RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/51 
6 June 2008 
 (08-2664) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 MARCH 2008 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its fifty-fi rst regular meeting on 18 March 2008 under the 
Chairmanship of Ms Valeria Csukasi of Uruguay.  
2. The agenda of the meeting as set out in WTO/AIR/3162 of 7 March 2008 was adopted, with 
the addition of (i) questions by China to the Europ ean Communities, under Section I, Part A; and (ii) a 
proposal by the Chairperson to revert, under "other business", to an issue rais ed by the United States 
at the last meeting of the Committee. 
I. THE REVIEW PROCESS 
A. M
ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
(a) Australia:  India's sugar export subsidie s for 2007 and newly-announced measures  
3. Australia noted that India's responses to th e questions it raised during the November 2007 
remained outstanding.2  According to a recent press release3, Australia understood that some 
additional subsidies had been introduced sin ce then.  These measures were: (i) a 3 per cent 
enhancement of rates under the Duty Entitlement  Pass Book (DEPB) scheme;  (ii) a reduction in 
export credit guarantee premium by 10 per cent;  (iii ) interest subventions on pre-shipment and post-
shipment credit; and (iv) refunds of non-input services tax to exporters.  Australia sought clarification 
regarding the application of these measures to suga r exports, including applicable interest rates on 
loans, guarantees, and credits.    
4. India indicated that in April 2007, the Government of India had announced the introduction of 
payments for internal transport and freight charges including ocean freight and handling and 
marketing charges of Rs. 1,350 per tonne and Rs . 1,450 per tonne, for sugar from coastal and non-
coastal states respectively.  In July 2007, anothe r order was issued superseding the April 2007 order 
and clarifying that a sugar factory would be reimburse d part of the transport and freight charges of its 
domestically manufactured sugar or raw sugar, in cluding ocean freight an d handling and marketing 
charges on exports.  India explained that the scheme for reimbursement of certain charges referred to 
by Australia was made applicable to export shipments from 19 April 2007 up to 18 April 2008. No further orders for extension of this scheme had been  issued yet and no payments had been made as of 
31 December 2007 under the scheme notified in July 2007.    
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 Paragraph 8 of G/AG/R/50 refers to questions posed by Australia, while paragraph 9 refers to 
questions posed by Thailand on the same topic. 
3 Press release issued by India's Press and Information Bureau (PIB), entitled " Efforts to Provide Relief 
to Exporters Affected by Rupee Appreciation ", 28 February 2008. G/AG/R/51 
Page 2  
 
  5. India explained that the State Government of  Maharashtra  had also announced the payment 
of an additional Rs 1,000 per tonne of sugar exported by a sugar factory, provided that the total amount paid for each tonne of sugar exported – wh ether under the Government of India scheme or by 
the State Government of Maharashtra – did not exceed the actual expenditure incurred under the 
eligible heads of freight, handling and marketing ch arges.  India stated that the DEPB scheme was 
described in the website of the Department of Co mmerce of India, that it covered items other than 
sugar, and that it was intended to neutralize the import duty component on inputs used for the 
manufacture of export products.   Sugar mills whic h maintained buffer stocks (not available for 
exports) were reimbursed the interest charges on the credit availed against the quantity of buffer stock 
held.  In addition, storage and insurance charges at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent per annum of the average 
free sale realization were also reimbursed.   Indi a considered that these measures were in line with 
Articles 9.1 (d) and (e) of the Agreement on Agricult ure, and in line with India's WTO commitments.  
6. Finally, India noted that the PIB press release
4 had been circulated following the issuance of 
the Economic Survey of India  - an annual exercise before the budget which did not refer to new 
measures but only reviewed measures of the past year.  India noted that Australia's concerns had been 
referred to the capital and that a bilateral meeting ha d been scheduled for the first week of April with 
capital-based officials, to address such concerns.   
7. Australia indicated that it looked forward to a fruitful meeting with Indian officials on this 
matter in the first week of April.  Thailand stated that it understood India to have confirmed that the 
subsidy had only been terminated as of  18 April, and that it  would revert to this matter, if necessary, 
after reviewing India's written answers.  Th e EC flagged its interest in this matter. 
(b) Australia:  Turkey's wheat export subsidies (outstanding replies)  
8. Australia recalled that outstanding replies were still due by Turkey on this matter since the 
March 2007 and November 2007 meetings of the Committee,5 despite Turkey's announcement on 
both occasions that detailed written answers would be supplied as soon as available.  Australia 
reiterated its request. 
9. Turkey noted that further to its initial statement in March 20076, additional information and 
relevant statistical data had been compiled a nd communicated on 17 March 2008 to Australia, to the 
Secretariat, and to the EC, which had expressed an in terest in this issue.   Wheat flour exports for 
calendar years 2000-2006 were as follows:  2000 : 358,062,422 kgs - $84,681,031;  2001 :179,841,073 
kgs - $30,887,112;  2002 : 253,245,303 kgs - $47,607,578;  2003 : 593,364,957 kgs -$111,482,397;  
2004 : 786,054,629 kgs - $197,487,303;  2005 : 1,980,053,548 kgs - $426,152,222; and 2006 : 
1,239,490,467 kgs - $270,504,727.  Wheat flour expor ts as food aid for 2005 and 2006 were 50,000 
tonnes (to Pakistan), and 10,000 tonnes (t o the Palestine Authority), respectively. 
10. Turkey noted that although it had export subs idy reduction commitments for wheat flour, it 
had not provided any export subsidy to exports of wheat flour since calendar year 1995.  Furthermore, 
no existing special arrangements applicable to wheat flour exports, through access to wheat from 
domestic stocks at discounted prices, were in plac e.  Since the end of 2006, the Turkish Grain Board 
was no longer active in inward processing arrangements and in sales of wheat in the domestic market.  
Furthermore, there was no assistance to wheat flour expor ters in the form of direct export subsidies or 
payments-in-kind, including revenue foregone. Turk ey provided export subsidies to chocolate and 
other food preparations containing chocolate, bi scuits and pastry, in full compliance with its export 
                                                      
4 See paragraph 3 above. 
5 See paragraphs 8-10 of G/AG/R/48;  as well as paragraph 27 of G/AG/R/50. 
6 See paragraph 11 of G/AG/R/48.  G/AG/R/51 
 Page 3 
 
 
  subsidy reduction commitments. T hose products did contain, among ot her ingredients, wheat flour, 
but there were no direct export subsidies for wheat flour. 
11. Turkey stated that details of the legislativ e basis for the Investment Incentives Program (IIP) 
had been provided in the document G/SCM/N/ 155/TUR dated 18 September 2007.  The IIP was a 
programme with regional and horizontal objectives c overing all investment activities related to the 
production of goods and services, research and de velopment, environmental protection and 
improvement of quality and standards. All investors, whether domestic or foreign, which had prepared 
their investment feasibility studies and proposal s, could benefit from an exemption from customs 
duties, a value added tax exemption, and inter est support. Turkey added that the existing over-
capacities of wheat flour producing facilities had le d to a restriction imposed on any new capacity 
creation or on the increase of existing capacities th rough investment incentive measures. Therefore, 
the granting of an investment incentive certificat e was only allowed for investments such as those 
aiming at modernization, completion and qualit y improvement of existing production facilities 
(Communiqué No: 2006/3).   Turkey concluded that none of the price support to wheat was contingent on supply to wheat flour processors.  Per capita wheat flour consumption in Turkey 
totalled around 165-170 kilograms, roughly accounting for 9.5 million tonnes of annual consumption.  
The level of wheat flour exports depended on th e domestic market requirements as well as on 
developments in international markets.   
12. Australia and the EC stated that they would review the written replies provided by Turkey, 
and reserved the right to ask follow-up questions. 
(c) New Zealand:  Canada's com positional standards for dairy products
 
13. New Zealand noted that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had published new 
regulations governing compositional standards for ch eese.  New Zealand had already raised concerns 
about the restrictive nature of the regulations in  their draft form, at both the March and September 
meetings of the Committee, and ha d also engaged bilaterally with Canada to express its concerns.  
According to New Zealand, the regulations limited th e use of protein sourced from dairy ingredients 
such as milk protein concentrates, milk protein isolates, whey protein concentrate and skim milk 
powder - which were widely used and accepted in ma ny countries.  New Zealand sought clarification 
on:  
(a) how the regulations were lik ely to change demand for th ese dairy ingredients, in 
particular for imported ones;  
(b) the objective of restricting the use of non-raw milk protein sources in making cheese.  
New Zealand was concerned that the regula tions deviated substantially from cheese 
standards by Codex which had concluded that  restrictions on raw materials were not 
needed to protect the essentia l characteristics of cheese;  
(c) the rationale for adopting regulations se tting forth quantitative restrictions on 
ingredients used in cheese; and  
(d) whether Canada intended to further extend the approach of establishing restrictive 
compositional standards to other dairy products. 
14. Canada noted that comments from all stakeholde rs, including trading partners, had been taken 
into consideration when adopting the regulations. While Canada would address the question, it wished 
to note that it would be more appropriately addressed in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), which was the appropriate forum for discussions on technical measures, including 
standards.   G/AG/R/51 
Page 4  
 
  15. Canada explained that new harmonized cheese standards which clarified the permitted 
ingredients for varietal cheeses would provide consumers with greater product uniformity.  All cheeses bearing a particular varietal name would po ssess similar characteristics, irrespective of where 
they were purchased or by whom they were manufactur ed or distributed.  This reduced the risk of 
consumer confusion a nd prevented the use of deceptive practices. 
16. Regarding the demand for dairy ingredients, Ca nada noted that it was not clear that the 
regulations would result in decreased usage of dairy ingredients. The use of milk ingredients in cheese 
manufacturing varied from one cheese processor to  another, and there was no evidence that the 
regulations would serve as a constraint on the existin g overall usage of milk ingredients such as milk 
protein concentrates.  Furthermore, consistent with the various Codex Standards for cheese, the 
regulations allowed for the use of both milk a nd milk products in cheese production, and also 
specified that cheese had to maintain the protein ra tio found in milk and that cheeses had to continue 
to possess typical varietal properties.  Canada ha d not initiated any regulat ory process for establishing 
compositional standards for other dairy products. 
17. New Zealand, echoed by the United States and the EC, stated that it would certainly also raise 
this important issue under the TBT Committee as well as under future meetings of the regular 
Committee on Agriculture, as it continued to have st rong concerns that the final regulations were 
overly restrictive both in terms of the allowance for the use of dairy ingredients and  their impact on 
trade.  New Zealand considered that Canada's stat ed objective of uniformity could be made in a less 
trade-restrictive manner.  New Zealand noted that it and Canada would no doubt continue to discuss 
this issue bilaterally.  Canada's responses would be referred back to capital for possible follow-up 
questions. 
(d) United States:  Nigeria's import prohibitions on selected agricultural products
 
18. The United States  noted that Nigeria continued to maintain import prohibitions on several 
agricultural products, such as fresh fruit, millet, por k, pork products, bottled water, frozen poultry, and 
poultry products.  The United States had been c oncerned about this issue and had raised it on 
numerous occasions, specifically through a letter from the U.S. Secretary of State to the Nigerian 
Government in 2006, in the Committee on Agriculture, and through other bilatera l fora.  In each case, 
the United States had either received no response or had been assured of eventual elimination of the 
measures.  The United States looked forward to Nige ria expeditiously eliminating its import bans.   
19. Nigeria stated that a useful bilateral meeting w ith the United States had been held just before 
the present session of the Committee on Agriculture.  As previously reported, Nigeria had conveyed 
the complaint by the United States to capital. Th e Ministry of Commerce and Industry was liaising 
with the Ministry of Finance and Customs, and the Nigerian delegation was waiting to receive the 
necessary responses.  However, Nigeria recalle d that, in December 2007, the United States and 
Nigeria had met under the existing Trade and Invest ment Framework Agreemen t (TIFA) to advance 
the ongoing work programme and to discuss improve ments in Nigerian trade policies and market 
access.  As part of the schedule to align Nigeria's trade regime with that of the Economic Community 
of West African States (ECOWAS), goods curre ntly on the import prohibition list (for trade 
protection purposes) had to be phased out with the adoption of the Common External Tariff (CET) 
starting from January 2007.  Unfortunately, fo llowing the stalemate in the negotiation between 
Nigeria and ECOWAS Members on the Type B Exception List of the tariff band, which 
accommodated items in respect of which individual countries were free to fix tariffs at variance with 
the CET, the implementation had been suspended.      G/AG/R/51 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (e) United States:  Nigeria's use of reference prices for customs valuation purposes  
20. The United States noted that Nigeria used re ference prices for customs valuation purposes 
instead of actual declared values.  The United St ates had raised its concerns on numerous occasions 
and specifically in the Committee on Agriculture, th e Customs Valuation Committee, and bilaterally.  
The United States looked forward to Nigeria exped itiously resolving the issue, and noted it would 
appreciate an explanation from Nigeria of its use of reference prices for imports of agricultural 
products. 
21. Nigeria pointed out that it was now operating the destination inspection scheme but had to 
undergo a transition period during which it had continue d to use the price regimes, including for rice, 
that had been developed by the pre-shipment insp ection agents. Other pieces of  legislation, including 
the Customs and Excise Management Act, had been reviewed and the amendments were now before 
the National Assembly for enactment. Nigeria assured the United States that efforts would be intensified to provide appropriate responses as soon as possible. 
(f) China:  European Communities (EC)  tariff quota for some poultry products
 
22. China noted that, in June 2006, the EC had notified the replacement of single tariffs by tariff 
rate quotas for three poultry products (HS items 0210. 99.39, 1602.31 and 1602.32.19).  China had 
unsuccessfully sought negotiations with the EC as a "p arty with substantial interest".  China therefore 
sought explanations from the EC on:  (i) whethe r the modification complied with WTO rules, in 
particular, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricult ure.  In this respect, while the modification had 
been made under the procedures of Article XXVIII  of the GATT 1994, China believed that the 
Agreement of Agriculture prevailed in relation to agricultural products;  (ii) the EC's standard for 
selecting a "party with substantial interest", in partic ular, with regard to Paragr aph 7 of the Ad Note to 
Article XXVIII:1 of the GATT 1994  7; and (iii) the allocation of the above-mentioned poultry 
products tariff quotas in 2008.    
23. The EC confirmed that it had renegotiated its commitments in the poultry sector in 
accordance with Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994.   The EC, however, was of the opinion that the 
Agreement on Agriculture and the GATT 1994 were not mutually exclusive. The Uruguay Round had 
been concluded in a way that allowed Members to use tariff rate quotas as a supplementary instrument 
for market access. The non-consideration of China in the negotiations was based on the 
Understanding of the interpretation of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994.  In considering the 
statistical information for the selection of "parties with substantial interest", China was not included 
because there had been no discriminatory quantitative rest rictions enforced at the time.  As regards the 
allocation of the three poultry tariff quotas in 2008, the EC pointed out that the fill rate for 2008 would be detailed in the relevant Table MA:2 notification which would be forwarded to the 
Committee on Agriculture in due course.    
24. China stated that the EC replies would be c onveyed to capital, and that it looked forward to 
further bilateral negotiations w ith the EC on this issue.  
                                                     
 
7 "[...] It is, however, intended to be construed to cover only those contracting parties which have, or in 
the absence of discriminatory quantitative restrictions affecting their exports could reasonably be expected to 
have, a significant share in the market of the contrac ting party seeking to modify or withdraw the concession."   
Paragraph 7 of the Ad Note to Artic le XXVIII:1 of the GATT 1994.   G/AG/R/51 
Page 6  
 
  B. R
EVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
25. The Committee reviewed the notifications as listed in the agenda.  Specific points raised with 
respect to these notifications and the r esponses thereto are summarized in Annex 1  to this report. 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
26. The Committee took note of the notifications which had been circulated in advance of the 
date on which the notice convening the present me eting was issued, but in respect of which no 
questions had been raised by that date under th e Committee's Working Procedures (G/AG/1).  These 
notifications are listed in Annex 2. 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available af ter the notice convening the meeting was issued  
27. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the 
next meeting for substantive review in accordan ce with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working 
Procedures. 
(a) in the context of the special  safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Chinese Taipei 
(TPKM/58); 
(b) in the context of domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from 
Armenia (ARM/14) and from Japan (JPN/132, JPN/21/Corr.2, JPN/34/Corr.1, JPN/47/Corr.1, JPN/61/Corr.1, JPN/72/Corr.1, JPN/98/Corr.1, JPN/124/Corr.1 and JPN/129/Corr.1);  and 
(c) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from the 
European Communities (EEC/55). 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings
 
28. The Chairperson recalled that delegations have the possibility to inform the Committee of the 
outcome of discussions which are of general interest , but which may have been pursued bilaterally as 
a result of the review of notifications.  Th ere was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(e) Counter-notifications  
29. The Committee took note that no counter-notifi cations had been received under Article 18.7 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process  
30. There were no deferred replies to questions previously raised. 
(g) Overdue notifications  
31. An updated room document, dated 17 March 2008 and showing the current status of 
compliance with notification obligations, was made available by the Secretariat.  The Chairperson 
noted that 39 new notifications, including five relating to the administration of tariff quotas and  G/AG/R/51 
 Page 7 
 
 
  imports under tariff quotas, nine relating to the speci al agricultural safeguard, nine in the field of 
domestic support and fourteen in the context of e xport subsidy commitments, had been received since 
the November 2007 meeting of the Committee. The Chairperson underlined that, to date, only ten 
Members had fully complied with their notifica tion obligations for the period 1995-2006.   
II. OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 
A. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED ISSUES  
32. Paragraph 2 of the Doha Ministerial D ecision on Implementation-Related Issues and 
Concerns8 instructs the Committee to follow up on three di stinct issues:  (a) Members must develop 
disciplines on export credits as per Article 10.2 of  the Agreement on Agriculture;  (b) the Committee 
must examine possible means for improving the eff ectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC 
Decision;  (c) the Committee must al so ensure that Members' tariff quota regimes are administered in 
a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner, keeping such regimes under review. The 
Chairperson recalled that over the past few years,  two reports had been submitted to the General 
Council9 on these issues.  Moreover, th e proposal by the African Group10 has also been under 
consideration in the Committee since 2003 within th e context of the Marrakech decision monitoring 
mechanism and the Doha Ministerial Decision on implem entation-related issues and concerns.  In this 
context, the Chairperson reported that in her last or al status report to the General Council in December 
2007, she had reiterated that the situation remained  exactly as had been descr ibed by her predecessor 
in his oral report to the General Council in 2006.11 
33. Cuba recalled the statements it had made under th is agenda item during previous meetings of 
the Committee.  As Members were aw are, the high prices of foodstuffs were seriously affecting the 
purchasing power of developing countries, in particular least-developed and net-food importing 
countries.  That situation had to be duly taken into account in the Committee on Agriculture, both in 
the regular meetings and in the ongoing special negotiating sessions.  Cuba was actively participating 
in discussions on that issue in the special sessions and had, along with other developing countries, called for repayment terms which better reflected hi gh global food prices.  Cuba renewed its call for 
the item to remain as a standing agenda item. 
34. Argentina stated that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the establishment of additional and sp ecific disciplines on export credits, export credit 
guarantees or insurance programmes remained an outstanding implementation issue resulting from the 
Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Argentina therefore requested that this item be retained 
on the agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in regular session.  
B. WTO  LIST OF NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (NFIDC S) 
35. The Chairperson noted that no new applicati on had been received since March 2005.  The 
former list12 therefore remained valid.  It currently co mprised:  (a) the LDCs as recognized by the 
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations;  and (b) 26 NFIDCs. 
                                                      
8 WT/MIN(01)/17 (dated 14 November 2001). 
9 See G/AG/16 (4 July 2003) and G/AG/16/Add.1 (27 July 2006).   
10 TN/CDT/W/3/Rev.1, paragraph 52. 
11 G/AG/22 refers. 
12 G/AG/5/Rev.8 (dated 22 March 2005). G/AG/R/51 
Page 8  
 
  C. E
LECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
 36. The Chairperson noted that consultations we re continuing on the appointment of the 
Chairpersons for the regular meetings of WTO Co mmittees.  The Chairperson therefore proposed that 
the agenda item should be taken up again at the beginning of the next meeting of the Committee.  
D. O THER BUSINESS  
 (a) US proposal: Committee's working procedures  37. The Chairperson noted that sin ce the last meeting of the Comm ittee, she had looked into the 
possibility of engaging consultati ons amongst Members following the request of the United States for 
possible changes in the Committee's procedures.  Ho wever, due to a busy agenda, the organization of 
consultations had not been possible.  The Chairper son indicated that the United States proposal would 
be retained on the agenda of the next meeting of the Committee.  Consultations would be organized as 
soon as feasible. 
(b) Date of next meeting 
 38. The next (52
nd) regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture is scheduled to be held on 
Thursday, 18 September 2008 .  On this basis, the convening airgram will be issued on Monday, 
8 September 2008, and the reminder airgram w ill be issued on Monday, 25 August 2008.  G/AG/R/51 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Annexes 
  
   Page
 
 
Annex 1 Summary of points raised with respect to notifications 10 
 Annex 2 Notifications subject to review  in respect of which no questions 17 
  have been raised in advance of the issuance of   the convening airgram  
 
    
 
  G/AG/R/51 
Page 10  
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
Summary of points raised with respect to notifications
 
 
 
Page  
 
(i) Table MA:1: 
- Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/13/Add.9 11 
 
(ii) Tables MA:3 to MA:5: 
- Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/51, 52, 56, and 57 11 
 
(iii) Table DS:1: 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/69 and Corr.1 12 
- Norway G/AG/N/NOR/47 14 
- Pakistan G/AG/N/PAK/10 and Corr.1 14  
(iv) Table DS:2: 
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/70 15 
 
(v) Tables ES:1 to ES:3: 
- United States G/AG/N/USA/62 15 
  
  G/AG/R/51 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (i) Table MA:1 (administration of tariff and other quota commitments) 
 
 Switzerland  G/AG/N/CHE/13/Add.9  
 
39. Question by the United States - Tariff line item 0511.1010, bovine semen - 12(b) (ii) 
states that: (i) "[a] new insemination station may obtain TQ  [tariff quota] shares for the first two 
years of operation, provided that it produces and sells domestic bovine semen";   and (ii) " TQ 
shares of bovine semen are allocated to inseminatio n stations producing at least 50% of domestic 
bovine semen over the two years preceding the quota period. " Clarify how the domestic 
production requirement meets WTO obligations.   
 Tariff quota shares of quota No. 12 (bovine semen, HS 0511.1010) are allocated in 
accordance with the order in which requests are received by the Federal Office of Agriculture 
(OFAG).  Importers must also prove that they test  bulls born in Switzerland and have sold at least 50 
per cent of domestic semen during the two years pr ior to importation. Given the small size of the 
Swiss agricultural sector and the country's difficult topography, the pressure generated by imports of 
bovine semen threatens the genetic and national heritage of various bovine breeds found in 
Switzerland.  On 1 January 2007, Switzerland introdu ced reforms to its regul ations governing imports 
of bovine semen in order to facilitate market acce ss for newcomers.  Quota shares may be allocated 
without any proof of the prior production of Swiss se men, provided that such importers undertake to 
produce and sell domestic semen from then on.    
 Switzerland unilaterally decided to allow imports  at the in-quota rate (ten centimes per dose 
of semen) for a total quantity of 800,000 doses, i.e. 40 times the WTO tariff quota, leading to an overfill exceeding 2,000 per cent.  This demonstrates that the allocation method of tariff quota shares 
is efficient, transparent and pred ictable.  Following the entry into force of the results of the Uruguay 
Round, the Swiss prise en charge  system was abolished in certain cases.  In cases where the system 
was maintained, it was applied in such a way as to ensure that market  access for the products 
concerned was not made more difficult. This method is therefore consistent with the WTO 
Agreements, in particular with Article 4.2 of th e Agreement on Agriculture and Article 3 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  In this  respect, we refer to Switzerland's reply of 27 
January 2006 to a question posed by Ecuador.   
 Argentina followed up
 with questions on (i) how domes tic production requirements was 
consistent with the disciplines, and (ii) why this was a means for protecting the genetic heritage of 
various bovine breeds found in Switzerland.    
(ii) Tables MA:3 to MA:5 (special safeguard) 
 
 Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/51, 52, 56, and 57
 
 
40. Question by Australia - The identified notifi cations for Chinese Taipei highlight what 
may be considered the dysfunctional consequences of the application of the SSG volume trigger.  
This is particularly apparent in the case of "sha ddock" where the volume trigger is set at zero 
because there have been no imports in preceding years.  Any imports, therefore, no matter how 
minor, activate the trigger.  The other e xamples illustrate cases wh ere both imports and 
domestic consumption have declined and the SSG is still triggered ("other liquid milk";  "dried 
day lilies"; and '"garlic bulbs"). Does Chinese Taipei consider these plausible scenarios for 
invoking the SSG and applying additional duties?   Does Chinese Taipei acknowledge that these 
outcomes of the volume trigger reinforce the need  to ensure that any new safeguard mechanism 
proposed in the WTO Doha agriculture negoti ations (such as the "Special Safeguard 
Mechanism" (SSM)) does not result in perverse outcomes?  G/AG/R/51 
Page 12  
 
   Both the method of calculation and the applica tion of the SSG for the products concerned are 
fully in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture.  For instance, in the case of 
shaddock, the volume trigger is set at zero because there were no imports during the three preceding years.  However, the current SSG provisions also cl early stipulate that the in-quota imports shall be 
exempted from any additional duty even when the SSG has been invoked.  Therefore, the minimum 
market access opportunity as committed by Members can always be secured.  The SSG is a very 
useful tool for establishing a comfort level for impor ting countries when they open up their markets.  
We are convinced that, in line with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the current SSG 
measures should be maintained for as lo ng as the reform process is on-going.   
 
 As for the SSM, it should be more simple, ope rational and be a more effective remedy than 
the SSG in dealing with the negative impact on farmers caused by an import surge or price depression, thus meeting the development objective of the Doha Round by ensuring the food security, 
livelihood security and rural developmen t of developing country Members. 
 
 Follow-up discussion
 : Thailand shared Australia's concer ns as regards shaddock exports as it 
had flagged last year. Chinese Taipei recalled its pr evious explanation that SPS issues were the main 
reason why shaddock imports were nil, and that su ch issues should therefore be resolved in the SPS 
Committee.  Argentina, New Zealand, Paraguay an d Costa Rica echoed similar concerns and noted 
the serious shortcomings of the safeguard mechan ism.  On the linkages with the DDA negotiations, 
Argentina, Paraguay and Costa Rica indicated that they had shared their views in the appropriate 
forum.  Cuba noted the importance of the SSM fo r developing countries, and stressed that the SSG 
and the SSM were two separate instruments and s hould be taken up separately in the respective and 
appropriate fora.  
 
(iii) Table DS:1 (domestic support commitments) 
 
 Canada  G/AG/N/CAN/69 and Corr.1
 
 
41. Questions by Australia:  
Supporting Table DS:9 - Production Insurance  - Canada has notified production 
insurance - the successor to Canada's crop in surance programme - as non-product-specific 
AMS.  Can Canada provide information on which producers are eligible for production 
insurance payments?   
 Production insurance is available to almost all commercially grown commodities (more than 
one hundred) across Canada.  Any producer in Canada is eligible to participate in the programme for 
agricultural products eligible for coverage. 
 
 Could Canada provide advice on the methodology used for calculating the value of the 
subsidy provided under this programme?  
 Production insurance was introduced in 2003 as pa rt of the Agricultural Policy Framework.  
The value of the subsidy is calculated as the tota l amount of government premiums.   The rationale 
behind the methodology is that indemnities will bala nce out with premiums over the longer term.  
This is supported in law by the requirement unde r the Farm Income Protection Act that insurance 
programmes must be self-sustaining.  In additi on, the Canadian Production Insurance Regulations 
require that the setting of premium rates be  established in an actuarially sound manner. 
  G/AG/R/51 
 Page 13 
 
 
  42. Questions by the United States :  
Can Canada provide a break-out of payments  under (d) decoupled income support for 
Risk Management Funding (RMF) and for the Transitional Industry Support Programme 
(TISP)?  How much was paid out under each programme?  
 Of the figures reported as decoupled income support in Supporting Table DS:1 in 
G/AG/N/CAN/69, C$607 million was paid out under RMF and $814 million was paid out under the 
TISP.  
 Did cattle and other ruminant producers recei ve payments under the RMF?  If so, how 
much? 
  The RMF programme provided a decoupled inco me payment to all agricultural producers.  
There is no breakdown by commodity.  
 
 We understand that cattle producers were elig ible to receive direct payments under 
both the TISP and FIPP for cattle as well as gene ral payments for all eligible producers.  For 
the TISP and the FIPP, can Canada provide a b reakdown for cattle/ruminant payments versus 
all other payments?   
 
 The ruminant payment of TISP reported in  G/AG/N/CAN/69 was $598 million, included in 
the figures reported as decoupled income support in Supporting Table DS:1. 
 
 Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 21-015-XIE for 2003-2005 lists many programmes 
associated with payments to cattle and livest ock producers in the years covered by these 
notifications.  Can Canada confirm that all of the following programmes ar e accounted for in its 
notifications, and explain where they are no tified?  Payments under these programmes were 
approximately (on a calendar year basis):  2003:  C$144 million; 2004:   C$225 million; and 
2005: C$269 million.  
 
 Apart from the BC Industry Transition Program  which will be notif ied in Canada's 2005 
Table DS:1 notification, all of the programmes have  been accounted for in Canada's notifications.  
These programmes are generally incl uded in the figures for non-exempt direct payments, as price 
related direct payments or other non-exempt  direct payments, in the relevant years. 
 
 According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada  (AAFC)  press releases, payments to 
cattle and other ruminant producers under the RM F, TISP, and the FIPP were clearly made in 
response to the collapse in cattle and beef prices  following the May 2003 discovery of a bovine 
animal with BSE.  Why are these payments not based on current prices?  
 The payments conform to the general crite ria under Annex 2, paragraph 1 and the policy 
specific criteria under decoupled income support (p aragraph 6).  The support is provided through a 
publicly funded government programme not involving transfers from consumers; and does not have 
the effect of providing price support to producers.  Eligibility for the payments was based on clearly 
defined criteria in a fixed and defined base peri od and the amount was not based on the type or 
volume of production, prices or factors of production employed in any year after the base period.  
Additional information regarding RMF can be f ound in G/AG/N/CAN/64 and information regarding 
TISP and FIPP in G/AG/N/CAN/65.  G/AG/R/51 
Page 14  
 
   Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/47
 
 
43. Question by Canada - For 2002, 2003 and 20 04, Norway reports a negative non-product-
specific AMS.  In Supporting Table DS:4 No rway's negative AMS is used to reduce Current 
Total AMS from what it otherwise would have been.  Given that in some years Norway excludes 
a product-specific AMS from Current Total AMS as “ de minimis” , why is the negative non-
product-specific AMS not also treated as de minimis  and entered as zero in Supporting Table 
DS:4?  
 It is our understanding that this  is consistent with the Agreem ent on Agriculture.  Annex 3 of 
the Agreement states that " Specific agricultural levies or fees paid by producers shall be deducted 
from the AMS ".  The negative non-product-specific AMS c onstitutes such an agricultural levy, namely 
taxes on pesticides, which we are unable to divide  precisely between the relevant AMS supports. As 
there is very little other support currently qualif ying as non-product-specific AMS, the net result is 
negative. Our understanding of Annex 3 is that  it does not preclude us from having a negative non-
product-specific AMS. 
 
 As for the de minimis  provisions under the Agreement on Agri culture, Article 6.4 (a) states 
that “ A Member shall not be required to include in th e calculation of its Current Total AMS and shall 
not be required to reduce: […] (ii) non-product- specific domestic support which would otherwise be 
required to be included in a Member's calculati on of its Current AMS where such support does not 
exceed 5 per cent of the value of that Member's total agricultural production [...] ". Our understanding 
of the Agreement is that the language " shall not be required " does not imply a prohibition against 
counting a given AMS figure against the Current Total AMS, but merely states that a Member is not 
required to include it in the calculation. Furthe rmore, nothing in the above-mentioned language 
precludes Members from using the de minimis  provisions for one AMS support and not for another. 
 
 Pakistan  G/AG/N/PAK/10 and Corr.1  
 
44. Questions by Canada – Pakistan report s "Water supply facilities: On-farm water 
management" as Green Box support under Annex 2, paragraph 2(c) for 2000/01, 2004/05 and 
2006/07; and Annex 2, paragraph 2(g) in 2001 /02, 2003/04 and 2005/06. Since the programme 
description reads the same in all years, could Paki stan explain why it is claiming it variously 
under 2(c) and 2(g)? Further to our question at the 28th meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture (September 2001), could Pakistan please explain how all parts of the measure comply with the criteria.  
 The "on farm water management" programme is  focused on:  (i) improvement and lining of 
water courses to improve the water supply situation;  (ii) preparing demonstration plots;  and (iii) 
training of farmers.  Programme focus varies e ach year between focus areas in accordance with 
priorities of the provincial governments. This progra mme fits in the criteria given both in Annex 2 (g) 
and (c). The categorization in each heading is based on volume of spending on any component, i.e. if 
more than 50 per cent spending is on training then it is reported under item (c), otherwise item (g).    
 
45. Questions by the United States - How does th e wheat support/administered price system 
work and is it based on a "cost of production" calculation.  Can Pakistan provide data on the 
cost of wheat production?  
 The farmers are free to sell their product to the private sector or to the public sector.  The 
domestic market price for wheat is higher than the support price announced by the government this 
year. The real advantage of support price is for th e small farmers who live in  far flung areas and may 
not have access to main markets or have no storage cap acity. It is lower than the international price 
for the last several years. Support price is the minimum price which every farmer is entitled to  G/AG/R/51 
 Page 15 
 
 
  demand from the buyer. This is used as a tool to establish a benchmark for market price.  The cost of 
production of wheat in major wheat producing pr ovinces (Punjab and Sindh) is given below: 
 
Cost of production in major wheat producing provinces 
Provinces/Costs 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 
 ----------------------- Pak Rupees per 40 Kgs ------------------------ 
Cost of Production  292 313 326 351 397 423 443 
Import parity Price  390 430 483 526 491 520 688 
Producer prices         
Support 300  300  300  350  400  415  425  
Market 274  283  293  373  425  426  441  
Exchange Rate (Rs/ 1 $) 58.44 61.42 58.50 57.57 59.36 59.86 60.00 
 ------------------------------- US$ per ton ----------------------------- 
Cost of Production 125 127 139 152 167 177 184 
External Reference Price (Fob Pacific) 113  132  146  149  143  134  188  
Freight charges to Karachi 17  17  30  30  30  50  55  
Average c&f (Karachi)  130  149  176  179  173  184  243  
Import parity Price (Central ) 167 175 206 228 207 217 287 
Producer prices          
Support 128 122 128 152 168 173 177 
Market 117 115 125 162 179 178 184 
                
 
(iv) Table DS:2 (new or modified domest ic support measures exempt from reduction) 
 Canada  G/AG/N/CAN/70  
 
46. Question from the United States - Many of the newer programmes reported in Canada's 
2004 domestic support notification are now nearin g the end of their lifespan.  In which way 
could the contemplated changes aff ect Canada's future notifications?  
 Canada notified Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food (ACAAF) on 4 January 
2008 in G/AG/N/CAN/70.  The objective of ACAAF is to assist Canada's agriculture and agri-food 
sector in finding new approaches and opportuniti es through research and better dissemination of 
information.  The programmes under Growing Forw ard, the new policy framework for Canada's 
agriculture and agri-based products industry will be  consistent with Canada's WTO obligations and 
will be notified to the Committee on Agriculture in due course.  
  
(v) Tables ES:1 to ES:3 (export subsidy commitments) 
 United States  G/AG/N/USA/62  
 
47. Questions from Australia - The United States advises that, in regard to cotton, " quantity 
and budgetary data are based on  when payments were made."   Previously, the United States 
advised that its export subsidy quantity commitm ents are reported on the basis of awards 
(G/AG/R/18).  Please clarify whether:  (i) a "payment" is the same as an "award";  (ii) there is a common basis for recording quantities and budgeta ry outlays for all scheduled products, or G/AG/R/51 
Page 16  
 
  whether the basis for recording varies between pr oducts; and (iii) there have been any changes 
in the basis for recording data since 1995, includi ng in regard to individual products in the 
United States' Schedule.  
 The prices used for export subsidies were on an  awards basis.  But in the case of upland 
cotton, which was not understood at the time as rece iving an export subsidy,  different prices were 
used for providing the information, based on the best  available information.  The Panel and Appellate 
Body reports in the dispute United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  (DS/267) found that certain 
payments to exporters under the Upland Cotton User Marketing Certifi cate Program constituted 
export subsidies within the meaning of the Agreem ent on Agriculture.  Becau se the United States did 
not consider this programme to c onfer export subsidies at the time the programme was in effect, the 
United States did not follow the general internal pr ocedures established for other products eligible to 
receive export subsidies that would allow the Unite d States to notify payments under this programme 
using its ordinary methodology for notifying export subsidies.  Accordingly, the United States used the best available information to include payments that have been found to constitute export subsidies 
under this programme in its Table ES:1 notifications. 
 
 With respect to all other products, the United States has made no changes in the basis for 
recording or reporting data in the Table ES:1 notification.  
48. Questions from Canada - Could the Unit ed States please specify through what 
programme and to what countries the 81,300 tonnes of skim milk powder was sent as food aid.  
In any instances was this skim milk powder mone tized? Could the United States please state 
when it will provide its Table ES:3 notification s on export subsidy commitments for the years 
2003, 2004, 2005?  
 The 81,300 tonnes of skim milk powder was sent as food aid under Section 416(b) of the 
Agriculture Act of 1949 Program and the McGovern-D ole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program to Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Dominica, Dominican 
Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Georgia, Grenada,  Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, 
Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Korea DPR, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad an d Tobago, Viet Nam, and Yemen.   
  Please see our web site at http://www.fas.usda.gov/food-aid.asp
 for a description of the 
programmes and the 2004 food aid report at http://www.fas.usda.gov/food-aid.asp  for more details 
regarding commodity distribution by country.  The fiscal year 2004 food aid report is used for the 2003 notification.     In some instances, skim milk powder was monetized for development assistance in Angola, 
El Salvador, Eritrea, Georgia, Indonesia, Kazakhsta n, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, and Yemen.   
  According to G/AG/2, a notification in the form of Table ES: 3 showing the total volume of food aid should be provided unless this information is required to be provided in the Table ES:1.  For 
2003, 2004, and 2005, the United States reported in Ta ble ES:1 information that would be in Table 
ES:3.   G/AG/R/51 
 Page 17 
 
 
   
ANNEX 2 
 
Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised  
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram  
 
 
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
- Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/7 
  of Macedonia - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/55   
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):   
- Former Yugoslav Republic G/AG/N/MKD/8 
  of Macedonia - Norway G/AG/N/NOR/46 - Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/36/Rev.1 - Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/40 
  
(iii) special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
- European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/54  
- Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/41 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/53 - United States G/AG/N/USA/61 
- Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/31  
 
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  
- Canada G/AG/N/CAN/71 
- Chile G/AG/N/CHL/26  - Cuba G/AG/N/CUB/30  - Panama G/AG/N/PAN/15  - Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/32 
 
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2): 
- Mongolia G/AG/N/MNG/7 
 
(vi) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): 
- Armenia G/AG/N/ARM/13 
- Cuba G/AG/N/CUB/31 - Dominican Republic G/AG/N/DOM/13 
- Hong Kong, China G/AG/N/HKG/23 
- Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/8/Rev.1 - Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/15 - Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/16 - Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/17 
- Mongolia G/AG/N/MNG/8 
- Norway G/AG/N/NOR/45 - Chinese Taipei G/AG/N/TPKM/54 - Uruguay G/AG/N/URY/30  
__________