WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/93 
12 March 2012 
 (12-1357) 
Committee on Agriculture  
   
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 21 March 2012
1 
 
 
 The present document compiles questions receive d by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
7 March 2012 as specified in WTO/AIR/3897. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/93 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 4  
A.  OBSTRUCTION OF MARKET ACCESS  ............................................................................................ 4  
B.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ............................................................ 4  
1.  Question by Canada ............................................................................................................ ...... 4 
2.  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................  4 
C.  EGYPT 'S IMPORT BAN ON COTTON  ............................................................................................. 4  
1.  Questions by the European Union ........................................................................................... 4  
2.  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................  5 
D.  INDIA 'S EXPORT BAN ON COTTON  .............................................................................................. 5  
1.  Question by the European Union ............................................................................................ 5  
2.  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................  5 
E.  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C) ................................................................. 5  
1.  Questions by the European Union ........................................................................................... 5  
2.  Questions by New Zealand ...................................................................................................... . 6 
F.  CANADA ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  ............................................................................ 6  
G.  BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC PROGRAMMES  ............................................................................................ 7  
H.  CHINA 'S COTTON RESERVES PURCHASING SYSTEM  ................................................................... 7  
I.  ECUADOR 'S IMPORT LICENSING OF CERTAIN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  .............. 7  
J.  INDIA 'S PROGRAMME TO WAIVE AGRICULTURAL DEBTS  .......................................................... 8  
K.  INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  .............................................................................................................................. ..... 8 
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 9  
A.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) .......................... 9  
1.  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/174) ........................................................................................................ . 9 
2.  Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/35) .................................................................................................... 9  
3.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/63) ...................................................................................................... 9  
B.  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) ......................................... 10  
1.  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/45) ................................................................................. 10  
2.  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/92) ..................................................................................... 10  
C.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ................................................................ 11  
1.  Albania (G/AG/N/ALB/6) ....................................................................................................... 11 
2.  Bahrain (G/AG/N/BHR/6) ...................................................................................................... 1 1 
3.  Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/20) .................................................................................................. 11  
4.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ........................................................................................................  12 
5.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/86) .................................................................................................... 12  
6.  China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) ....................................................................................................... 1 3 
7.  Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/48) ................................................................................................. 17  
8.  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) .......................................................................................................... .. 18 
9.  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/43/Corr.1) ..................................................................... 21  
10.  Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/15) ..................................................................................................... 2 2  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 3 
 
 
  11.  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) .................................................................................................. 22  
12.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/AG/N/VCT/2) .......................................................... 22  
13.  Togo (G/AG/N/TGO/2) ...........................................................................................................  22 
14.  Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/2/Rev.1) .............................................................................................. 22  
D.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) ........................................ 22  
1.  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/33) ................................................................................................ 22  
2.  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/45) ................................................................................................... 24  
E.  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1-ES:3) .......................................................... 24  
1.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/37) ................................................................................................. 24  
Annex 1 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 25  
Annex 2 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 26  
 G/AG/W/93 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. O
BSTRUCTION OF MARKET ACCESS  
1. Argentina will deliver a statement on the obs truction of market access through regulations 
without scientific or technical justification in a manner which is inconsiste nt with WTO Agreements. 
B. COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
1. Question by Canada 
2. Canada appreciates the updates that Costa Rica has provided at past meetings of the 
Committee regarding this issue.  However, Canada  reiterates the very serious concerns expressed 
about Costa Rica's continuing violations of Artic le 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  What 
concrete steps has Costa Rica taken since the last m eeting of the Committee to rapidly bring itself into 
compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture? 
2. Questions by the United States 
3. The United States strongly urges Costa Rica to reduce its domestic rice support to be within 
its WTO commitment level.  The United States and other Members have raised Costa Rica's 
breaching of its Aggregate Measurement of Support commitment on numerous occasions in the Committee on Agriculture.  Unfortunately, this breach  of international rules has not only continued, 
but has increased.  In early 2011, Costa Rica assu red WTO Members that steps were being taken to 
reform its domestic rice policies with the goals of  (a) complying with its WTO agricultural subsidy 
limits and (b) providing targeted technical training and assistance in support of the small-scale rice 
producers.  In response to subsequently requ ested updates, Costa Rica has not provided any 
encouraging information. 
4. The United States requests Costa Rica to respond to the following questions: 
(a) Please provide details on concrete actions that Costa Rica has undertaken since the 
January 2011 proposed rice policy adjustment. 
(b) Please provide any factual information re garding intended and possible unintended 
consequences of the continued high subsidy rate for rice production in Costa Rica. 
(c) The United States understands that a 2010 judicial ruling in Costa Rica mandated a 
minimum price (i.e., applied administered price) for rice of US$ 602 per ton.  Please provide details on any developments relate d to this judicial ruling since it was 
announced, and its impact on Costa Rica's ability to meet its obligations. 
C. E
GYPT 'S IMPORT BAN ON COTTON  
1. Questions by the European Union 
5. The European Union requests Egypt to provide delayed replies to the question posed by the 
United States at the November 2011 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture concerning the import 
ban on cotton.2 
                                                      
2 Section I.H of G/AG/W/92 refers.  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 5 
 
 
  6. As a follow-up question on this issue, the Europ ean Union would like to ask Egypt to explain 
the compliance of the ban with Article XI of GATT 1994. 
2. Questions by the United States 
7. The United States would like to follow-up on the questions asked at the November 2011 
meeting regarding Egypt's action to  ban cotton imports for the 2011 season until the local crop is sold 
(2011 Ministerial Decree No. 1864).  While recognizi ng the difficult situation of Egypt's domestic 
cotton market, the Decree appears to have provided virtually no benefit to Egypt's textile industry 
because the clause concerning importing for processi ng and re-export has not appeared feasible to 
implement.  The United States continues to have  serious concerns about this ban and has the 
following questions: 
(a) What will be the end date of the import ban? 
(b) How is the ban consistent with Egypt's WTO commitments? 
D. INDIA 'S EXPORT BAN ON COTTON  
1. Question by the European Union 
8. The European Union takes note of India's rece nt ban on cotton exports.  Could India please 
provide information on the reasons for this ban, its  planned duration, as well as the compliance of this 
measure with WTO agreements? 
2. Questions by the United States 
9. The United States notes that India has once again applied an export ban on cotton: 
(a) Please provide details on the application of the ban, including when the ban will be 
lifted. 
(b) Please describe the trade-related impact that the measure will have on the global 
cotton market, particularly in light of the disruption by India's previous ban. 
(c) Given the effects on the global cotton market, what opportunities did India provide 
Members to comment on the ban before it was implemented? 
E. SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C)  
1. Questions by the European Union 
10. Following the replies provided by Switzerland to the questions by the European Union and 
New Zealand at the September and November 2011 meetings of the Committee, the European Union 
still maintains its doubts on the compliance of the measure in question with Article 9 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
11. The compulsory contribution on milk is collected by a private organization but, as 
Switzerland states in its reply from the November 2011 meeting, "…the Federal Council's decision … 
subjects non-members to measures decided upon by IP Lait."   The European Union considers that this 
constitutes "governmental action, whether or not a c harge on the public account is involved"  in the 
sense of Article 9.1 (c) of the Agreement on Agri culture.  The European Union considers that the 
Swiss measure requires notification against export subsidy commitments. G/AG/W/93 
Page 6  
 
  2. Questions by New Zealand 
12. At the September 2011 meeting of the Comm ittee on Agriculture, New Zealand expressed 
concerns about the Swiss compulsory levy on milk production to support "relief on the butter 
market" .  New Zealand understands that the Swiss Govern ment will review the levy order prior to its 
expiry on 30 April 2013.  Notwithstandi ng Switzerland's reply on 17 November 2011
3, New Zealand 
is of the view that the levy order contrave nes Switzerland's WTO commitments and would urge 
Switzerland to bring the review forward. 
F. CANADA ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  
13. Canadian ice cream producers have benefited from the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative since 
2009.  New Zealand understands that this is a subsidy programme which encourages ice cream 
manufacturers to substitute domestic dairy ingredie nts for imported dairy ingredients by offering 
discounted milk/cream as an input for ice crea m that contains 100 per cent of Canadian dairy 
ingredients. 
14.  New Zealand has sought further information a bout the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative at the 
57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd and 64th meetings of the Committee on Agriculture.  In response, Canada has 
stated that this is a purely commercial arrangement between Dairy Farmers of Canada and ice cream 
producers.  However, Canada has also acknowledge d that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a 
Crown corporation, calculates the pooling returns and sharing of promotion costs related to the 
programme.  Furthermore, page 9 of the CDC's latest Annual Report 2010-11 states: 
"The CDC chairs the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) and 
in this capacity, apprises the committee on matters of interest or concern that require 
resolution and, when necessary, proposes various solutions, alternatives or 
recommendations to enhance orderly and e fficient marketing with an eye to avoiding 
deficit or surplus milk production.  The CD C performs a similar role for the Eastern 
Canadian Milk Pool (P5) and the Western Milk Pool (WMP)." 
15. To date, Canada has not provided any transpar ency about this programme, citing concerns 
about a confidentiality agreement between the CD C and Canadian dairy producers.  New Zealand 
continues to seek further details about the nature of this programme and the role of the CDC and 
provincial marketing boards in relation to it.  New Zealand considers it legitimate to request Canada 
to provide greater transparency around this impor t replacement programme given that both a crown 
corporation and provincial marke ting boards governed by federal and provincial legislation play 
important roles in its administration and decision-making.  Particular questions are: 
(a) What is the function of the Milk Pooling Agreement Supervisory bodies in relation to 
the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative? 
(b) What is the function of the provincial marketing boards in relation to the Ice Cream 
Promotion Initiative? 
(c) What is the total value (CAD$) of the pooling returns? 
(d) What is a breakdown of the promotion costs since the initiative was launched? 
                                                      
3 Paragraph 12 of G/AG/W/92 refers.  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 7 
 
 
  G. BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC PROGRAMMES  
16. The United States understands that Brazil's Prêmio Equalizador Pago ao Produtor  (PEPRO), 
Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto  (PEP), and Prêmio de Risco para Aquisição de Produto 
Agricola oriundo de Contrato  Privado de Opação de Venda  (PROP) programmes generally provide 
support to covered products by paying the differe nce between the minimum support price and actual 
prices for product as determined through public auc tion.  The United States also understands that all 
production in eligible States is eligible for sale through the public auction, but not all States 
necessarily participate.  Further, the United Stat es understands that the programmes have remained 
essentially unchanged since Brazil's notificati on for 2004/05 and 2005/06 (G/AG/N/BRA/26). 
17.  Based on many reports regarding Brazil's increasi ng levels of domestic support, including 
through these programmes and subsidized credit, the United States is concerned about whether Brazil 
has exceeded the de minimis  limit for certain products subsequently to its notification for 2005/06.  
These concerns highlight the importance of Member s maintaining up-to-date notifications to the 
Committee, which ensures appropriate transpar ency of Members' domestic support levels. 
18. The United States remains interested in the more recent years' accounting by Brazil and 
developed this question regarding the post-2005/06 y ears.  This issue may be partially answered via 
Brazil's recent notification (G/AG/N/BRA/27) for th ree years.  Nonetheless, the United States 
requests Brazil to provide meaningful explanations regarding just notified data, including elaborating 
on details concerning budgetary expenditures for at least these three newly-notified years. 
19. Please provide data on Brazil's budgetary expenditures on PEPRO, PEP, and PROP for 
2009/10, for which the United States understands that  data are equally available at this time. 
H. CHINA 'S COTTON RESERVES PURCHASING SYSTEM  
20. The United States thanks China for the responses provided during the November 2011 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  Th e United States has some follow-up questions: 
(a) Please confirm what cotton is eligible for purchase under this programme? 
(b) Please explain how cotton purchased under the programme is sold? 
I. ECUADOR 'S IMPORT LICENSING OF CERTAIN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
21. The United States appreciates Ecuador's re sponse to questions from the November 2011 
meeting, though not all of the questions were  answered.  Please confirm the existence and 
enforcement of an official governmental memorandum (Memorandum No. MAGAP–SFG–2011–1757–M, 19 October 2011), which effectively limits th e importation of certain agricultural and food 
products in favour of similar products  produced domestically in Ecuador? 
22. The United States has questions regarding Ec uador's Ministerial Decree No. 172, dated 
27 April 2011.  Article 1 of the Decree states:  "To regulate the exceptional granting of licences and 
permits for the importation of milk and its by-pr oducts by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, 
Aquaculture and Fisheries."  Please define what is meant by "exceptional"  in this context and what 
the specific criteria are for making such a determination. 
23. Article 2 of the Decree notes that "Exceptionally, the Under-Secretariat of Technical Services 
of this Ministry may grant licences and permits  to import these products, following a technical 
assessment report issued by the Under-Secretariat of Livestock Development at MAGAP.  The Under-G/AG/W/93 
Page 8  
 
  Secretariat of Livestock Development to  issue the technical report must set import quotas for milk and 
its derivatives."  
(a) Please explain the specific information th at is contained in the referenced "technical 
assessment report"  and the process that is employed in establishing the referenced 
import quotas. 
(b) Regarding the latter point, how are these est ablished and maintained in a manner that 
is consistent with Ec uador's WTO obligations? 
24. Article 3 of the Decree states that "For the exceptional granting of permits or import licences 
it must be considered the appropriateness and technica l feasibility, as well as the legal and social 
appropriateness of the import, in order to eff ectively ensure food sovereignty and that they do not 
generate distortions in the domestic production mar ket, commercialization and consumption of milk 
and its by-products."   With respect to the granting of import licences, please elaborate on what is 
meant specifically by each of the terms underlined above and explain how the application of these 
criteria is enforced in a manner consis tent with Ecuador's WTO obligations. 
J. INDIA 'S PROGRAMME TO WAIVE AGRICULTURAL DEBTS  
25. The United States understands that India implemen ted the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt 
Relief Scheme (ADWDRS) in 2008.  This programme has provided US $10 billion in debt forgiveness 
for farmers since 2008.  Under what classification of support does India plan to notify this programme? 
K. I
NDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  
26. The United States understands that the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture periodically 
establishes import quantities for beef and other livest ock and dairy products, wh ich is correspondingly 
managed via the issuance of required import permits for these products.  In addition, there are selected 
poultry products for which the Ministry of Agricultu re will not even issue import permits.  The United 
States understands that Indonesia's WTO scheduled commitments do not include such quantitative 
import restrictions.  Furthermore, the United Stat es is concerned that the Government of Indonesia 
may be planning management of fruit and vegetable product imports via a similar quantitative import 
permit system.  The United States requests that the Government of Indonesia provide responses to the 
following questions: 
(a) Does the Government of Indonesia currently utilize an import permit system for beef 
and other livestock and dairy products?  If so, please explain this system. 
(b) Please clarify if certain products in the poultry category (HS 0207) are not eligible to 
obtain import permits, and hence, certain poultry products are unable to be imported into Indonesia. 
(c) What are the criteria for the issuance of the above mentioned import permits (under 
(a) and (b)), and are these publicly available? 
(d) Is the Government of Indonesia's issuance of the above noted import permits in any 
way limited beyond transparent and objective criteria?  For example, is issuance based on certain quantitative assessments?  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (e) Can the Government of Indonesia give assu rances that fresh and processed fruit and 
vegetable products will not be quantitativ ely limited or managed under an import 
permit system? 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
1. Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/174) 
27. New Zealand notes that, in 2010, Japan notifie d tariff quota underfill for a number of dairy 
products.  This continues a trend over a number of year s, as summarized in Annex 1.  In response to 
previous questions on tariff quota underfill, most recently at the 23 September 2010 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture, Japan has cl aimed that tariff quota underfill is a result of market demand.  
If this is the case, would Japan consider moving th ese products to a tariff only regime?  This would 
remove the need for tariff quota administration, which can distort normal market flows. 
2. Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/35) 
28. The European Union would have the following questions: 
(a) What is the reason for a substantially hi gher utilization of the tariff quota for sheep 
meat in 2007 compared to earlier years? 
(b) What is the reason for the increase in the in-quota imports of rice in 2007?  The tariff 
quota in that year was fully utilized, contrary to lower utilization rates in previous years. 
3. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/63) 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
29. From the information provided by Norway in response to questions po sed by the European 
Union during the 63rd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture , it is obvious that the Norwegian 
auctioning system for distributing tariff quotas results  in very high and variable levels of actual 
protection for some products such as beef and sh eep meat (auctioning prices equivalent to average 
tariffs of 45-97 per cent during 20084).  However, other tariff quotas are only utilized to a very small 
extent or not at all, resulting in very low aucti oning price levels (typically 0.01 NOK/kg).  This is the 
case for the Norwegian tariff quotas covering meat of swine, meat of fowls of the species Gallus 
domesticus, meat of turkeys, red cabbage, butter an d hens' eggs during 2010.  Several of these tariff 
quotas have been under-utilized for many years.  Thus , it seems that the high in-quota tariffs are too 
high to allow for meaningful imports within the tariff quotas. 
30. The European Union notes that in resp onse to questions it posed during the 62nd meeting of 
the Committee on Agriculture,  Norway stated that: 
"Thirdly, to the contrary of what the European Union is indicating, the auctioning 
system does not add to price variability in the domestic market, except, theoretically, 
through very small indirect effects of increasi ng the marginal supply of the product in 
                                                      
4 Based on the average unit values of the imports  taking place within the tariff quotas for each 
individual tariff line actually imported within the tariff quotas (accordin g to Norwegian data provided in 
response to questions posed by the European Union during the 63rd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture). G/AG/W/93 
Page 10  
 
  question.  These marginal effects woul d be there regardless of administration 
methods." 
31. Hence, it would seem that lowering the No rwegian in-quota tariffs would not pose a 
significant threat to domestic producers.  On the c ontrary, it would only result in very small indirect 
effects of increasing marginal supply.  It might also contribute to a more varied supply of the goods in 
question to the benefit of Norwegian consumers. 
32. Is Norway considering reducing or eliminating th e relatively high in-quota tariffs for the tariff 
quotas concerned to allow meaningful market access within the tariff quotas? 
B. S
PECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/45) 
(a) Questions by Australia 
33. Australia notes that the Republic of Korea has in some years applied a price-based special 
safeguard against products such as wheat starch at very low volumes (for example, 75 kg in 2009).  Does the Republic of Korea consider that this level of imports constitutes a surge in imports? 
34. Australia requests that the Republic of Korea provide data on the import prices, trigger prices, 
volumes, number of shipments and duties applied to  show that the measure was in compliance with 
Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
35. Can the Republic of Korea confirm that volume of  imports was not declining, in light of the 
safeguard in the previous year being triggered on 175 kg of imports? 
(b) Questions by the European Union 
36. The European Union appreciates this notificati on by the Republic of Korea.  The European 
Union would like to ask the reason why Table MA :3 notifications of the volume-based special 
safeguard for the products and y ears concerned were not provided? 
2. Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/92) 
37. Australia notes that Chinese Taipei's volum e-based safeguard notification submitted on 
18 November 2011 applied for the period of 25 Oc tober 2011 to 31 December 2011.  Australia further 
notes the requirement for notifications to be provided "as far as in advance as may be practicable and 
in any event within 10 days of the implementation of such action".   Can Chinese Taipei provide 
reassurance that it will abide by the specified no tification timings, in seeking to ensure a robust 
transparency? 
38. During the September 2011 regular meeting of the Committee, in response to a question from 
New Zealand regarding the data used  to calculate its SSG trigger leve l, Chinese Taipei responded that 
2010 data on actual imports were not  available at the time of calculation.  Chinese Taipei's latest 
notification again uses 2007 to 2009 data to calcula te its SSG trigger level.  Could Chinese Taipei 
inform the Committee as to when 2010 data will be  available to calculate SSG trigger levels?  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 11 
 
 
  C. DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
1. Albania (G/AG/N/ALB/6) 
(a) Questions by Canada 
39. Regarding payments for relief from natural disast ers, 2010 is the first year of its eleven 
notified years that Albania reports such payments: 
(a) Does Albania foresee providing a notification of "new or modified programmes" 
(referred to as Table DS:2 in G/AG/2) for these payments? 
(b) How does Albania ensure that the payments meet each and every one of the criteria in 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(b) Questions by the European Union 
40. Could Albania explain how the regional assi stance programmes notified in Supporting 
Table DS:1 meet the criteria of paragraph 13 of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  In 
particular, the European Union wonders how the m easures described convey a benefit to agricultural 
producers. 
2. Bahrain (G/AG/N/BHR/6) 
41. The United States appreciates the opportunity to fo llow-up on an issue raised at a previous 
meeting with Bahrain.  A subsidy specific to poultr y would not appear to conform to the criteria in 
Article 6, paragraph 2 concerning investment subsid ies which are generally available to agriculture. 
(a) Please provide additional information on exac tly what is the investment subsidy to 
poultry notified in Supporting Table DS:2. 
(b) How is the subsidy programme implemented? 
(c) How is the subsidy amount determined? 
3. Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/20) 
(i) Green Box – General services 
42. The United States appreciates the significant update undertaken in this notification and recalls 
the tabled DS:2 notification from October 2011 outli ning the scope of General Services, especially the 
"Other" category (G/AG/N/BRB/19).  One of the larger  posts in the current set of notifications may 
not have been fully covered in that Table DS:2.  Please explain what is meant by "Out-of-crop 
activities of the Barbados Agricultu ral Management Company Limited".  
(ii) Amber Box – Product-specific AMS 
43. Japan notes that the product-specific AMS of sugar cane remained steady during the years 
2002/2003 to 2006/2007 at 10 per cent of value of production, which is the upper limit of de minimis , 
although the share of sugar cane AMS to its valu e of production fluctuated every year until 
2001/2002.  Could Barbados kindly explain the reason? G/AG/W/93 
Page 12  
 
  4. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
(i) Green Box 
44. Canada notes that the Agricultural Energy Development Program was introduced in 2008.  
What is the nature of this programme?  When does Brazil foresee being able to provide the relevant 
Table DS:2 notification (new or modified programmes)? 
45. Canada notes that Brazil has notified increasing amounts of domestic food aid.  At the 
13
th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/R/13), Brazil indicated that its domestic food 
aid is provided under the Emergency Distribution of Food Program or PRODEA.  Could Brazil 
confirm that, in the absence of Table DS:2 notifi cations to the contrary, the increasing amounts of 
domestic food aid reported in G/AG/N/BRA/27 con tinue to be provided only under PRODEA? 
(ii) Amber Box 
46. With regard to the tables of data on values of  production in the notification, and referring to 
Brazil's answer to a Member's earlier question,5 would Brazil be able to indicate the precise tables 
from the IBGE ( Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística ) on which the notification relies, 
including the source table for the total va lue of production for all of agriculture? 
47. Over the years, Brazil's notifications have referred to the product "grapes" as well as to 
"grapes (and by-products)".  The 2006/07 notificatio n refers to both "grapes" (Supporting Table DS:4) 
and "grapes (wine)" (Supporting Table DS:7).  In order to facilitate Canada 's understanding of the 
relevant programmes, could Brazil please clarify? 
(iii) Transparency considerations 
48. Canada appreciates Brazil's disaggreg ation of debt rescheduling programmes6 reported in 
Supporting Tables DS:2 and DS:9.  Would Brazil provide a similar disaggregation for the years 2006/07, 2007/08, and 2008/09? 
5. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/86) 
49. The United States appreciates Canada's res ponses from the November 2011 meeting as noted 
in G/AG/W/92 and would like to follow up with a few questions. 
(i) Amber Box – de minimis claims 
50. Regarding Canada's response in paragraph 27 of G/AG/W/92 about the steps Canada takes to 
revise its domestic support notifications when consid erable changes occur in its underlying statistics, 
the United States located the production, supply and distribution (PSD) tables, but could not find an 
annual compilation of Canada's monthly price surveys.  Please provide the specific citation for the 
sources containing the annual prices and production volumes for grains and oilseeds as well as the 
production values for animal products and meat s that were cited in the notification. 
                                                      
5 Question 25 of G/AG/W/78 refers. 
6 G/AG/W/78 refers.  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 13 
 
 
  51. Regarding Canada's response in  paragraph 28 in G/AG/W/92 about calculations for value of 
production, research using the site referenced in the notification7 indicates that Canada includes 
government payments in value of production calcu lations.  Please provide the specific calculations 
made that demonstrate that Canada does not use government payments in these calculations. 
(ii) Amber Box – Product-specific AMS 
52. The Province of Ontario recently established the Risk Management Program (RMP) for pork.  
The United States understands that this programme  is designed to provide income stabilization 
insurance for Canadian hog producers and guara ntees producers' returns on production at a level 
equivalent to 40 per cent of the difference between market prices and the support price.  The United 
States also understands that the RMP is designed to complement current programmes such as 
AgriStability and the RMP is an advance on the Province's 40 per cent share of the AgriStability 
payment. 
(a) Please explain in more detail how the RMP operates within the AgriStability 
programme and also if it operates within  the same parameters as Quebec's Farm 
Income Stabilization Insurance programme. 
(b) In Canada's explanation, please confirm whether the RMP payment can exceed the 
payment amount determined by AgriStability. 
(c) Please confirm, if and how the RMP operates differently from the RMP programmes 
for other commodities in Ontario and th e Farm Income Stabilization Insurance 
("Assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles" ) programme in Quebec.  Please also 
explain how the support price is de termined under the RMP for pork. 
53. Regarding Canada's response in paragra ph 22 in G/AG/W/92 on activity under the 2001 
Federal-Provincial Agreement for Ch icken, Canada replied that pri ce negotiations take place between 
the provincial poultry producer boards and poultry processors: 
(a) What is the Canadian legal framework that  allows this negotiation to take place? 
(b) Also, please describe the role Canada's provinc ial and territorial (P & T) governments 
play in regulating and overseeing the producer boards? 
(c) For example, what role does the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission, 
which the United States understands is a part  of Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture, 
Food and Rural Affairs, play in regula ting and overseeing the Chicken Farmers of 
Ontario producer board? 
6. China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) 
(a) Questions by Canada 
(i) Green Box 
54. In paragraph 39(b) of G/AG/W/92, Cana da had posed the following question:  "The amounts 
entered as 'Payments for relief from natural di sasters' have increased consistently and considerably 
since 2002.  The name and description of the measure are the same as in China's base period, with 
the addition of the element 'financial assistance to th eir post-disaster livings'.  What mechanisms does 
                                                      
7 See http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-011-x/21-011-x2011002-eng.pdf G/AG/W/93 
Page 14  
 
  China apply to ensure that these increasingly large payments continue to meet all the criteria of 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?"  China's answer was:  "China believes that 
these payments are in accordance with relat ed rules of Agreement of Agriculture."  Could China 
elaborate and provide additional information as to  how these payments meet all the criteria of 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2? 
(ii) Amber Box 
55. In paragraph 55(c) of G/AG/W/92, Canada  had asked the following question:  "In Supporting 
Table DS:9, 'input subsidies', whic h have increased from Y 1.6 billion in 2004 to Y 78.7 billion in 
2008, are explained to be 'price subsidies for me ans of production'.  In reply to some Members' 
questions in the meeting of 23 September 2010, China clarified that the means of production are 
mainly agricultural machines, fertilizers, agricultu ral diesel oil and feeds.  Could China provide a 
breakdown of the amount of subsidies provided for each of these inputs in the years 2005 to 2008?  
Have subsidies been introduced for any additional inputs during this period, compared to 2004?"   
Part of China's answer was "China is not able to provide the list for individual products, as this 
subsidy was calculated in an overall manner."   Given the large and rapid increase in this support, it is 
important to understand the specifi cs of the measures applied. 
(a) Canada therefore now asks what steps Chin a is taking to be able to provide the 
disaggregated information requested; 
(b) Canada also asks for confirmation of its understanding, from China's answer, that no 
subsidies were introduced for other input s than agricultural machines, fertilizers, 
agricultural diesel oil and feeds in the years 2005 to 2008. 
(b) Questions by the European Union 
56. The European Union appreciates the replies that  China has provided in relation to the review 
of the domestic support notification G/AG/N/CHN/21 and would like to seek further clarifications.  With reference to replies provided to questions 32 and 33 in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) Please explain how the "financial transparency"  in the sense of paragraph 3 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  is ensured in the process of stock 
accumulation and disposal. 
(b) Please confirm that the sales and purchases are made at "no less than the current 
domestic market prices"  in the sense of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(c) Please explain how the "targets related solely to food security"  in the sense of 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture are established.  Are they 
included in legislation? 
57. Following up on the reply provided to question 31 of G/AG/W/92, could China explain in 
detail how the changes in expenditure classification led to the significant increase of spending under 
the "other general services"  category? 
58. Following up on the replies provided to questions 34-37 in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) How is the direct payment per hectare calculated?  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (b) Could China provide an update to the Committee on the problem of double counting 
in the state revenue and expenditures?  Has it been solved? 
(c) How is compliance with paragraph 6 of A nnex 2 provisions ensured if, according to 
China's reply to question 35 in G/AG/W/92, "criteria for payments vary between different provinces and there are no universal national criteria"? 
59. Following up on the replies provided to question 37 in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) The European Union understands that sin ce the base period for determining acreage 
for contracted land is set at the time when the land contract is signed, the result is that there may be different base periods for each parcel of contracted land.  Could China 
confirm this understanding? 
(b) In this context, could China explain compliance of its direct payments with the 
provisions of paragraph 6(a) in relation to "a defined and fixed base period" ? 
60. Following up on the reply to question 38 in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) The European Union understands that agri cultural insurance operated in China is 
notified as relief from natural disasters under pa ragraph 8.  However, certain elements 
such as "insurance premium subsidy to farmers who are policy-holders"  seem to 
relate rather to income insurance and in come safety-net programmes under paragraph 
7 of Annex 2.  Could China explain the reas ons for its notification of the agricultural 
insurance under paragraph 8? 
(b) Could China inform whether public funding is provided to operators of insurance 
programmes? 
(c) Questions by the United States 
(i) Green Box 
61. The United States wishes to thank China for responses to questions at the November 2011 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  Th e United States has some follow-up questions, 
specifically with respect to the Green Box payments as noted in paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) Please provide more detailed information on  exactly how the programmes for natural 
disasters and environment are implemented? 
(b) What are the specific criteria on which payments are made? 
(c) If there are multiple programmes, please provide information for each programme. 
(ii) Green Box – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
62. Regarding previous questions as per paragraph 32 and 33 of G/AG/W/92, in order for support 
to meet the criteria for "stockholding for food security purposes" , there must be a clearly defined food 
security objective or practice and pre-determined targ ets for specific products.  The notification for all 
products, except cotton, does not appear to meet these criteria: 
(a) Please identify for all commodities, ex cept cotton, the defined food security 
objectives or practices and the pre-determined targets for specific crops. G/AG/W/93 
Page 16  
 
  (b) The United States also remains concerne d with its understanding that Chinese 
Government entities are making purchases for public stockholding at support prices for the various commodities.  Please explain how this meets the exemption criteria of 
Annex 2 paragraph 1(b) "support in question shall not have the effect of providing 
price supports to producers" – and Annex 2 paragraph (3 ) "…food purchases by the 
government shall be made at current ma rket prices and sales from food security 
stocks shall be made at no less than the current domestic market price…" ? 
(iii) Green Box – Decoupled income support 
63. With reference to paragraphs 34 to 37 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) Please explain further about exactly how local governments increased payments. 
(b) What is the mechanism for payments and does it differ by location (i.e., province)? 
(iv) Green Box – Payments for relief from natural disasters 
64. With respect to questions and responses in pa ragraphs 38 to 41 of G/AG/W/92, please provide 
additional information on the criteria by which the in surance premiums are subsidized to ensure the 
payments are consistent with the criteria "for relief from natural disasters" . 
65. China was unable to provide additional info rmation on specific programmes for natural 
disasters.  Since Members are to show the crite ria used for notifying programmes under Annex 2: 
(a) How did China evaluate the programmes to know that they fit the Annex 2 criteria 
and how does China ensure that the pr ogrammes meet the relevant criteria? 
(b) Please provide additional information about  the programmes so that Members can 
evaluate the programmes and their implementation. 
(v) Green Box – Environmental programmes 
66. China's response to questions on environmenta l programmes in paragraph 42 of G/AG/W/92 
does not provide sufficient information to evaluate  the programmes and how they are implemented.  
Please provide further explanation of the implementation criteria. 
(vi) Amber Box – de minimis claims 
67. On the issue of value of production in paragra ph 46 of G/AG/W/92, China's response refers to 
the footnote in the respective notification which states: 
"Since the categorization of agricultural produc ts of China is different from that of 
the WTO, China claims that the total agr icultural production values here are only for 
reference in this notification and shall not be referred to in the DDA negotiations." 
(a) Please provide more substantive information for the Committee relative to the 
differences in the value of production calculations and how the Committee can 
understand the values for each claimed product. 
(b) Does China use the WTO definition of agricu ltural products to measure the value of 
production?  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (c) Can China identify the discrepancies between  its definition and that of the WTO?  
Further, can China also state whether th e value to be referenced in the DDA 
negotiations, as noted in footnote 1 referred  to above, matches the WTO definition or 
not, and why that value differs from th e one used in this notification. 
(vii) Amber Box – Market price support 
68. On the issue of "negative AMS" in paragraphs 47 to 52 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) The United States supports the position of Japan.  The United States has concerns 
about the appropriate methodology for dea ling with negative support levels.  Please 
explain in detail from previous reports and rules of the Secretariat on what basis China determined its methodology and that  of other Members cited as appropriate. 
(b) The United States has seen data that confirm that the applied administered prices are 
on a paddy (rough) basis, whereas the fixed ex ternal reference price appears to be on 
a milled basis.  Therefore, the United Stat es remains concerned that the calculations 
are not on a comparable basis.  Please provide data that supports China's response. 
(viii) Market price support - eligible production 
69. The United States continues to have concerns about the appropriate measure of "eligible 
production" in the response provided in paragr aph 63 of G/AG/W/92 and requests the following: 
(a) How specifically does China justify using the actual amount of procured products 
under the minimum procurement price scheme as "eligible production"  rather than 
the total amount of domestic production? 
(b) Please cite specific references for this justification. 
(ix) Product-specific AMS - Cotton 
70. In follow-up to some of Japan's questions on  product-specific support to cotton noted in 
paragraph 54 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) Please identify how the state purchases the cott on in the National Cotton Reserve?  In 
addition, can China please explain this programme in relation to cotton purchases 
outlined by the United States' question rega rding China's Cotton Reserve Purchasing 
System in paragraph 20 above? 
(b) Please clarify the meaning in the fourth sentence of the response supplied in 
paragraph 54 of G/AG/W/92 of 16 January 2012 by explaining what is meant by 
"…the money to collect storage and store is covered by CNCRC…" .  The United 
States understands this to mean the CNCRC (China National Cotton Reserves 
Corporation) provides the money to the purchase of cotton for storage and subsidizes 
the cost of storage. 
7. Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/48) 
71. Australia would like to request Colombia  to provide more information on the "Infrastructure 
Services"  programme notified in the Green Box. G/AG/W/93 
Page 18  
 
  72. Does the "Analysis, design, construction, rehabilit ation and modernization of irrigation 
infrastructure"  relate to off-farm infrastructure? 
8. India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
(a) Questions by Canada 
(i) Green Box 
73. In paragraph 25(a) of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1, Ca nada had asked the following question:  "The 
'Crop insurance scheme' has increased rapidly.  What does the monetary value reported here 
represent, e.g., is it the indemnities paid to pr oducers, the government subsidy of premiums, a 
budgetary item for the operation of the scheme, or so me other measurement?  How does India ensure 
that the scheme meets each and every one of the cr iteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture?  This includes (but is not limite d to) ensuring that e ligibility for payment is 
determined by a production loss that exceeds 30 per cent as per paragraph 8."  
74. India's response indicated:  "The details of the crop insura nce scheme may be seen at web 
address:  http://www.aicofindia.com/AICEng/Pages/Pr oduct_Profile/Present_NAIS.aspx.  Liability in 
case of agriculture insurance schem es arises only in the event of notifie d crops in the notified areas 
suffering on account of specified natural disasters or  calamities.  Therefore, government support in 
the form of bearing loss in excess of premiu m is covered under paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture."  
(a) The National Agricultural Insurance Sc heme (NAIS) website provides some 
additional information on the crop insuran ce scheme and it notes that the premium 
subsidy to some farmers is to be reviewed  and could be phased out over a period of 3 
to 5 years.  Could India provide an upda te on the status of this review and the 
potential phasing out of the subsidy? 
(b) The NAIS website, however, does not provide  information regarding whether the 
payments claimed under paragraph 8 of A nnex 2 are determined by a production loss 
that exceeds 30 per cent.  How does India ensure that the crop insurance scheme 
meets the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2? 
(ii) Development programmes 
75. With reference to the questions posed in paragraphs 28(b) and 30 of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1, 
India's response in paragraph 25(a) refers to the table at http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/at_a_glance-
2007/ch-12/table%2012.1(a).xls .  That table does not provide the requested information on how each 
of the measures qualifies as "generally available"  to the target group.  In fact, it seems to indicate the 
amount of fertilizer and other subsidies given to "marginal farmers"  only.  India also explains8 that 
"marginal"  land holdings are only one out of five categor ies of land holdings, specifically those below 
1 hectare.  In the interest of clarifying the da ta in its notification, could India elaborate on: 
(a) how to interpret the apparent different uses of "marginal" in the data sources to which 
India refers, and 
(b) the basis for labelling as low-income or r esource-poor all producers with marginal, 
small, semi-medium, and medium land holdings, as well as some producers with large holdings? 
                                                      
8 Paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 refers.  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 19 
 
 
  76. Moreover, Canada looks forward to India's response to its question in paragraph 30 of 
G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 regarding the reporting of the 1.03 per cent of all support that is not reported in 
Supporting Table DS:2 (of the order of US$ 90 million in 2003-2004). 
(b) Questions by the United States  
77. The United States wishes to th ank India for responses to questions at the September 2011 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  Th e United States has some follow-up questions. 
(i) Green Box – Crop insurance scheme 
78. With respect to India's response on crop in surance, the United States appreciates the 
information on the website to better understand th e operation of the crop insurance programme.  The 
United States remains unclear, however, as to what da ta India has notified.  It appears from India's 
response that the data notified are government inde mnity payments that exceed producer premiums.  
Please clarify more precisely the nature, source and application of the data cited in the response in 
paragraph 25 of G/AG/W/88. 
79. In addition, the website does not make clear whether producers have sustained at least a 
30 per cent loss to qualify for an indemnity.  The Unit ed States notes that actual yields must be below 
the threshold yield, but it appears that any level of  actual yield lower than the threshold yield qualifies 
for an indemnity.  Please clarify the numbers and th reshold levels that India has employed in this 
notification. 
(ii) Development programmes 
80. Although the United States appreciates India pr oviding a website for data associated with 
input subsidies (paragraphs 28 and 29 in G/AG/W/88), a website with a spreadsheet did not respond 
to the U.S. and other Members' questions, especi ally since the data do not correspond to India's 
notification.  Please provide a further explana tion of how India has accounted for the budgetary 
outlays in this notification. 
81. With respect to outlays for input subsidies, as  noted above, the data supplied by India do not 
correspond to India's notification: 
(a) What exactly do the notified outlays cover? 
(b) Additionally, the United States notes that fo r electricity, the website specifically says 
it covers more than agriculture.  How di d India account for agriculture's share? 
82. The United States seeks to better understand I ndia's definition of low income, resource poor 
farmers which, from responses, seems to be based on land holdings (see paragraphs 30 to 33 in 
G/AG/W/88).  An average land holding would not seem  to be an appropriate basis for making that 
determination, because the value of the output per un it of land could vary dr amatically, depending on 
what is produced.  The United States notes that in reviewing the data for the 2000-2001 census on the 
website to which India referred, the share of  land holdings accounted for by the large group 
(> 10 hectares) was 13.2 per cent (21,072,000 hect ares divided by 159,436,000 total hectares).  These 
data suggest that India's use of 98.97 per cent of  farm holdings as low income, resource poor may be 
overstated, even using a land holding definition. 
83. Moreover, several recent studies appear to cont radict India's assertion that the benefits of 
input subsidies mostly accrue to low income, resour ce-poor farmers.  For example, in a recent paper 
by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the authors note that "state and G/AG/W/93 
Page 20  
 
  cooperative supply of subsidized tube wells, credit,  fertilizer, and seed are heavily biased toward 
medium and large farmers in the study areas discussed (emphasis added)."   Another report says that 
the agricultural input subsidies "benefit large-scale farm ers more than smallholders…"   In addition, 
the authors provide data that shows a large share of the benefits of the electr icity subsidy go to larger 
farmers in the two States analysed.
9  Likewise, the data for fertilizer use is not as heavily skewed 
towards the larger landholdings, but even using India's definition of "greater than 10 hectares" , about 
9 per cent of the benefits went to the large landholdings. 
(a) Please provide the data and source showing that 99 per cent of India's farms are low-
income, resource poor. 
(b) Please provide the calculations and source for how much of the input subsidies go to 
low-income, resource poor farms. 
(iii) Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
84. The United States is concerned with India' s responses to questions regarding currency 
conversion.  Since Members raised concerns a bout India's conversion practice in its 1995/96 
notification, India should provide a response beyond simply stating what it did in that notification.  
With respect to the U.S. question about the consis tency of converting the applicable administered 
rupee price into U.S. dollars, the United States w ould like to further amplify its concerns by noting 
that India's support prices in rupees have increased  at a much faster rate than support prices 
denominated in U.S. dollars.  For example, th e United States estimates 25 per cent growth using 
rupees versus 15 per cent for paddy rice using U.S. dollars;  15 per cent versus 5 per cent for wheat;  
20 per cent versus 8 per cent for cotton.  Moreover, India explains in a reply to Canada that the 
support prices are based on costs of production, all of  which would be rupee-based.  It follows that 
decisions to adjust the support prices for specific commodities would be based on data in rupees, not 
dollars.  In sum, the United States' concern is th at the use of dollar-based prices is not accurately 
capturing the level of market price support for the relevant commodities. 
85. Please provide a clear rationale based on the provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture for 
converting from rupee-based base period tables (G/ AG/AGST/IND) to a U.S. dollar-based equivalent 
in India's notifications. 
(iv) Amber Box - Market price support 
86. Regarding the U.S. request for documentation a nd information on external reference prices, 
the United States was seeking more detailed inform ation than that provided in India's response 
because of the large gap between the applied admini stered price and the external reference prices 
notified in Supporting Table DS:5.  For example,  the external reference price for cotton is 
approximately three times as large as the applied admini stered price.  The United States would like to 
confirm, among other things, that the prices have be en measured at the same stage of production (seed 
cotton or milled cotton).  Repeating the ques tion from September 2011, please provide documentation 
(source, grade, location, transport adjustments, quality  adjustments) for the external reference prices 
for each commodity included in Supporting Table DS:5. 
87. With respect to responses to Members' questions on public stockholding (paragraphs 20 to 24 
in G/AG/W/88), the United States fails to see how India has "accounted for the AMS"  as required by 
Annex 2, paragraph 3.  India references the supporting tables in  G/AG/AGST/IND, which Members 
have noted are expressed in rupees.  India has no tified that it does not have an AMS for wheat and 
rice, the main products of interest here.  Th e United States notes again that India has done its 
                                                      
9 See Annex 2.  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 21 
 
 
  calculations in U.S. dollars.  These dollar figures are not contained in the G/AG/AGST/IND, so the 
United States does not understand India's reference to the data in this document.  Moreover, by 
suggesting that G/AG/AGST/IND be examined, Indi a's answer supports the argument that its AMS 
calculations should be done in rupees. 
88. Additionally with respect to prices for procuri ng and releasing stocks, India's answer confirms 
that purchases are being made at minimum support prices, and sales are being made at less than 
market prices.  Since India has provided no information as to whether the minimum support prices can be construed as market prices, the presumption is that they are government-administered prices and 
are therefore, by definition, not market prices.  Th e United States repeats its concern that India is not 
operating its public stockholding programme in conf ormity with Annex 2, paragraph 3 because India 
is not properly accounting for the AMS for the products at issue. 
89. Given these points, please explain fully the consis tency of India's AMS calculations for wheat 
and rice with the requirements of Annex 2, paragraph 3. 
(v) Amber Box – Market price support – Eligible production 
90. With respect to eligible production in paragraphs 39 to 42 in G/AG/W/88, the United States 
kindly request India's response to the following: 
(a) Why did India switch in the definition from "all production"  used in its first 
notification (G/AG/N/IND/1) to "purchased production"  in subsequent notifications? 
(b) Why has India not reported a market price support calculation for each of the 
24 crops for the appropriate period? 
91. With respect to the U.S. question as to whethe r all production is eligible to receive India's 
minimum price support, the United States understands  India's response to mean that as along as 
market prices are below the minimum support prices, there is no limit on the amount of production that farmers may approach the government for procur ement.  Therefore, all production is eligible for 
procurement, though not all production is procured. 
(a) Please confirm whether the U.S. understanding is correct. 
(b) If India does not agree with the above st atement regarding all production, please 
explain. 
92. India responded that all perishables not covered under the Minimum Support Price Scheme 
were covered under the Market Inte rvention Scheme (MIS).  When will India submit a notification for 
those products that benefited from the MIS? 
(vi) Amber Box – Negative support 
93. With respect to the use of a negative AMS (p aragraphs 34 in G/AG/W/88, the United States 
supports the position of Canada.  If India plans to  continue notifying negative support, please explain 
fully the consistency of India's support calculations w ith Article 1(a) and any other relevant articles of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. 
9. Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/43/Corr.1) 
94. Australia would like to request from the Republic  of Korea an explanation for the amendment 
to its notification showing a reduction in support provided to rice production. G/AG/W/93 
Page 22  
 
  10. Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/15) 
95. Australia understands that Nigeria has in place a domestic fertiliser programme in favour of 
Nigerian farmers.  Could Nigeria provide details on this programme and advice about its classification 
under the Agreement on Agriculture (i.e. Article 6.2 fo r input and investment subsidies, for example)? 
11. Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) 
96. The European Union would have the following questions: 
(a) Why did spending on pest and disease contro l increase significantly in 2009 and 2010 
compared to earlier years? 
(b) Could Paraguay provide details on the measure "food security support for family 
farming"  notified under investment subsidies ge nerally available to agriculture?  
What type of support was provided under this measure?  The European Union understands that this measure was no longer applied in 2010. 
12. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/AG/N/VCT/2) 
(a) Question by the European Union 
97. The European Union appreciates this notifi cation provided by Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines.  Please explain how "payments to farmers (direct in ki nd) affected by the Moko disease" 
notified under payments for relief from natural dis asters in the reporting period 2007 comply with 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of th e Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) Question by the United States 
98. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines notified dom estic support commitments for the years 1995-
2009.  It reports that agricultural research over the full period notified is a programme aimed at 
providing valid technologies aimed at improving the production of agricultural produce.  Please provide details on what "valid technologies" include. 
13. Togo (G/AG/N/TGO/2) 
99. The European Union would like to request T ogo to explain how "disaster relief" notified 
under payments for relief from natural disasters co mplies with paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
14. Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/2/Rev.1) 
100. The European Union would like to thank the Delegation of Tonga for a revision of their 
notification which now provides de tails on external financing. 
D. N
EW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) 
1. Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/33) 
(a) Questions by Canada 
101. In notification G/AG/N/HND/32, Honduras reports the introduction of the Technology 
Voucher Project in 2008-2009, claimed as exempt "Investment subsidies generally available to  G/AG/W/93 
 Page 23 
 
 
  agriculture"  under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agricultu re.  It shows a monetary value of some 
US$ 244 million, which is very large in relation to the size of the agriculture sector (value of production of about US$ 1.4 billion in 2007 according to the Banco Ce ntral de Honduras).  This gives 
rise to questions about the conformity of the meas ure with the Article 6.2 criteria, which Canada 
poses in relation to this Table DS:2 notification.   Canada recognizes the positive step that Honduras 
has taken by submitting Table DS:2 notifications in line with the notification requirements for new or 
modified measures. 
102. Regarding the Technology Voucher Project: 
(a) Could Honduras explain how it ensures that subsidies under the programme are 
generally available to agriculture in Hondur as?  This arises particularly because the 
project seeks to increase staple grain produc tion by small producers, which excludes, 
for example, livestock and horticulture producers as well as large and medium-sized producers. 
(b) Additionally, would Honduras be able to provide information on how the Technology 
Voucher Project is administered and what technologies are supported? 
103. Honduras introduced a new measure called th e Agribusiness Development Programme for 
Small and Medium-sized African Palm Producer s which will increase African palm production by 
replanting and expanding African palm crops.  The measure is meant to support small and medium 
sized palm producers.  Could Honduras explain why it  claims this measure as  exempt under paragraph 
2 (f) Annex 2, marketing and promotion services, and how the measure conforms to the criteria in that 
paragraph as well as in the chapeau of paragraph 2, Annex 2? 
104. Honduras introduced a new measure called the Small and Medium-sized Rural Enterprise 
Programme (PYMERURAL) which seeks to contri bute to job and income creation for men and 
women in rural areas in the context of rural micro,  small and medium-sized enterprises, with a focus 
on stimulating economic growth to ensure sustai nability and the developm ent of food and non-food 
agribusiness chains, combining the value chain appr oach with a territorial economic development 
approach.  Could Honduras explain why it claims  this measure as exempt under paragraph 2 (f) 
marketing and promotion services, and how the measure conforms to the criteria in that paragraph as 
well as in the chapeau of paragraph 2, Annex 2? 
(b) Questions by the United States 
105. It appears that Honduras may have categori zed some programmes incorrectly as general 
service programmes instead of investment subsidies. 
106. Please explain what portion of the monetary value corresponding to the following activities 
involves investment subsidies or input subsidies?  To what extent is each programme generally 
available to agriculture versus  specific types of producers? 
(a) Honduras rural competitiveness project 
(b) Rural business promotion programme ( Pronegocios Rurales ) 
(c) Food security and extension project 
(d) Agribusiness development programme small and medium-sized African palm 
producers G/AG/W/93 
Page 24  
 
  2. Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/45) 
(a) Question by the European Union 
107. Please explain how the measure "Responsible Production Project – Integrated Natural 
Resource and Biodiversity Management Project"  complies with the provisions of paragraph 12 (b) of 
Annex 2 which state: "The amount of payment shall be limited to the extra costs or loss of income 
involved in complying with  the government programme."  
(b) Question by Japan 
108. Japan understands that the domestic support measures described in G/AG/N/URY/45 have 
already terminated.  Could Uruguay kindly explain the reason why the notification was delayed even 
though Table DS:1 notifications for 2007 until 2010 had already been submitted? 
E. EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1-ES:3) 
1. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/37) 
109. The United States would like to request Costa Rica to explain how the export subsidy scheme 
for fruit operates. 
110. Is this programme different from the Tax Credit Certificate that Costa Rica notified prior to 
2000 and that it reported to Members that it was eliminating in 1999? 
 
_______________ 
   G/AG/W/93 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Question by New Zealand (paragraph 27) 
 
Tariff quotas imports (tons) and fill rates (per cent) by Japan 
 
  Tariff 
quota 
volume 
(tons) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
SMP for school 
lunch 7,264 2,643 2,907 2,767 2,653 2,696 2,227 2,028 2,109 1,879 
36% 40% 38% 37% 37% 31% 28% 29% 26% 
SMP for Other 
Purposes 85,878 35,525 35,418 30,994 30,759 25,197 31,078 24,913 24,674 23,040 
41% 41% 36% 36% 29% 36% 29% 29% 27% 
Evaporated Milk 1,585 1,498 1,461 1,329 1,505 1,498 1,499 1,482 1,500 1,500 
95% 92% 84% 95% 95% 95% 94% 95% 95% 
Whey and 
modified whey for 
feeding 45,000 22,895 22,774 31,384 32,749 33,788 37,000 31,217 30,985 31,620 
51% 51% 70% 73% 75% 82% 69% 69% 70% 
Prepared Whey 
for Infant 25,000 11,880 10,471 9,580 8,975 8,645 9,245 8,222 8,624 8,966 
48% 42% 38% 36% 35% 37% 33% 34% 36% 
Butter and Butter 
Oil 1,873 199 225 242 173 250 235 241 249 199 
11% 12% 13% 9% 13% 13% 13% 13% 11% 
Mineral 
Concentrated 
Whey 14,000 4,504 3,730 3,566 3,589 4,347 4,035 2,872 2,992 2,574 
32% 27% 25% 26% 31% 29% 21% 21% 18% 
PEF 18,977 18,887 18,909 18,549 18,317 18,816 16,299 15,309 13,676 13,333 
100% 100% 98% 97% 99% 86% 81% 72% 70% 
Other Dairy 
Products for general Use 133,940 132,245 132,040 132,362 128,303 130,703 129,601 131,958 133,067 125,715 
99% 99% 99% 96% 98% 97% 99% 99% 94% 
Designated Dairy 
Products for 
General Use 137,202 130,065 126,258 134,012 132,312 136,156 135,862 196,599 131,674 136,252 
95% 92% 98% 96% 99% 99% 143% 96% 99% 
 
Source : Notifications by Japan to the WTO. G/AG/W/93 
Page 26  
 
  Annex 2 
 
Question by the United States (paragraph 83) 
 
Distribution of electricity and fertilizer subsidies in India 
 
Table 8.4 - Distribution of electricity subs idy by farm size in Andhra Pradesh, 2003/04 
Farm size Subsidy per hectare 
(Rs) Subsidy per holding 
(Rs) Percentage of total 
electricity subsidy  
Marginal (<1 ha) 2,370  1,517  0.9 
Small (1–2 ha) 2,771  4,020  4.2 
Medium (2–4 ha) 3,937  10,677  21.9 
Large (4–10 ha) 4,390  25,406  46.9 
Very large (>10 ha) 3,947  60,774  26.1 
All groups 4,039  16,696  100.0  
Source: Vashishtha, P.S. (2006a).  Input subsidy in Andhra Pradesh agriculture .  Unpublished manuscript.  
International Food Policy Research  Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi. 
Table 8.5 - Distribution of electricity subsidy by farm size in Punjab, 2003/04 
Farm size Subsidy per hectare 
(Rs)Subsidy per holding 
(Rs)Percentage of total 
electricity subsidy  
Marginal (<1 ha) 3,844 2,671 1.9 
Small (1–2 ha) 4,615 4,764 4.4 
Medium (2–4 ha) 3,967 9,223 19.9 
Large (4–10 ha) 3,804 20,434 45.4 
Very large (>10 ha) 3,361 47,843 28.4 
All groups 3,725 15,142 100.0 
Source: Vashishtha, P.S. (2006b).  Input subsidy in Punjab agriculture .  Unpublished manuscript.   International Food 
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi. 
Table 4.3 - Use of fertilizers by size of landholdings, 2000–01 
Farm size 
(ha) Gross 
cropped 
area 
(thousand 
ha) Area 
treated 
with 
fertilizers 
(thousand 
ha) Total consumption nutrients (tons)  
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Total 
Marginal 
(<1 ha) 29,081 18,632 1,885,435 804,736 329,865 3,020,036 
Small  
(1–2 ha) 29,168 18,281 1,455,338 693,675 260,179 2,409,192 
Medium  
(2–4 ha) 35,974 21,870 682,515 797,976 228,691 1,709,183 
Large  
(4–10 ha) 38,454 22,086 690,978 779,747 149,193 1,619,918 
Large  
(>10 ha) 20,298 9,139 692,622 313,414 32,179 1,038,215 
All groups 152,976 90,008 7,406,888 3,389,548 1,000,107 11,796,543
Source : Ministry of Agriculture (MoA),  Government of India (2008).  Agricultural statistics at a glance 2008;  
http//dacnet.nic.in/eands/At_Glance_2008.htm.  Accessed 23 April 2010. 
__________