobacco) and ZAFQ053 (Cotton) was 0% or close to it.  
  
Firstly, considering that their fill rate has drastically fallen since Calendar Year 2016 (when ZAFQ001, 
ZAFQ029, ZAFQ052  and ZAFQ053 had a fill rate of 63%, 100%, 100% and 92%, respectively), could 
South Africa provide the following information:  
  
a. data on market circumstances that would explain the relatively low volume of imports 
under the aforementioned TRQs after 2016;  
b. updates on policy developments that would explain the relatively low volume of imports 
under the aforementioned TRQs;  
c. volume of imports taking place outside the TRQ.  
Secondly, Brazil notices that only processors/manufacturers are eligible for licenses unde r ZAFQ029 
(according to G/AG/N/ZAF/28), ZAFQ052 (according to G/AG/N/ZAF/1/Rev.1) and ZAFQ053 
(according to G/AG/N/ZAF/35).  
  
d. Could South Africa confirm that importers who are not processors/manufacturers of maize, 
tobacco and cotton are precluded from app lying for import under ZAFQ029, ZAFQ052 and 
ZAFQ053?  
e. Have there been any specific changes in requirements for processors/manufacturers to 
apply to those licenses?  
Thirdly, Brazil observes that for TRQ ZAFQ001 (according to G/AG/N/ZAF/14) and for ZAFQ052 
(according to G/AG/N/ZAF/1/Rev.1) there is no provision mentioning eligibility criteria for new 
entrants or new importers.  
  
f. Could South Africa explain if the pro rata allocation based on proven actual imports can 
be waived in the light of recent low fill r ate for both TRQs in order to guarantee that the 
TRQ can be used?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 28 - 
 
  2.2.6   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/110)  
AG-IMS ID 100076: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
a. Could South Africa explain the reasons for the low use of the following tariff quotas:  
i. ZAFQ00 meat of  bovine animals: 2.1%  
ii. ZAFQ029 maize: 0%  
iii. ZAFQ051 other cereals - 0%? 
b. Is South Africa considering the possibility of modifying quota administration systems to 
improve use thereof?  
c. Could South Africa explain the footnotes to the ZAFQ040 (sugar) quota and prov ide the 
list of "traditional suppliers "? 
d. Could South Africa indicate when the notification MA:2 for 2021 can be expected?   
2.2.7   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/113)  
AG-IMS ID 100089: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Switzerland notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for 
the 2020 calendar year (G/AG/N/CHE/113). In the notifications, Switzerland report underfill for a 
number of items.  
 
Can Switzerland explain the low fill ra tes for durum wheat (CHEQ026), bread grains (CHEQ027) and 
coarse grains for human consumption (CHEQ028)?  
 
AG-IMS ID 100077: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
a.  
i. Could Switzerland explain the reasons for the low use of the following tariff quotas:  
• CHEQ026 durum wheat – 56.4%  
• CHEQ028 coarse grains – 42.2%?  
ii. Is Switzerland considering the possibility of modifying quota administration systems 
to improve use thereof?  
b. Tariff quota CHEQ005 (bovine meat) is 100% filled but notification G/AG/N/CHE/113 
indicates that imports exceed the quota fill.  
i. Could Switzerland indicate total imports as a percentage of the quota, including surplus 
imports benefiting from the in -quota tariff?  
ii. Could Switzerland confirm what is the administration method for this quota?  
iii. Given  that demand appears to exceed the quota quantity each year, is Switzerland 
considering an increase in quota quantity to provide greater predictability for 
exporters?  
2.2.8   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6/REV.1)  
AG-IMS ID 100090: Question by Australia - Tariff quot a fill 
Australia welcomes the United Kingdom 's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table  MA:2) for the 2021 calendar year (G/AG/N/GBR/6/Rev.1).  
 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 29 - 
 
  In the notifications, the United Kingdom report nil, or close to nil, fill rates for a number of items. 
Can the United Kingdom provide an explanation as to why these quotas had such low fill rates?  
 
• Meat of bovine animals ' quotas (GRBQ001, GRBQ002, GRBQ003, GRBQ004, GRBQ005, 
GRBQ006 and GRBQ007) ; 
• Meat of sheep or goat 's quota (GBRQ013) ; 
• Dairy quotas (GBRQ021, GBRQ022, GBRQ023, GBRQ024, GBRQ025, GBRQ026) ; 
• Fruit and vegetable quotas (GBRQ028, GBRQ029, GBRQ030, GBRQ032, GBRQ03 4, 
GBRQ035, GBRQ036, GBRQ037, GBRQ038, GBRQ039, GBRQ040, GBRQ041, GBRQ042, 
GBRQ044, GBRQ045 and GBRQ046) ; 
• Wheat and barley quotas (GBRQ047, GBRQ048 and GBRQ049) ; 
• Sugar quotas (GBRQ072 and GBRQ073) ; 
• Wine quotas  (GBR082, GBRQ084 and GBRQ085) . 
AG-IMS ID 100043: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
The United Kingdom's latest MA:2 revised notification, which included information regarding imports 
under tariff quotas during the Calendar Year 2021, demonstrates tha t the fill rate for TRQs 
GBRQ034  - Manioc (cassava), GBRQ035 - Manioc (cassava) other than pellets of flour and meal, and 
GBRQ050  – Maize was 0% or close to 0%.  
  
Could the UK provide the following information:  
  
a. Data on market circumstances that would exp lain the relatively low volume of imports 
under the aforementioned TRQs (in other words, does the answer provided for question 
AG-IMS ID 99052 still apply)?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ? If so, could the UK provide data on the total 
imports of such products?  
AG-IMS ID 100074: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
a. Could the n United Kingdom explain the reasons for the low use of the following tariff quotas:  
 
• Meat of bovine animals: GBRQ004 - 0%, GBRQ005 - 0%, GBRQ006 - 32.4% GBRQ007 - 0.1%  
• Manioc (cassava): GBRQ034 - 0% 
• Manioc starch: GBRQ060 and GBRQ061 - 9.5%  
• Common wheat: GBRQ047 - 41% 
• Maize: GBRQ050 - 0% 
• Rice: GBRQ051 - 26.5%, GBRQ052 - 22%, GBRQ053 - 19.8%  
• Sugar: GBRQ072 - 3.6%  
• Cane sugar: GBRQ073 - 0% 
 
b. Is the United Kingdom considering the possibility of modifying quota administration systems to 
improve use thereof?  
 
c. Could the United Kingdom explain the footnotes to quotas GBRQ060 and GBRQ061? The 
notification suggests that although two separate quot as are involved, they are considered as a single 
quota instead of the quantities being duplicated.   
2.2.9   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6)  
AG-IMS ID 100091: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the United Kingdom is implementing its proposed app ortioned quota volumes 
which severely underfilled in particular for beef (GBRQ001 to GBRQ007).  
 
a. Could the United Kingdom provide information as to the reasons for these extraordinarily 
low fill rates?  
b. Could the low fill rates be related to TRQ administrati on? G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.2.10   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6, G/AG/N/GBR/6/REV.1)  
AG-IMS ID 100012: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States thanks the United Kingdom for its first notifications of its tariff rate quota fill rates 
in G/AG/N/GBR/6 and  G/AG/N/GBR/6/Rev.1. The United States notes there are a number of product 
commodities with 0% TRQ fill rates including bovine meat (GBRQ001 – GBRQ005) 0%; cheese 
(GBRQ027) 0%; and vermouth (GBRQ084 and GBRQ085) 0%.  
 
Please explain the reason for the low fill rates for bovine meat, cheese, and vermouth.  
2.3  Special agricultural safeguards  (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/80)  
AG-IMS ID 100044: Question by Brazil - SSG 
a. Could the Philippines clarify if the price -based action has been taken only on 
1 January  2020 or from 1 January 2020 until the end of the year?  
b. If the price -based SSG was continuously in force, could the Philippines clarify if it has 
applied on all imports or on a shipment -by-shipment basis? In other words, does the 
answer to previous  questions, such as 60003, still apply?  
c. Does the Philippines have available information on the difference between the c.i.f. import 
price of the shipment and the trigger price (in reference to Article 5.5 of the AoA) for tariff 
item numbers 02071200; 02071 410; 02071420; 02071430 and 02071499?  
d. Does the Philippines have available information on the volume of trade and on the number 
of shipments affected by the additional duties for tariff item numbers 02071200; 
02071410; 02071420; 02071430 and 02071499?  
e. Brazil notices that in G/AG/N/PHL/53, the Philippines has notified a fill rate for TRQ 
PHLQ009 (Poultry meat - 0207) of 68.8%. Could the Philippines clarify if the additional 
duties for tariff item numbers 02071200; 02071410; 02071420; 02071430 and 02071499 
were applied against intra -quota trade?  
AG-IMS ID 100088: Question by Indonesia - Transparency issues  
WTO requires that the implementation of Special Safeguard (SSG) should be in line with 
WTO transparency commitment. In this regard, we notice that the notification from the Philippines 
delivered on 1 December  2021 with doc. G/AG/N/PHL/80 for January - December 2020 period, 
submitted in the 100th CoA meeting in March 2022.  
 
a. Could Philippines plea se explain why the March 2022 notification in CoA is only for 
the 2020 period while the application of SSG has already in its 5th year in 2022? Please 
explain whether the notification for submission has been in accordance with the 
transparency commitment i n the WTO especially with Article 5. 7 AoA?  
Two months after the first implementation of SSG in 2018, Philippines called off this policy. However, 
the SSG measure has been implemented again in 2019. Moreover, has the revocation of the policy 
been transpare ntly notified at the WTO and has the justification been provided for this revocation?  
2.4  Domestic support commitments  (Table DS:1)  
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/142)  
AG-IMS ID 100054: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. According to Australia's recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/AUS/142) for the FY 2018 -19 
submitted on 2 November 2021, 'dairy' is notified in the Product -Specific Support for Dairy 
Recovery Concessional Loans Scheme. Under Supporting table DS:6, footnote (1) claims 
that "this scheme is clos ed for applications on 31 October 2016". [Refer to Page 11 of G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 31 - 
 
  G/AG/N/AUS/142]. Australia has only reported this program in DS:1 notification for 
FY 2018-19. India would like to know  
i. Why is this program not notified in the previous year's notifications?  
ii. What does the amount of other non -exempt direct payment of AUD  2.668 million 
signify under the Dairy Recovery Concessional Loan Scheme?  
iii. As per footnote 7 to the Supporting Table DS:9, the Farm business concessional loans 
scheme comprises three schemes, one  of which is the Dairy Recovery Concessional 
Loans Scheme. Why is this scheme notified under ST DS:6 as well as ST DS:9?  
2.4.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/142)  
AG-IMS ID 100056: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India notes that Canada's lat est submitted DS:1 notification is for the calendar year 2017 
(G/AG/N/CAN/142). By when can Canada notify its pending notifications?  
 
As per the news release dated 20 December 2021 ( https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture -agri-
food/news/2021/12/minister -bibeau -announces -28-million -to-support -prince -edward -island -
potato-producers -impacted -by-trade-disruptions.html ), "Minister Bibeau announces CAD 28 million 
to support Prince Edward Island potato producers impacted by trade disruptions". India requests 
Canada to elaborate on the following:  
a. The nature of the measure and under what provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture 
can it be categorised?  
b. As per Canada, what would amount to trade disruption?  
c. How would the impact of trade disruptions be calculated?  
d. In the news release, it is also mentioned that the support will resu me full market access 
for PEI fresh potatoes. How would this support impact the international market of 
potatoes?  
e. When will Canada notify this support to the WTO?  
As per a news release dated 7 December 2021 ( https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture -agri-
food/news/2 021/12/minister -bibeau -announces -federal -support -to-help-pork-producers -grow-
their-markets -and-protect -against -african -swine -fever.html ), the Minister announced an 
investment of more than CAD 4.6 million for three projects to grow the pork industry within Canada 
and in international markets. India requests Canada to elaborate on the following:  
 
f. the details of the three projects mentioned in the news release for which announcement 
of an investment of more than CAD 4.6 million is made?  
g. The nature of the measu re and under what provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture 
can it be categorised?  
h. It is also understood that Canada Pork International will undertake export market 
development initiatives to maintain and improve access to international markets". In this 
regard, Canada is requested to state:  
i. the relevant category of support under the Agreement on Agriculture for this measure?  
ii. Who would be the beneficiaries of this measure?  
As per a news release dated 30 November 2021 ( https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture -agri-
food/news/2021/11/governments -of-canada -and-manitoba -announce -new-herd-management -
program -under -agrirecovery -framework.html ), the Canada and Manitoba Government had G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 32 - 
 
  announced a Herd Management Drought Assistance program under the Agri Recovery framework. 
In this regard, Canada is requested to elaborate on the following:  
  
i. the details of the program?  
j. the implementation period of the program?  
k. Under which category of domestic support would Canada notify this program?  
l. What other programs are covered under the "AgriRecovery framework", notified as 
non-product specific support in Canada's DS:1 notification and how much is the budgetary 
outlay under each program in Canada's  recent notification?  
India notes that the Canadian Government announced support for the Next Gen Agriculture 
Mentorship Program. India requests Canada to elabora te on the following:  
  
m. The details and description of the program.  
n. Whether it a new or modified version of an existing program?  
o. Which provisions under the AoA does this program comply with?  
p. When will Canada notify this program to the WTO?  
AG-IMS ID 100015:  Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States notes that Ontario implemented milk class 6 on 1 April 2016, and class 6 was still 
in effect during January of 2017.   
 
a. How did Canada account for product sales for further processing under Ontario 's class  6 
in calculations of market price support for skim milk powder in Supporting Table DS:5 of 
G/AG/N/CAN/142, and particularly eligible production for 2017?  
b. How much skim milk powder was produced in Ontario in January 2017 under class 6 and 
included in the "total production " component of Canada 's eligible production calculation 
for skim milk powder market price support in 2017?  
c. Please explain why skim milk powder sold through Ontario class 6 was not excluded from 
eligible production for 2016 and 2017 (January).  
d. Following up on AG -IMS ID s 83079 and 93035, please provide the regulatory measure 
that specifically excludes butter and skim milk powder sold for further processing and 
exports from eligibl e production.  
AG-IMS ID 100016: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States notes that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) continues to post support prices 
for skim milk powder on its website (here).  
 
Please explain why the CDC continue to post prices for skim milk powder purchases if the CDC 
ceased such purchases in February 2017.  
2.4.3   Iceland (G/AG/N/ ISL/54, G/AG/N/ISL/55, G/AG/N/ISL/56)  
AG-IMS ID 100068: Question by Paraguay - Other  
In the reference noti fications Iceland has reported direct payments to sheep farmers every year 
under Annex 2, paragraph 6, in addition to regional assistance for such farmers under paragraph  13 
of that Annex, as follows:  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 33 - 
 
   
Support 
under 
Annex 2  G/AG/N/ISL/54  G/AG/N/ISL/55  G/AG /N/ISL/56  G/AG/N/ISL/57  
Para. 6  ISK 2,531 million  ISK 2,340 million  ISK 2,359 million  ISK 2,405 million  
Para. 13  ISK 280 million  ISK 149 million  ISK 152 million  ISK 154 million  
Total ISK 2,811 million  ISK 2,489 million  ISK 2,511 million  ISK 2,559 million  
  
Iceland has also reported the following use of AMS levels for this product, with totals as follows:  
 
"Amber 
box" 
support  G/AG/N/ISL/54  G/AG/N/ISL/55  G/AG/N/ISL/56  G/AG/N/ISL/57  
Sheep  ISK 8,608 million 
(25% of VOP) ISK 8,789 million  
(25% of VOP)  ISK 9,072 million  
(24.9% of VOP)  ISK 9,760 million  
(23% of VOP)  
FBTAMS          
  
a. Could Iceland explain the reasons for choosing to notify these programmes under the 
"green box ", considering that they are linked to a specific product?  
b. How are these programmes consistent with paragraphs 6 and 13 of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 100046: Question by Brazil - Other  
Brazil notices an approximately fourfold increase in Iceland's expenditures under the blue box 
from 2013-2016 to 2017 -2020 (Supporting Table DS:3, notifications G/AG/N/ISL/54 
through  G/AG/N/ISL/57).  
  
There has also been an increased number of items/programs notified as Production -Limiting Policies 
during the same period.  
  
a. Could Iceland provide any guidance as regards the changes on political and production 
circumstances that have led to those incre ased outlays in trade -distorting blue -box 
programs?  
b. Is Iceland considering presenting new DS:2 notifications regarding those new 
items/programs included in ST DS:3?  
AG-IMS ID 100045: Question by Brazil - Classification of measures  
Brazil notices that Icela nd has provided product -specific support (direct payments) for sheep farmers 
that were notified under paragraphs 6 and 13 of Annex 2 (Supporting Table DS:1, notifications 
G/AG/N/ISL/54 through G/AG/N/ISL/57).  
  
However, both paragraphs 6 and 13 determine t hat the amount of such payments in any given year 
shall not be related to the type of production (including livestock units).  
  
In the light of the requirement above, could Iceland explain how those direct payments are exempted 
from reduction commitments? Would Iceland consider notifying them as non -exempt payments?  
2.4.4   India (G/AG/N/IND/18, G/AG/N/IND/25)  
AG-IMS ID 100079: Question by Paraguay - Domestic support  
Follow -up to questions AG -IMS ID s 99006, 99007 and 99010:  
  
a. In its answer to question AG -IMS ID 99006, India once again pointed out that it is in the 
process of collecting the information and that this will be notified in due course. We note 
that Paraguay and other Members have been requesting this information in question 
AG-IMS ID 98039 (June 2021).  We note that the information requested refers to what can 
be understood as a timeline for the information to be received, a matter that is not 
addressed in any of the answers provided by India. Hence the query is repeated and the 
previous question is cons idered not to have been answered.  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 34 - 
 
    
b. We refer to the replies received to questions AG-IMS IDs 99007 and 99010 requesting 
specific information from India, in follow -up to questions AG-IMS IDs 98072 and 98045, 
respectively, on all programmes that receive deco upled support and data on expenditure 
relating to their public stockholding programmes for food security purposes.  
We also note that question AG-IMS ID 98045 is linked to question AG-IMS ID 97134, in turn 
submitted as follow -up to question AG-IMS ID 95101,  which, moreover, was submitted as follow -up 
to questions AG-IMS IDs 93233 and 93236, and so we consider that these questions take sufficient 
time on the agenda to receive a satisfactory response from India.  
 
We therefore consider that questions AG-IMS IDs  99007 and 99010 have not been answered and 
reiterate them, and we also request specific indications regarding the paragraphs of India 's 
DS:1 notifications in which the data can be found, as stated by India in its answer to question 
AG-IMS ID 99010.   
AG-IMS ID 100094: Question by Japan - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
A considerable number of questions on Public Stockholding were raised at the Committee on 
Agriculture in 2021, however there was hardly any satisfactory response from India.  We strongly 
urge India to provide these requested information, which we believe would also be helpful in our 
discussion for a permanent solution to the Bali Decision.  Japan would also like to repeat the question 
ID98038: What exactly does India count as "other support for rice, that is, other than public 
stockholding for security purposes " (G/AG/N/IND/25, Supporting Table DS:5, footnote (3))?  
2.4.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/25)  
AG-IMS ID 100092: Question by Japan - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Regarding the Public Stockholding, India has noted that 'the stocks under the programme are 
acquired and released in order to meet the domestic food security needs of India's poor and 
vulnerable population, and not to impede commercial trade or food security of othe rs.' 
(G/AG/N/IND/25) Furthermore, India answered to the questions ( AG-IMS IDs 98061  - 98066) 
indicating that in MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20 'around 98% of the stocks released through 
open-market sales was taken by the state governments for meeting the requir ements under various 
food security and welfare schemes, and hardly 2% was taken up by the private traders.  Hence, the 
issue of private traders turning to export markets to sell their products does not arise. ' Japan 
appreciates the information but wonders w hether this is merely what happened in these marketing 
years or there are clear rules or requirements that the released stocks should not be exported. If 
the latter is the case,  could India explain in detail how these requirements are actually implemented?  
AG-IMS ID 100093: Question by Russian Federation - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
The Russian Federation welcomes the notification on domestic support commitments for the 
marketing year 2019/2020 (G/AG/N/IND/25). The Annex to the notificat ion provides that 
"Government does not undertake export on a commercial basis from public stockholding ". 
 
a. Could India elaborate the legal status of Food Corporation of India and National 
Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India?  
b. Do Food Corporation of India and National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India 
perform export activities?  
c. Could India pr ovide the volumes of export of wheat, pulses and rice performed by Food 
Corporation of India and National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 35 - 
 
  2.4.6   Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/67, G/AG/N/IDN/68)  
AG-IMS ID 100080: Question by Paraguay - Article 6.2 (Special a nd Differential 
Treatment/Development Programmes)  
As reported by Indonesia in its notifications for 2018 and 2019, subsidies granted under Art icle 6.2 
have been increased, specifically for the provision of seeds and fertilizers, as follows:  
  
Article 6.2 G/AG/N/IDN/67  G/AG/N/IDN/68  
Input subsidies – seeds and fertilizers  IDR 37,721,655 million  IDR 39,048,628 million  
  
Could Indonesia:  
 
a. explain the reasons for such increases?  
b. Provide a definition of "resource -poor producers " for the purposes of such assistance 
programmes in Indonesia, including related qualification criteria?   
2.4.7   Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/68, G/AG/N/IDN/69)  
AG-IMS ID 100081: Question by Paraguay - Domestic support  
As reported by Indonesia in its notifications for 2019 and 2020, subsidies granted for public 
stockholding for food security purposes have been increased (Annex 2, para. 3), as follows:  
 
Public stockholding for food security purposes  G/AG/N/IDN/68  G/AG/N/IDN/69  
Reserve fund for government to purchase foodstuff at marke t 
prices  IDR 337,495 million  IDR 1,123,777 million  
Reserve stock for emergency  IDR 46,788 million  IDR 118,886 million  
  
Could Indonesia explain the reasons for these exponential increases that correspond to more 
than 200% and 100% of expenditure, respectively?  
  
Art. 6.3 - Product -specific support for rice  
 
According to the information provided by Indonesia in its notifications for 2019 and 2020, subsidies 
granted as product -specific support for rice have been increased, as follows:  
 
Art. 6.3 subsidies for 
rice Disbursements  % of 
VOP Administered 
price  Eligible production  
G/AG/N/IDN/68  IDR 4,2478,821  million  1.45%  7,300/kg  671,497  thousand kg  
G/AG/N/IDN/69  IDR 8,142,923 million  2.7%  8,300/kg  1,026,941  thousand  kg 
  
Could Indonesia please explain:  
 
a. the basis for calculating eligible production – namely, whether this means total production 
or only actual purchases by the Government? If data other than for total production are 
used as a basis, please provide data . 
b. For Indones ia's total rice production, including value of production for both years.  
c. The increase of more than 50% in eligible production?  
d. The reasons for the increase of more than IDR 1,000 per kilo for administered price 
purchases from 2019 to 2020?  
e. The percentage and amount corresponding  to public stockholding programmes for food security 
purposes financed under this type of subsidy?  
AG-IMS ID 100095: Question by Australia - Annex 2 (Green Box)  
Australia thanks Indonesia for submitting its DS:1 notificat ions for calendar year  2019 
(G/AG/N/IDN/68) and calendar year 2020 (G/AG/N/IDN/69). Australia notes Indonesian Green Box 
expenditure on public stockholding for food security purposes – which we understand to be public G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 36 - 
 
  stockholding procured at market prices  – increased by about 223% (from 384,283 million rupiah to 
1,242,663  million rupiah) between 2019 and 2020. Furthermore, domestic food aid increased by 
almost 100% (from 24,330,032 million rupiah to 48,484,826 million rupiah) over the same period.  
Can Indo nesia please explain the reasons for this significant increase in expenditure on both public 
stockholding for food security and domestic food aid?  
AG-IMS ID 100096: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Canada notes that the e xpenditures under the reserve fund for government to purchase food stuff 
at market prices increased over three -fold from IDR 337,495 million in 2019 and to 
IDR 1,123,777  million  in 2020.  
 
Could Indonesia provide information in the types of foodstuffs that  are purchased at market prices?  
Could Indonesia provide information on the pre -determined targets for the "reserve fund for 
government to purchase food stuff at market prices "and for the "reserve stock for emergency " 
programs?  
AG-IMS ID 100017: Questio n by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States thanks Indonesia for bringing its domestic support notifications up to date.  
 
In its response to AG -IMS ID  93119, Indonesia cited Minister of Finance Regulation Number 
116/PMK.02/2015 as amended by Minister of Finance Regulation Number 207/PMK.02/2017 as the 
relevant regulation for the applicable dates of the applied administered price.  
  
a. For both G/AG/N/IDN/68 and G/AG/N/IDN/69, covering calendar year 2019 and  2020 
respectively, pleas e confirm whether these are still the appropriate regulations or if they 
have been updated.  If so, please provide a copy or link to the applicable regulation.  
AG-IMS ID 100018: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
In response to AG-IMS ID 93119 Indonesia 's stated, "The determination of procurement target 
quantity is based on the assignment given by the Government, according to APBN/State Budget 
(Calendar Year). "  
 
Please confirm the numerical target quantities established for calendar  year 2019 and 2020 as well 
as provide a copy or link to the applicable APBN/State Budget.  
 
2.4.8   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/81)  
AG-IMS ID 100020: Question by United States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services  
In Israel's notification G/AG/N/ISR/81, in Supporting Table DS:1, the United States notes a nearly 
400% increase in expenditures for the "Services provided for farmers: Investment in agriculture" 
under General/Infrastructural Services.  
 
Noting Israel has not provided a description  of this measure in its notification, please describe the 
measure "Services provided for farmers: investment in agriculture ", including who are the eligible 
beneficiaries of this measure, and how payments to beneficiaries are determined.  
 
Please explain the increase in notified expenditures in 2020 and confirm whether this was the result 
of any change or modification in the implementing measure.  
AG-IMS ID 100038: Question by European Union - Current Total AMS (Amber Box)  
Israel - Non-Respe ct of AMS limit.  
 
This is the fourth consecutive year that Israel has not respected its AMS commitment.  
 
Which measures has the Israeli Government taken to ensure that it in the future will respect its 
commitment?  
 
Has Israel considered to reform the sup port for the sectors in question in order to move away from 
Amber Box support towards Green Box Support?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 37 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 100097: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Israel for submitting its DS:1 notification for calendar year 202 0 in G/AG/N/ISR/81.  
 
Australia notes that Israel has reported domestic support in excess of its annual commitments for 
this calendar year. Australia also notes the trend in Israel 's reported domestic support, which has 
been increasing over previous years.   
 
Could Israel provide an update on the concrete steps it is taking, and the progress made, with 
respect to additional reforms in its dairy and egg sectors so that Israel is in compliance with its 
WTO obligations in the future?  
  
Does Israel expect to be notifying a further breach for the calendar year 2021?  
AG-IMS ID 100047: Question by Brazil - Scheduled commitment level  
Brazil would like to again express its concern over the continuous notification by Israel of Current 
Total AMSs in excess of Israel 's Total AMS commitment level.  
  
In this sense, Brazil would appreciate it if Israel could provide further details on the ongoing 
negotiations to reform the milk and egg sectors support policies.  
AG-IMS ID 100098: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment leve l 
Canada appreciates Israel 's transparency and the explanatory note provided in the notification.  
Canada notes that Israel has exceeded its Total AMS commitment level again in its 2020 notification 
(G/AG/N/ISR/81) by USD 93 million.  
 
Given that Israel spe nt 113% of its AMS commitment in 2019 and then spent 116% of its AMS 
commitment in 2020, Canada would appreciate an update from Israel on its reforms to reverse this 
trend of exceeding its total AMS commitment level.  
 
Is Israel expecting to remain within its Total AMS commitment level in 2021 as per its 
WTO obligations?  
AG-IMS ID 100128: Question by Thailand - Scheduled commitment level  
Thailand appreciates the submission on Domestic Support Notification of Calendar Year 2020 by 
Israel. According to the notification, Israel notified the current total AMS at USD  661,951,200, which 
exceeds the level of total AMS commitment level due to the supports on milk and eggs. In this 
regard, what will be the plan for Israel to manage the supports on these product s in order to comply 
with its commitment on the total AMS?   
AG-IMS ID 100019: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
The United States notes that Israel has once again exceeded its Total AMS commitment level in 2020 
due to su pport for eggs and milk. While the United States appreciates Israel 's transparency on the 
matter through CoA review process responses and various explanatory background notes in its last 
several Table DS:1 notifications, it is important to point out that I srael has now breached its 
commitment in eight out of the last 10 years (2011 -2014, 2017 -2020).  Israel has provided support 
in excess of 50% of the value of production for both milk and eggs every single year of the last ten, 
even in the years when it did not breach its Total AMS commitment (2015 and 2016).  Members have 
also raised concerns in this Committee with regards to modifications Israel has made to its reporting 
methodology that has resulted in lower notified support levels.  Despite numerous referen ces to 
ongoing attempts at reform and reported increases in efficiency in both sectors, Israel has exceeded 
its limit by 8% in 2017, 11% in 2018, 13% in 2019, and now 16% in 2020. Taking note of these 
facts, the United States respectfully, but urgently, re quests the following:  
 
a. An update on the reforms to the Dairy Sector Planning Law that was originally adopted in 
2011 and re -negotiated with an outline for reform in October 2018 that requires a change 
in legislation.  
b. An update in the table eggs sector, w here Israel previously stated 
(G/AG/N/ISR/66/CORR.1) structural adjustments for increased efficiency were negotiated, 
as well as any other pending reforms.  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 38 - 
 
  c. A timeframe for when Israel will undertake the necessary reforms, which will result in 
Israel 's comp liance with its Final Bound Total AMS commitment.  
2.4.9   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/55)  
AG-IMS ID 100099: Question by Canada - Domestic support  
Supporting Table DS:9  
 
a. Canada notes that Mexico has provided MXN  122.7 million in expenditures related to 
fertilizers.   
Could M exico elaborate on the criteria for producers to access the program?   
  
Could Mexico provide information on the number of farms that have benefited from this measure?   
  
Supporting Table DS:1  
  
b. Canada notes that Mexico 's environmental programmes consist of  "recovery of soil with 
agri-chemical degradation, primarily loss of fertility. " Could Mexico provide further details 
on this program including the activities aimed at soil remediation and to address loss of 
soil fertility?   
AG-IMS ID 100048: Question by Brazil - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Even though Mexico 's current Total AMS is within its Total AMS commitment level, Brazil notices that 
there has been a significant increase in the Product -Specific Aggregate Measurements of Support for 
Safflower, Beans, Soya and Wheat, while support for coffee has remained above 20% of the  VoP 
(Supporting Table DS:4, G/AG/N/MEX/55).  
  
Could Mexico provide further information on the policy developments that led to the increased 
product -specific outlays, and comment if Members should expect a similar trend for 
calendar  year 2020.  
2.4.10   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/19, G/AG/N/NGA/20, G/AG/N/NGA/21)  
AG-IMS ID 100082: Question by Paraguay - Domestic support  
Follow -up to questions AG-IMS IDs 99011, 99012 and 99013:  
 
In view of the lack of an answer to Paraguay's questions AG -IMS ID s 99011, 99012 and 99013, 
Paraguay reiterates these questions and looks forward to receiving an answer from Nigeria as soon 
as possible.  
 
2.4.11   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/119)  
AG-IMS ID 100083: Question by Paraguay - Domestic support  
a. Norway reports an increase in its AMS expenditure from NOK 10,837 million in 2019 to 
NOK 11,011 million in 2020. Could Norway:  
i. indicate the reasons for this increase?  
ii. indicate the actions and measures  being implemented or considered by Norway to 
reduce its AMS expenditure levels in view of the fact that it is very close to exceeding 
its authorized levels (NOK 11,449 million)?  
b. Norway reports expenditure of NOK 118.2 million under Annex 2, paragraph 12 f or organic 
production. Could Norway explain why it considers that organic production can be 
subsidized under this paragraph and comply with the requirements of Annex 2, 
paragraph  12? G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 39 - 
 
  c. Norway has reported an increase in expenditure under Annex 2  in paragraph  14, 
specifically for the previously challenged vacation schemes for its farmers, from NOK 1,293 
million in  2019 to NOK 1,354 million in 2020. Could Norway explain the reasons for such 
an increase in 2020?  
d. Can Norway explain how "incentive" programmes such  as those reported in the "blue box " 
under paragraph (b) regarding meat production are consistent with Article  6.5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture? We also note that these subsidies were increased by over 
NOK 10 million in 2020.  
e. Although Norway has reporte d MPS for wheat and oilseeds in 2020 beyond their de minimis  
levels, the notification does not indicate the value of production or the percentage of 
production value support for any of the products for which it reports support levels above 
de minimis . We u rge Norway to provide data for all products and specifically the VOP and 
percentage of support for wheat and oilseeds.   
AG-IMS ID 100057: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
a. The European Union notes that in Norway 's DS:1  notification for calendar year 2020 there 
is no separate entry for goat milk in Supporting Table DS:4, which has previously been 
the case for calendar years 2005 -2019. Nevertheless, goat milk is mentioned in note  6 to 
Supporting Table DS:5 and in Supporti ng Table DS:6 (base deficiency payments to goat 
milk) of the notification for 2020. Should this be interpreted as Norway having changed 
its notification practice regarding milk in 2020 as to notifying cow milk and goat milk as 
one single product?  
b. In suppor ting table DS:5, Norway has included seven notes regarding what constitutes 
the eligible production of each product in the calculations of market price support. There 
have been no similar notes in previous Norwegian DS:1 notifications. According to 
Norway 's answer to Australia 's question AG -IMS ID 86018, Norway previously did not 
include seed production in its eligible production for wheat, barley and oats. Moreover, 
milk and pork consumed on farms as well as milk processed on farms were not included 
in the  eligible production for those products. The basis for this exclusion seems to have 
been that the volumes in question were not eligible to receive the applied administered 
price. However, according to notes 1 -3 and 6 -7 to Supporting Table DS:5, both seeds of 
wheat, barley and oats, pork consumed on farms and milk consumed or processed on 
farms are included in the eligible production of those products for 2020. Does this apparent 
change of notification practice of Norway reflect any changes in how Norwegian market 
price support functions? If not, what are the reasons behind the change of practice?  
2.4.12   Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/26)  
AG-IMS ID 100021: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In WTO notification G/AG/N/OMN/26 covering calendar year 2019, there is no mention of the 
activities of the Oman Food Investment Holding Company.  
 
Through the Trade Policy Review Process, Oman indicated that the mission of the company is to 
invest in food projects, and any activities of the compan y will be in conformity with Oman's 
obligations on domestic support. One of the WTO obligations with respect to domestic support is 
annual notification.  
  
How much did Oman spend on food projects through the Oman Food Investment Holding Company 
in 2019?  
2.4.13   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/78)  
AG-IMS ID 100037: Question by European Union - Market price support  
In supporting table DS:5 Philippines indicates 444.0 thousand tonnes as eligible production.  
 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 40 - 
 
  a. Can Philippines please indicate total rice production for the year 2020.  
b. What is the quality criteria for the rice purchased.  
c. Can Philippines indicate whether this quantity had been determined and whether all was 
bought in at the price indicated in suppor ting table DS:5. Was the quantity fixed in advance 
before the buying began.  
d. How does the Philippines intend to dispose of the procured quantities and is there any 
specific purpose planned?  
2.4.14   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/23)  
AG-IMS ID 100049: Question  by Brazil - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Even though the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 's Current Yotal AMS is within its Total AMS commitment 
level, Brazil notices that the Product -Specific AMS for poultry remains above " de minimis " levels for 
the seventh yea r in a row (Supporting Table DS:4, G/AG/N/SAU/23), between 2012 and 2018.  
  
In light of the above, could Saudi Arabia indicate if Members should expect that such a trend of 
product -specific support above " de minimis " for poultry has continued in more recen t 
years  (2019,  2020, 2021)?  
2.4.15   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/114)  
AG-IMS ID 100101: Question by New Zealand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In notification G/AG/N/CHE/114, Switzerland notified total  product specific support for milk and milk 
products of CHF 371.8 million which  is in excess of de minimis  levels. We also note that recent 
reporting indicates  that around 45% of Swiss milk is processed into cheese with around 40% of this  
cheese being exported to more than 70 countries around the world. 
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no -holes -in-swiss -cheese -exports -despite -coronavirus/46338236   
 
Does the product -specific support provided to milk and milk  products cont ribute to the production 
of cheeses that are subsequently  exported?  
2.4.16   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/206, G/AG/N/TPKM/207)  
AG-IMS ID 100078: Question by Paraguay - Market price support  
Notifications for 2018 and 2019 reported increases in product -specific suppo rt for soybeans by 
comparison with the levels reported in 2017 (80.67%). Could Chinese Taipei explain the reasons for 
these increases?  
2.4.17   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/21)  
AG-IMS ID 100102: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes an United Arab Emirates Ministry of Climate Change & Environment (MOCCAE) news 
release from 10 August 2017 highlighting the Ministry 's efforts to support the Year of Giving 
initiative. The release states that the Ministry works with priv ate sector companies to provide farmers 
with agricultural supplies, such as fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, irrigation pipes and soil testing 
equipment for "half their market price. "  
  
Could the United Arab Emirates indicate where or how is this domestic support accounted for in its 
notification?  
2.4.18   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/135)  
AG-IMS ID 100104: Question by Canada - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
Since G/AG/N/USA/135/REV.1 released on 8 April 2021, the United States now reports all domes tic 
tables on a fiscal year basis ( 1 October to 30 September) instead of on a marketing year basis G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 41 - 
 
  (1 September to 31 August) as it was done previously. This change in methodology was 
implemented as total AMS support reported by the United States grew rapi dly in recent notifications. 
(USD 3,984.250 in 2017 -18, US D 13,085.38 in 2018 -29 and US D 18,247.48 in 2019 -20) 
  
Could the United States indicate what their total AMS support in 2019 -20 would have been if they 
had not changed their reporting period in 2019 -20? 
2.4.19   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/150, G/AG/N/USA/157)  
AG-IMS ID 100114: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Under G/AG/N/USA/157 and G/AG/N/USA/150 the U.S. classified payments for non -speciality crops 
under the Market Facilitation  Program under DS:9 as non -product -specific AMS.  
  
a. Could the United States clarify why these payments were classified as non -product 
specific?  
b. Did producers have to certify the number of acres of each crop they planted with the USDA 
to get payments?  
c. If a producer planted only a single crop eligible under the program, would payment be 
considered commodity specific?  
2.4.20   United S tates of America (G/AG/N/USA/157)  
AG-IMS ID 100108: Question by Brazil - General services: infrastructural services  
The US has notified under Supporting Table DS:1, "Infrastructural services", expenditures that were 
described as:  
  
"Administrative & operating reimbursements to insurers - Reimbursements for certain administrative 
and operating expenses of insurance companies delive ring Federal crop insurance"; and  
  
"Underwriting gains to insurers - Underwriting gains provided to insurance companies under the 
Standard Reinsurance Agreement".  
  
In a preliminary view, Brazil understands that such expenditures related to insurance and 
reinsurance services do not seem to be directed to the provision or construction of capital works by 
the government, as mandated by paragraph 2(g).  
  
Even if they were, they seem to operate on the private farm -level and to subsidize operating  costs, 
which are specifically excluded from the scope of paragraph 2(g).  
  
a. Could the US provide further rationale on its decision to classify such expenditures as 
exempted from the reduction commitments?  
AG-IMS ID 100055: Question by India - Current Total  AMS (Amber Box)  
a. India welcomes the Domestic Support Notification DS:1 by the United States for 
MY 2019/20 (G/AG/N/USA/157). It is noted that the current total AMS has increased 
around 40% from USD 13,085.38 million to USD 18,247.48 million. Could the 
United States explain the reason for this increase?  
b. India notes that in the United States' Domestic Support Notification DS:1 for MY  2019/20, 
G/AG/N/USA/157, the product -specific support as a percentage of the value of 
production  (VoP) of the products: Beef ca ttle & Calves; Canola; Cherries; Corn; 
Cranberries; Dairy; Flaxseed; Ginseng; Honey/Apiculture; Legumes; Millet; Mustard; 
Oats; Papaya; Pears; Pea cans; Plums/Prone; Sesame; Sheep & Lambs; Squash; 
Sunflower; Tobacco; Walnut; wheat and Wool has increased si gnificantly in comparison to 
that provided in DS:1 notification for MY 2018/19 (G/AG/N/USA/150).  
i. The United States may explain the reason for this increase?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 42 - 
 
  c. In the United States' DS:1 notification for MY 2019 -20, it is noted that in Supporting 
Table  DS:9 o n Non -Product Specific AMS, the support of USD 103.046 million provided for 
the measure "Irrigation on Bureau of Reclamation Projects in 17 Western States" has been 
notified under Column 3 i.e., Non -product specific budgetary outlays. However, in 
the DS:1 notification for MY 2018/19 (G/AG/N/USA/150), this measure was notified under 
Column 4, i.e., other non -product specific support (include calculation details)).  What is 
the reason for changing the category of support?  
d. The supplemental nutrition assistance program of the United States Department of 
Agriculture is a food assistance program that provides low -income households with 
monthly benefits to purchase food. This program is implemented in Michigan under the 
name "double up food bucks" in many farmers' m arkets and grocery stores. The 'double 
up food bucks' program is implemented in the following manner at the grocery stores. 
Every dollar a participant spends on fruits and vegetables will be matched dollar to dollar 
with double up food bucks. So, if the pa rticipant spends USD 20 from the bridge card, he 
gets USD  20 in free double up food bucks, which can be used to buy any fresh fruits and 
vegetables. In this context, India would like the US to answer the following questions.  
i. Does 'fresh fruits and vegetabl es' refer to the locally grown produce exclusively or does 
it include similar imported products?  
ii. Is the program notified in the WTO, if not under what provisions of the AoA does the 
United States intend to notify this?  
AG-IMS ID 100084: Question by Paragu ay - Current Total AMS (Amber Box)  
a. The United States reports an increase in its AMS expenditure from USD 13,085 million in 2018 to 
USD 18,247 million in 2019. Could the United States:  
 
i. indicate the reasons for this increase?  
ii. Indicate the actions and mea sures being implemented or considered by the United 
States to reduce its AMS expenditure levels in view of the fact that it is close to 
exceeding its authorized levels (USD 19,103 million)?  
b. The United States increased product -specific support from 2018 to 2019 for the following products 
of interest to Paraguay:  
 
• Corn: from USD 2,131 million (4.09% of VOP) to USD 4,635 million (9.47% of VOP) ; 
• Sesame: from USD 1.110 million (10% of VOP) to USD 2.072 million (16.36% of VOP) ; 
• Sugar: from USD 1,530 million (65.6% of VOP) to USD 1,836 million (65.51% of VOP) . 
 
Could the United States:  
 
i.  explain the reasons for such increases?  
ii. Provide information on possible changes or initiatives being implemented or considered 
to reduce support levels for these key e xport products for developing countries?  
AG-IMS ID 100109: Question by New Zealand - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
According to the United States ' (U.S.) domestic support notification G/AG/N/USA/157, current total 
aggregate measurement of support  ("CTAMS ") for the 2019/2020 marketing year total 
USD 18.237 billion. This is USD 900 million short of the Final Bound Commitment Level for domestic 
support of USD 19.1 billion.   
  
The U.S. CTAMS is the sum of certain product -specific AMSs in excess of the 5% de minimis  level. 
Non-product specific domestic support for the U.S. is notified as below the 5% de minimis  level and 
therefore not counted towards the CTAMS.  
  
New Zealand tha nks the U.S. for their notification.  What steps does the US take to ensure that 
payments under the programmes below do not include non -exempt product support?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 43 - 
 
   
a. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and County -level Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC -CO) 
programs ; 
b. The Fis cal Year 2019 Market Facilitation Program for non -specialty crops ; 
c. Payments for administrative and operational expenses and reinsurance services ; 
d. Payments under the Paycheck Protection Program . 
AG-IMS ID 100105: Question by Brazil - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Brazil notices with concern that the United States Current Total AMS, at USD  18.2 billion, came 
historically close to exceeding the US' FBTAMS of USD 19.1 billion. In the reference year, a total of 
29 agricultural products received product -specific  support above " de minimis " levels.  
  
a. Taking into account the impacts of U.S. agricultural policies in world markets, could the 
US update the Membership on whether the policies that have led to this significant increase 
in outlays are still in place, and if they will be present on future DS:1 notifications?  
i. If not, could the US indicate which policies have been terminated and whether new 
ones have replaced them?  
AG-IMS ID 100106: Question by Brazil - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev .1, and in answer to question 98182, the US has explained its decision to 
reclassify expenditures under the Wildfires and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) as 
non-product -specific AMS, justifying that the program "does not specify crop -specific payment 
rates". 
  
Brazil is well aware of the several questions answered by the US on the issue and appreciates the 
information previously provided on two important programs on the Farm Bill, the Price Loss 
coverage  (PLC) and the County -Level Agricultural Risk Cover age (ARC -CO). 
  
However, Brazil recalls that both the PLC and the ARC -CO do specify crop -specific price or revenue 
protection, since crop -specific payment rates depend on price or revenues for the crop in a given 
year. 
  
Hence, Brazil would like to consult , in light of its recent revision of notification practices, if the  US 
has considered or would consider notifying in G/AG/N/USA/157 both programs as product -specific 
domestic support?  
AG-IMS ID 100036: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
Market Facilitation Programme.  
 
According to the notifications G/AG/N/US/50 and G/AG/N/US/56 the following amounts have been 
paid out to farmers:  
 
     billion  USD 
MFP  Announced 
amounts  USDA authorised 
amounts to FAS 2019 
DS:1 2020 
DS:1 Total  
 24-07-2018 12,0 10,6       
 23-05-2019 16,0 14,5       
    28,0 25,1       
DS:1 notification  PS     8,761  0,641    
NPS     5,191  8,399    
Total      13,952  9,040  22,992  
 
Can the United States explain more in detail about the eligibility criteria for the support notified as 
non-product specific, and why the US has notified this support as non -product specific.  
 
Does the United States expect any of the remaining amounts (difference between 25.1 and 22.99) 
to be included in later DS1 notifications?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 44 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID  100116: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid  
Under G/AG/N/USA/157 the United States classified the Farmers to Families Food Box Program as 
green box and under G/AG/N/USA/156  the United States indicates that "Outlays under the 
programme meet the general criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 1: support is provided through a 
publicly -funded government programme and does not involve transfers from consumers,  and there 
is no price support to producers; additionally, there are no trade -distorting effects or effects on 
production. " 
  
In a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report , released on 21 September  2021, 
the GAO clearly indicates that one of the goals of the program was to create al ternative outlets for 
food producers after they lost customers and to support producers. The report also indicates that 
after two rounds of the program, the USDA started to prioritize contractors who could offer the 
lowest price, implying that this wasn 't the practice used in the first two rounds. Table 3 in the GAO 
report shows that the mean and median price per box dropped significantly after round 2 when the 
USDA started to prioritize lowest price contractors.  
 
Furthermore the report noted that the USDA did not collect the prices received by the producers, 
and did not monitor whether the pandemic reduced demand and sales for the type and quantity of 
products the producers provided for the program.  
 
It is Canada 's understanding that under the program, the  USDA provided funds to contractors, who 
in turn purchased commodities and distributed them. Under question AG-IMS ID 92384 of 93rd COA 
meeting starting on 28 July 2020, Canada already questioned the high price paid for some 
commodities under the program a s reported in the media.  
 
a. Could the United States clarify how purchases made by private contractors were conducted 
under the program?  
b. If during the first two round of the program, priority was not provided to the lowest bidder, 
what support was provided to  producers through this program by purchasing commodity 
above market price?  
c. Could the United States clarify how this program impacted producers as it was an objective 
of the program.  
2.5  New or modified domestic support measures ( Table DS:2)  
2.5.1   Australia  (G/AG/N/AUS/141)  
AG-IMS ID 100050: Question by Brazil - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
Could Australia provide further explanation on how the expenditures under the "National Landcare 
Program Smart Farms Small Grant" and the "Nat ional Landcare Program Smart Farming 
Partnerships" comply with the specific requirements of Annex 2 paragraph 12?  
  
In particular, and without prejudice to other information available, could Australia specify if:  
  
a. the "best practices" and the "new and inn ovative tools" are "specific conditions under the 
government programme" in the sense of paragraph 12?  
b. The "small grants" are limited to "the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying 
with the government programme"?  
2.5.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/68)  
AG-IMS I D 100117: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Brazil indicates that Programme "Feed Brazil " (Programa Alimenta Brasil) replaces "Program of 
acquisition of agricultural products from family farming" and that it is consistent with the criteria in 
paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 45 - 
 
  Could Brazil elaborate on the differences between "Feed Brazil " and the previous measure?  
AG-IMS ID 100034: Question by European Union - Public stockholding for food security 
purp oses 
The European Union notes that Brazil has introduced a new domestic support measure that is claimed 
to be consistent with the criteria in Paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture ( "Feed 
Brazil "). For further clarity, could Brazil please e xplain whether the agricultural products purchased 
under the program in question are purchased at market rates or not?  
AG-IMS ID 100035: Question by European Union - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
Brazil does not make any indication for the  expected amounts to be spent on this programme, which 
according to the notification is without time limits.  
 
a. Can Brazil indicate the total amounts allocated to this program in the year  2022. 
Furthermore is it possible to give any indications of the level  for the next two to five years?  
AG-IMS ID 100119: Question by United Kingdom - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
The United Kingdom thanks Brazil for notifying its Programme "Feed Brazil " under G/AG/N/BRA/68.  
 
a. The United Kingdom asks Brazil if they can provide the following further information:  
i. The duration of the programme  
ii. The annual budget of the programme  
iii. Whether stock purchased may be immediately released, and if so, whether parts of 
the programme come under Paragraph 4 of Annex 2, namely, domestic food aid  
b. The United Kingdom also seeks clarification on whether the volume and accumulation of 
food stocks correspond to any predetermined targets, and if so what these targets are and 
how have they been determined?  
2.5.3   European Union (G/AG/N/ EU/71)  
AG-IMS ID 100022: Question by United States of America - Annex 2 (Green Box)  
The United States thanks the European Union (EU) for its Table DS:2 submission on the Horizon 
Europe program. In the notification, the EU states projects funded by the prog ram "are transnational 
and benefit entities (universities, research centres, private sector, NGOs, etc.) from the EU, 
associated countries and third countries with the exception of industrialised countries and 
the BRICS. "  
 
a. Please confirm if this means non -EU entities (other than industrialized countries and 
the BRICS) will be eligible for these grants.  
b. Are participants of the program/recipients of the grant, even if non -EU entities, required 
to study agriculture, forestry, and rural areas of the European Union? Or is the study of 
agriculture, forestry, and rural areas outside of the European Union allowed?  
2.5.4   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/9)  
AG-IMS ID 100121: Question by Australia - Annex 2 (Green Box)  
Australia thanks the United Kingdom for submitting its DS:2  notification dated 1 February 2022 in 
G/AG/N/GBR/9. Australia notes 'The Farming Investment Fund ' measure, which has two strands that 
provide grants to farmers, growers, and foresters to invest in technology, equipment and 
infrastructure. The weblink prov ided in the notification indicates the fund could include 'on-farm 
water storage infrastructure, including reservoirs '.  
 G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 46 - 
 
  Could the UK please explain in more detail why this support should be categorised as Green Box 
rather than Amber Box support?  
AG-IMS ID 100051: Question by Brazil - Annex 2 (Green Box)  
Brazil appreciates the UK 's efforts to comply with its transparency obligations. Regarding the 
Farming Investment Fund:  
  
a. Could the UK clarify if the grants are one -off, non -refundable payments?  
i. If they a re, and in addition to the information already provided by the UK on page  5, 
could the UK provide details on why such payments could be notified as general 
services? Is there another sort of support other than the grants included in the 
program?  
b. Since a sh are of the programs' expenditures can be notified under paragraph 11 of the 
Annex  2, could the UK explain how it applies the concept of "objectively demonstrated 
structural disadvantage" in the sense of said paragraph to establish the eligibility criteria 
of the program?  
c. Could the UK point to the legislation establishing the environmental or conservation 
programme pursuant to paragraph 12, and its specific conditions that apply to the Farming 
Investment Fund?  
d. Could the UK clarify if each grant shall corresp ond to a specific policy (in the sense of each 
of paragraphs 2 -13 of Annex 2) or if a grant can encompass payments that relate to more 
than one specific policy (for instance, could the same farmer receive payments under 
paragraphs 11 and 12)?  
e. According to the information provided, an overall goal of the "Farming Equipment and 
Technology Fund" and the "Farming Transformation Fund" is to increase productivity, 
which, in turn, could generate more than minimal trade -distorting effects or effects on 
production. In that sense, has the UK considered notifying such program as non -exempt 
direct payments?  
AG-IMS ID 100052: Question by Brazil - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
Brazil notices that the total payments per hectare for each standard of the Sustainable Farming 
Incentive is already defined and publicized. For instance, in what regards "arable and horticultural 
soils standard", "a farmer doing the introductory level would get GBP 22 per hectare; and a farmer 
doing the intermediate level would get a total of GBP 40 per hectare", as per the information 
available on the weblink provided by the UK.  
  
Considering that the UK has stated on page 6 of the notification that "Support is limited to costs 
incurred and income foregone by landowners delivering the actions of the SFI Pilot", could the UK 
explain how it has established the payment levels, in general, for the farmers complying with the 
standards?  
2.5.5   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/156)  
AG-IMS ID 100032: Question by European Union - Domestic food aid  
During federal years 2020 and 2021 the cost of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program were 
close to USD 6 billion according to the data provided by the United States. The food was contracted 
through a competitive bid process.  
  
a. Was there a requirement for the food included in the boxes to be of US origin, or could 
imported food also be included?  
b. If imported products were not allowed to be included in the boxes, how could the United 
States ensure that the USD 6 billion program had  no trade -distorting effects?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 47 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 100033: Question by European Union - Domestic food aid  
The EU appreciates the DS:2 notification. As mentioned in other meetings, when references are 
made to websites, the EU will encourage all Members to indicate the  exact link in the 
notification/answer to question etc.  
 
Dairy Donation Programme  
 
According to the notification: "The Dairy Donation Program (DDP) is a voluntary programme 
implemented by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA). The programme reimburses eligible dairy organizations to offset a portion of the raw milk 
cost for dairy products donated directly to eligible non -profit organizations for distribution to 
individuals in low -income groups ". 
 
a. How is this level of reimbursement fixed? Which criteria are used to fix the level of 
compensation?  
b. Can the United States indicate for the 2021 budget year (that ended on 30/9/2021) what 
was the average reimbursement per litre compared to the average ov erall raw milk price 
paid to the farmers for the dairies participating in the programme?  
2.6  Export subsidy  notifications ( Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
2.6.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/137)  
AG-IMS ID 100123: Question by European Union - Export subsidies subject to reduct ion 
commitments (Article 9.1)  
The International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM) was established in 2020. It was introduced 
as a temporary measure with initial funding of AUD 110 million, and has now received over AUD 1 
billion.  
 
This programme therefor e provides significant support for Australian exports, and the European 
Union questions the compatibility of a programme of this scale with Australia's export subsidy 
commitments.  
 
Moreover, in its previous answers, Australia underscored the temporary nature of this programme, 
which is supposed to end once the market readjusts. When is the programme expected to end and 
depending on which specific objective criteria?  
2.7  Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
2.7.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/119)  
AG-IMS ID 100125: Question by Japan - Provision of information justifying the measure  
Japan appreciates that Thailand has submitted the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Accor ding to 
ER:1 notification, three-month export prohibition of 'live swine ' has been applied.  Could Thailand 
explain in more detail about the "the critical reduction of the live swine production in Thailand " 
including its cause and relevant data?  
2.8  Notificati ons in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  
2.8.1   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/160)  
AG-IMS ID 100030: Question by European Union - Quantity and concessionality of food 
aid 
The European Union notes that under Item 3(e) Value of food assistance u sed in development 
programs, the United States explains that some of the commodities donated under Title II, Food for 
Progress and Food for Education food aid programs were monetized in fiscal year 2019/2020. During G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 48 - 
 
  previous years (since 1999/2000) the inf ormation in the NF:1 notifications suggests that the entire 
amount notified under this item represented commodities that were monetized.  
 
a. How much of the notified amount of USD 688,614,908 for food assistance used in 
development programs during fiscal yea r 2019/2020 represent commodities that were 
monetized?  
Have there been any changes introduced to the Title II, Food for Progress and/or Food for Education 
food aid programs that have resulted in a smaller proportion of commodities being monetized or, if 
not, are there any other reasons for the change of notification practice?  
AG-IMS ID 100031: Question by European Union - Other forms of assistance  
The United States informs that WTO developing countries, least -developed countries, and net food -
importing deve loping countries used U.S. Government officially supported export credit guarantee 
programs for a total value of USD 2,1 billion.  
 
Can the United States provide information about those programmes as required by the yearly 
questionnaire on export competitio n? On what terms are they granted? Which agricultural products 
and for which values benefited from those programmes?  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIMS)  
3.1  Côte d'Ivoire's Tax on imported spirits (SI M 649)  
3.1.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 100139)  
The EU wants to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID 96046.  
 
Côte d'Ivoire appears to apply a tax of 25% only on imported spirits, under Article 419(3) of the 
Code Général des impôts .1 This tax discriminates between imported products and local products.  
 
a. How does Côte d'Ivoire explain that this tax does not restric t imports?  
b. How does it respects the following WTO commitments:  
o Article II:1(b) GATT (Schedules of Concessions);  
o Article III:2, first sentence, GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxation and 
Regulation).  
3.2  Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultu ral products (SIM 223)  
3.2.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100137)  
Brazil invites Nigeria to provide, in writing, through the AG -IMS system, answers to the questions 
posed by Brazil during the 98th CoA meetings (AG -IMS ID 98129):  
 
Nigeria maintains a list of agr icultural products whose imports are prohibited. This list can be found 
on the website of the "Federal Ministry of Finance" ("Nigeria Customs Service"), at the following 
address: https://customs.gov.ng/? page_id=3075 . 
 
Among the products whose import is prohibited are "live or dead birds including frozen poultry; pork; 
beef; birds eggs; refined vegetable oils and fats; cane or beet sugar; coca butter, powder and cakes; 
spaghetti / noodles and fruit juice i n retail packs".  
 
 
1 http://www.dgi.cgici.com/indexs.htm . G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 49 - 
 
  In the light of the above, could Nigeria explain how the import ban on the products listed above is 
consistent with the obligation taken by Nigeria in Article 4 of the AoA, which prohibits Members to 
maintain or adopt quantitative restric tions on imports?  
3.2.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 100138)  
Brazil invites Nigeria to provide, in writing, through the A G-IMS system, answers to the questions 
posed by Brazil during the 99th CoA meeting (AG -IMS ID 99105):  
 
Brazil would like to invite Nigeria t o provide, in writing, through the A G-IMS system, the answer that 
was given during the 98th CoA to question AG -IMS ID 98129.  
 
Additionally, Brazil would appreciate it if Nigeria could provide information regarding different 
restrictions that, in Brazil 's view, are tantamount to quantitative prohibitions.  
 
A decade ago, Brazil was contributing to Nigeria 's food security through exports of rice, which 
increased overall supply and kept prices in check. Since 2014/2015, when Nigeria banned the use 
of foreign exchange to import dozens of agricultural items, including rice, Brazil 's exports have 
decreased to the point of no exports of rice being registered since 2018.  
 
Brazil notes that Nigeria has not answered question AG-IMS ID 98130, posed by the US, regarding 
the same issue.  
 
In the light of the above, could Nigeria provide the following information:  
 
a. Which products are being affected by the foreign exchange restrictions?  
b. Why is a staple food such as rice being kept under such restrictions?  
c. Is there a  timetable for the lifting of such restrictions?  
d. How does such a "de facto" quantitative restriction comply with WTO rules?  
3.3  China's one -off subsidy to farmers  (SIM 712)  
3.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 100136)  
Australia notes media  in mid -June 2021 reported that China is providing a one -off subsidy to 
farmers, worth 20 bil lion yuan or US$3.1 billion, to assist with rising costs of production materials. 
Australia requests China provides the following details in relation to this 'one-off subsidy ':  
a. What are the eligibility criteria for this subsidy?  
b. What 'production materials ' is the subsidy seeking to cover rising costs for?  
c. Australia notes the subsidy is being reported as 'aimed at ensuring farmers' willingness to 
produce grains ', therefore could China please detail which grains (and other agricultural 
products) are eligible for the subsidy?  
d. Will China be notifying this subsidy in its relevant Domestic Support notification? If so, 
when does China anticipate submitting this notification?  
e. Reporting  cites that 'measures will also be taken to better regulate the agricultural supplies 
market '; could China please provide detail on what measures it may be considering?  
f. Is this subsidy linked to the reported five other types of subsidies (covering the purchase 
of farm machine; agricultural insurance; arable land protection; ploughing; and support 
to corn, soybean and maize production), which are to be provided by the Min istry of 
Finance? Could China please provide details on these other five subsidies, such as what 
the total amounts will be?  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 50 - 
 
  Australia has asked this question previously (AG -IMS ID 99100) and note China advised at that time 
it would reply after it had recei ved the relevant information. Australia would appreciate China 
updating the Membership as to whether this information is now available and if so, providing it 
in AG-IMS. 
INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
3.4  Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  
3.4.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 100007: Question by Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union, Japan, 
Paraguay, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America and Uruguay - Public 
stockholding for food security purposes  
We would like to repeat the request fo r information in AG -IMS ID 99006:  
 
This is a follow -up on AG -IMS ID 98039, which was submitted by multiple WTO Members.  
 
In its reply to this question, India has once again stated that it is "in the process of collecting 
information on 'other support' and it will be notified in due course. " Could India please provide an 
update on when this could be expected to be notified?  
  
We reiterate that this information is necessary to verify whether India has adhered to paragraph 5 
of the Bali Ministerial Decision, w hich requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for 
programs other than public stockholding. We also reiterate our concern that given the lack of any 
indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess whether I ndia is 
complying with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security.  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
4.1.1   Canada  
AG-IMS ID 100023: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United State s thanks Canada for its recent submission of its Table DS:1 notification covering 
calendar year 2017, but notes Canada is still several years behind in its notification of its domestic 
support.  
 
What steps is Canada taking to provide its Table DS:1 notifi cations in a more timely manner moving 
forward?  
 
4.1.2   Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 100029: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The latest DS:1 notification was submitted in 2012 covering the years 2003 to 2007. When does 
Morocco intend to submit the outstanding notifications?  
4.1.3   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 100024: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States appreciates the continued efforts by Turkey to bring its notifications up to date.  
It is also noted that Turkey 's most recent export subsidy notification is for calendar year 2013 and 
was published in 2019, and its most recent domestic support notification is for calendar year 2016.  
 
Given Turkey 's historical notification of support in exce ss of its domestic support commitments and 
continued apparent use of export subsidies:  G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 51 - 
 
   
a. Please provide an update on Turkey 's ongoing efforts to update its notifications.  
5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
5.1.1   Canada  
AG-IMS ID 100025: Question by United States of America - Export credits, export credit 
guarantees, insurance programmes  
Export Credits  
  
As follow up to AG -IMS ID 99034, the United States notes that Canada did not provide the requested 
breakdown by agricultural product for its export credit program into the request ed product categories 
(i.e., barley, butter, canola, cheese, corn, pulses, soy, skim milk powder, wheat, and other milk 
products).  
  
a. Please provide data by requested product and year from 2015 to 2021.   
b. If Canada is unable to provide this data, please expl ain why this data cannot be provided.  
5.1.2   China  
AG-IMS ID 100026: Question by United States of America - Export credits, export credit 
guarantees, insurance programmes  
The United States thanks China for providing responses to Items 3 and 4 of the export finan cing 
section of ECQ with regards to SINOSURE 's offering of short-term credit insurance for agricultural 
exports in its response to AG-IMS ID 99031.  China response also stated, "The short -term credit 
insurance program that China provides may cover any products but does not link to any specific 
agricultural products. "  
  
Please clarify why China was not able to provide information on "program use by product or product 
group " as required.  
5.1.3   Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 100027: Question by United States of America - Othe r measures with 
circumvention potential  
As a follow up to AG-IMS ID 93042 and 91138 to which no response from Egypt has yet been 
received, the United States has seen press reports that the Government of Egypt settled judicial 
cases for overdue export subsi dies administered by the Egyptian Export Development Fund  (ESF) to 
promote several economic sectors, including agricultural companies.  According to press reports, we 
understand the government has already disbursed some EGP 31 billion of exporters ' arrears,  
benefiting 3,000 export companies.  
 
Please confirm whether any export subsidies arrears with agricultural export companies or other 
agricultural beneficiaries were disbursed.  
 
If so, please confirm the amount of export subsidy arrears that were disbursed and how 
disbursement rates were determined.  
 
5.1.4   India  
AG-IMS ID 100028: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Export Credits  
  
In response to AG-IMS IDs 99042 and 99043 regarding reporting under ECGC 's Credit Risk 
Insurance cov er program, India stated that other Agriculture and allied products "include cashew, 
coffee, dairy and poultry products, spices, tea, etc. " This response was referenced with regards to 
the request made in AG -IMS ID 99043 seeking a breakdown of the total va lue of USD 4.07 billion G/AG/W/ 217 
 
- 52 - 
 
  by product.  However, India did not provide the requested information.  The United States therefore 
repeats the request:  
  
Please provide the value covered under the program for each product identified by India: cotton, 
cashew, coffe e, dairy and poultry products, spices, tea, and any other agricultural products covered 
under the program.   
 
 
__________