RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/77 
16 September 2010 
 (10-4668) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 23 September 2010
1 
 
 
1. The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline referred 
to in WTO/AIR/3602 dated 26 August 2010, as we ll as questions received after that date. 
_______________ 
 
 I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. S
TATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA : THE EUROPEAN UNION 'S RESCHEDULING OF ITS EXPORT 
SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  
2. Australia intends to make a statement in this context. 
B. QUESTION BY CANADA :  UKRAINE 'S PROPOSED "TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL FEE" 
3. Canada understands that Ukraine has proposed a "temporary agricultural fee" that would be in 
force for three years starting 1 January 2011.  This proposed ten per cent fee would be applied to imports of meat, fish and fish products, and pl ant protection products.  Canada requests greater 
clarification of this temporary agricultural fee, including:   
(a) the specific tariff lines upon which the fee would be levied;   
(b) whether the fee would constitute a customs duty;   
(c) whether the fee would be applied exclusively to imports;   
(d) whether this policy has been finalized by the Ukrainian Government and if not, when 
it expects it to be final. 
4. In particular, Canada is interested in knowi ng how such a measure conforms to Ukraine's 
WTO commitments.  Canada suggests that Ukraine provide a written summary of the proposed fee 
and any related documents to Committee Members at the earliest possible time. 
                                                     
 
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/77 
Page 2  
 
  C. Q
UESTION BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S TRADE -RESTRICTIVE MEASURES ON DAIRY 
PRODUCTS  
5. How is Canada ensuring that cumulative protection-driven policies in its dairy sector are 
consistent with its WTO obligati ons and various commitments not to introduce new trade-restrictive 
measures?  Measures of concern include:   
(a) modifications to the 4M milk classes' programme, which undercuts the price of 
imported ingredients used in cheese;   
(b) the "100% Canadian milk" ice cream subsid y programme where th ere is a lack of 
clarity about the degree of involvement of a government agency (the Canadian Dairy Commission);  and  
(c) changes to Canadian compositional standard s for cheese, which unjustifiably restrict 
the use of imported ingredients in cheese  (as previously raised in the TBT 
Committee). 
D. Q
UESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  ARGENTINA 'S APPLICATION OF "CERTIFICATES OF FREE 
CIRCULATION " AND CERTAIN FOOD IMPORT DISTRIBUTION PRACTICES  
6. The United States understands that there are si gnificant delays in many cases for Instituto 
Nacional de Alimentos (INAL) issuing the "certificate of free circulation" for food imports, and that in some cases this is only issued after the impor ter agrees to undertake additional commitments with 
respect to exports.  We are concerned that this could be acting as a de facto  discretionary import 
licensing procedure.  We would therefore appreciate further explanation regarding this requirement, 
and the basis for maintaining such a regime. 
7. Additionally, we have heard re ports of Government of Argentina officials entering grocery 
stores and requesting that certain imported items  be removed from the shelves.  Can Argentina 
comment? 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. N
OTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. China   G/AG/N/CHN/19 
(a) Question by Canada  
8. Canada notes that the tariff quotas for corn (1.2  per cent fill), rice (6.7 per cent fill), wheat 
(9.38 per cent fill) and sugar (54.7 per cent) were significantly underfilled.  Could China elaborate on 
the reasons for the underfill? 
2. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/153 
(a) Question by New Zealand  
9. New Zealand notes that Japan has notified low ta riff quota fill rates fo r skimmed milk powder 
for school lunches, skimmed milk powder for ot her purposes and whey powder for 2008.  Could 
Japan provide an explanation for the low fill ra tes for these tariff quotas an d outline any steps being 
taken to address the underfill of these tariff quotas?  G/AG/W/77 
 Page 3 
 
 
  3. Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/51 
(a) Questions by Canada  
10. Could Switzerland elaborate on the reasons why the tariff quota for coarse grains for human 
consumption was underfilled? 
B. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/76, TPKM/77 and TPKM/78 
(a) Questions by Australia  
11. Australia welcomes the notifications from Chin ese Taipei regarding the invocation of the 
Special Agricultural Safeguard (SSG) on dried shi itake, chicken legs and wings, and fresh milk.  
Australia notes that SSG entitlements are scheduled at  a tariff line level in a Member's Schedule of 
Commitments, not at a product level.  We note that Chinese Taipei has, for chicken legs and wings, 
and for fresh milk, grouped together four tariff lines for each product description, e.g. for fresh milk – 
HS 0401.10.10, 0401.20.10, 0401.30.10, and 0402.99.10.  Also, Chinese Taipei has grouped tariff 
lines covering fresh/chilled, frozen, salted/brined/dri ed/smoked, and prepared/preserved chicken legs 
and wings, with one line in a different HS Chapter. 
(a) Can Chinese Taipei explain why it did not notify each tariff line separately and 
provide the relevant trigger calculations? 
(b) Can Chinese Taipei provide the trigger leve l and volume of imports for each tariff 
line and the additional SSG duty that has been applied? 
(c) Can Chinese Taipei explain the rationale fo r the grouping of the chicken legs and 
wings tariff lines, especially given the lack of substitution between dried/smoked 
chicken with fresh or frozen chicken? 
12. Australia notes that Chinese Taipei has used imports from 2006-2008 for the calculation of 
the trigger level for all three SSG notifications.  Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture specifies 
that the trigger level should be calculated based  on the three preceding years for which data are 
available. On 15 March 2010, Chinese Taip ei notified imports under tariff quotas 
(G/AG/N/TPKM/75) for calendar year 2009, with th e SSG notifications occurring subsequently in 
June 2010 and August 2010.  Can Chinese Taipei explain why 2009 import data was not used in the 
calculation of the 2010 SSG volume trigger levels , considering imports under tariff quotas for 2009 
were available and notified months before the submission of the SSG notifications?   
13. Australia notes that Chinese Taipei has notified imports under tariff quotas for 2009 for dried 
shitake and liquid milk (G/AG/N/TPKM/75) and that both tariff quotas were underfilled (12.6 per 
cent and 38.9 per cent fill rate respectively). 
(a) Can Chinese Taipei assure Members that SSG duties have not been applied to in-
quota imports in 2010? 
(b) If SSG duties were applied only on over-quota imports, can Chinese Taipei clarify 
why importers would attempt to import over- quota at higher tariff rates, instead of 
within the tariff quota and at a lower duty, particularly given the low fill rates? G/AG/W/77 
Page 4  
 
  (c) Is the administration of these tariff quotas too onerous, limiting fill rates and leading 
to the application of the SSG? 
(d) Given these concerns, will Chinese Taipei cons ider eliminating the SSG as part of the 
Doha Round, in line with commitments  for developed country Members? 
(b) Questions by the United States
 
14. Some Members do not apply the volume-based ag ricultural safeguard (SSG), even if the 
trigger is met, for example, when prices are stable  or increasing.  Why did Chinese Taipei decide to 
apply the SSG?  What are current domestic prices? 
2. United States   G/AG/N/USA/74 
(a) Question by Brazil  
15. In relation to the application of the price- based SSG, could the United States specify the 
trigger calculations as per Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture for the following lines? 
0201308090 Bovine meat cuts, boneless, fresh or chld., over-quota 
0202308000 Frozen beef, boneless, over-quota 
1701115000 Raw cane sugar, over-quota 
1701915800 Flavoured sugar over 10% sugar, over-quota 
1701995010 Specialty sugars, not flavored or colored, over-quota 
1701995020 Refined cane or beet sugar, not  flavored or colored, over-quota 
1701995030 Cane or beet sugar, not raw, no t flavored or colored, over-quota 
1701995090 Cane or beet sugar, not raw, no t flavored or colored, over-quota 
 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 
(a) Questions by Australia  
16. Can Brazil explain which General Services categor y "agrarian organisation; agrarian reform 
settlement" programmes ar e classified under? 
17. Can Brazil explain its "government agricultura l insurance programme"?  Under which section 
of Annex 2 is this programme notified? 
18. What type of production and marketing cred it assistance do Brazilian famers receive?  Is it 
targeted at any particular products? 
19. How does Brazil's debt rescheduling programme work? 
20. What is Brazil's "risk minimising agribusiness programme"?  G/AG/W/77 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) Questions by Canada  
21. In its 2004/05 and 2005/06 notifications Braz il shows in both Supporting Table DS:2 
(Development Programmes) and Supporting Table DS:9 (Non-product-specific AMS) certain amounts of support called "Debt rescheduling programme s".  It appears that Brazil's producers enjoy 
support under numerous credit programmes. 
(a) For the amount of support reported as "Debt rescheduling programmes" in each 
supporting table, how was the amount of s upport calculated for each relevant credit 
programme? 
(b) How much support would arise from debt forgiveness and how much from 
preferential interest rates under the debt rescheduling programmes? 
(c) In Supporting Table DS:1, Brazil claims support under "Warranty-Crop Fund" as 
green.  Under what paragraph in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture is this 
programme claimed as green?  Specifically, how does this programme meet each and every criterion of the relevant paragraph?  
(c) Questions by the European Union
 
22. In Supporting Table DS:1, among the expenditures notified in the Green Box, is the crop 
insurance scheme indeed notified under Annex 2, para graph 7?  What are the regulatory provisions to 
ensure compliance with the criteria in th is paragraph (loss threshold, etc.)? 
23. In Supporting Table DS:5, how are the maximu m eligible quantities calculated, which are 
very small compared to Brazil's production?  What are Brazil's legislative provisions for considering 
that there is indeed a maximum eligible quantity,  so as not (as is usually the case for guaranteed 
minimum price systems) to consider production as a whole as being eligible under the programme? 
24. In Supporting Table DS:7, how is the budgetary  expenditure notified for the PROP, PEP or 
PEPRO schemes calculated?  What  does it correspond to exactly?  What are the amounts actually 
involved and the quantities eligible under these schemes?  Could Brazil elaborate on why the expenditure relating to wheat for agricultural year  2004/2005 is much higher than all the others? 
(d) Question by Japan
 
25. The total Green Box more than doubled in 200 5, and increased again in 2006.  Would Brazil 
explain the reasons and the background for these increases? 
(e) Questions by the United States  
26. How does Brazil calculate the subsidized inte rest rate for its non-product-specific production 
and marketing credit notified for 2004/05 and 2005/ 06?  In particular, which publicly-available 
references for commercial or consumer interest ra tes are used by the Government of Brazil to 
establish the non-subsidized rates against which subsidized rates are measured? 
27. In confirming information provided in the notifi cations, it is often unclear to the United States 
which data sources or methods of calculation are bei ng used.  For example, in determining eligible 
production for market price support, which publicly -available price and production data series are 
used to determine the value of production for commodities for de minimis  purposes?  We would 
appreciate the opportunity to work with Brazil to gain a better understanding of Brazil's sources used 
to develop this notification and which can be transparently provided to all WTO Members. G/AG/W/77 
Page 6  
 
  28. In Supporting Table DS:2 for 2004/05 and 20 05/06, Brazil lists debt rescheduling under 
PRONAF and PROCERA programmes.  How does Brazil account for debt restructuring, including debt forgiveness, discounted repayment or extend ed repayment terms related to transfers of 
outstanding debt from financial institutions into  the "Active Union Debt (DAU)" of the National 
Treasury?  Also, do these programmes include "e qualization" payments provided to financial 
institutions that renegotiate terms of repayment to offset newly-assumed risk and/or financial losses 
associated with restructuring? 
29. Are subsidized interest rates provided to Development Bank BNDES through the National 
Treasury for rural development projects and agri cultural sector investments included in Supporting 
Table DS:2 or are they notified elsewhere? 
2. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17 
(a) Questions by Australia
 
30. Does China have targets for the volume and ac cumulation of public stockholding of wheat, 
corn, rice, vegetable oils and sugar?  If so, what ar e those targets?  At what prices did the government 
purchase these products? 
31. Australia notes that paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2 requires that eligibility for decoupled income 
support "be determined by clearly-defined criteria ... in a defined and fixed base period".  Could China 
advise what "clearly-defined criteria" and what "d efined and fixed base period" determine eligibility 
for its "direct payment to farmers"? 
32. Are China's environmental programmes a part of clearly-defined government environmental 
or conservation programmes?  Are payments unde r these programmes dependent on the fulfilment of 
specific criteria? 
33. In 2002-2004, did China provide market price support for rice, wheat and corn?  How did 
China's protective price system, which was repealed  in 2004, actually work?  How does the minimum 
price procurement system work? 
34. Can China explain its input subsidies notifie d under non-product-specific AMS?  What are 
the "means of production" that received  "primarily price subsidies"? 
(b) Questions by Canada  
35. China notes in Supporting Table DS:1 under "R egional assistance programmes" that aid and 
assistance are provided to disadvantaged regions . Could China elaborate on the criteria for 
determining which regi on is disadvantaged? 
36. Footnotes 2 and 3 in Supporting Table DS:7 for years 2002, 2003, and 2004 note a "subsidy 
for improved crop strains and seeds" for rice, wheat, corn and soybeans.  Could China elaborate as to 
whether this subsidy is provided to  producers to encourage them to grow a certain variety of these 
crops, or is it used to offset some of the cost of purchasing certain varieties of seed?  
37. In Supporting Table DS:9 for years 2002, 2003, and 2004, China shows increasing amounts 
of "price subsidies for means of production".  Coul d China elaborate on the means of production that 
were being subsidized?  G/AG/W/77 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (c) Questions by the European Union  
38. Footnote 2 on page 13 of the notification read s as follows:  "The protective price system was 
repealed in 2004.  Subsequently, the minimum procurement price system was introduced for rice and wheat.  The procurement of rice was implemented in 2004, however, since the market price was 
higher than the minimum procurement price, no pr ocurement was actually made.  In addition, the 
procurement of wheat was implemented in 2005."  With reference to this footnote, could China 
inform: 
(a) whether after 2003 no market price support mechanism for corn is applicable 
anymore, not even a "minimum procurement price system"? 
(b) what are the differences between (i) the price support schemes as applied under the 
"protective price system" of 2002 and 2003 and (ii) the "minimum procurement price 
system" of 2004 and later, for rice and wheat? 
(c) what is the reason for showing the eligib le production for the price support measures 
as "0" or "-" in the Supporting Table DS:5 for 2004? 
(d) what is the reason for the decrease in the eligible production for the supported 
production between 2002 and 2003 in Supporting Tables DS:5? 
39. Page 4 of Supporting Table DS:1 shows a signi ficant increase in support under environmental 
programmes in 2004, i.e. 61.6 billion yuan, up from 21.6 billion yuan in 2003.  Can China explain the 
reason for this increase and whether any specific programmes are concerned?  Are the payments made to farmers? 
40. Page 4 of Supporting Table DS:1  shows support between 42 and 55 billion yuan annually for 
public stockholding.  Can China elaborate on how the products that are mentioned are being 
procured? 
(d) Questions by the United States
 
41. Regarding General Services reported in Supporti ng Table DS:1, could China provide detailed 
information about "the government payments provi ded for various services to promote agricultural 
development" including the types of services, and the payment rate and/or amount for specific 
services? 
42. Regarding Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, could China share information on 
how these figures are calculated or the outlay documen ts where these figures can be found?  At what 
prices are these stocks purchased, and how are those prices determined?  Are these stocks released or 
sold onto the domestic or international market at any point in time after their acquisition, and if so, at 
what prices are they released onto the market? 
43. Regarding Supporting Table DS:5 for 2002 and 2003, could China please provide further 
information on the protective price system and how it  operated?  For example, what was the basis for 
the applied administered price?  How were  the eligible production amounts determined? 
44. Could China provide further details on how the external reference prices for wheat, corn, and 
rice were determined?  For example, was the exte rnal reference price for wheat based on different 
classes of wheat, or only one class of wheat? G/AG/W/77 
Page 8  
 
  45. Regarding Supporting Table DS:5 for 2004, coul d China provide further information about 
the minimum procurement price system and/or  related documentation about the programme? 
3. Costa Rica  G/AG/N/CRI/6/Rev.1, CRI/7/R ev.1, CRI/9/Rev.1, CRI/24/Rev.1 and CRI/30 
(a) Questions by Australia (on G/AG/N/CRI/6/Rev.1, CRI/7/Rev.1, CRI/9/Rev.1, CRI/24/Rev.1 
and CRI/30  
46. We would welcome clarification from Costa Ri ca on its recent total AMS expenditure, noting 
that Costa Rica's Table DS:1 notifications fo r 2007-2009 show current total AMS above its Final 
Bound Total AMS commitment level of US$15.945 million. 
47. We note that Costa Rica has included its non-pr oduct specific support within its calculation of 
Current Total AMS for the years 2004-2007 inclusive,  even though such support was less than ten per 
cent of the value of Costa Rica's total agricultural production in those years.  Under Article 6.4 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, such de minimis  non-product specific support does not have to be 
included in the calculation of the Current Total AM S.  We would welcome clarification from Costa 
Rica as to why it has included its de minimis  non-product specific support in its calculation of Current 
Total AMS. 
48. We note that, under Article 6.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, de minimis  product-specific 
support (support that is less than ten per cent of Costa Rica's total value of production of the product 
in question) does not have to be included in th e calculation of Current Total AMS.  Can Costa Rica 
please provide its value of production for rice for the years 1995-1999 inclusive and for the years 2004-2009 inclusive? 
(b) Questions by Canada (on G/AG/N/CRI/30)
 
49. Canada appreciates Costa Rica's commitment to tr ansparency and the info rmation provided in 
its notification.  Canada has concerns with respect  to the pattern of support found in Costa Rica's 
domestic support notifications.  Canada notes that it raised questions during the 56th meeting of the 
Committee regarding reporting year 2007 in wh ich Costa Rica reported a Current Total AMS in 
excess of its scheduled commitment level.  Cost a Rica again reports a Current Total AMS for 
reporting years 2008 and 2009 in excess of its scheduled commitment level.  This appears to violate 
Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture which states that "... a Member shall not provide support 
in favour of domestic producers in excess of the commi tment levels specified in Section I of Part IV 
of its Schedule".  In addition, the viola tions are increasing in size from 2007 onwards. 
(a) What steps has Costa Rica taken or will take to avoid a future recurrence of a 
violation of its Total AMS commitment? 
(b) The notification notes that some figures have not been included in various supporting 
tables for 2008 and 2009.  Could Costa Rica indicate when these figures will be provided to the Committee? 
(c) Questions by New Zealand (on G/AG/N/CRI/30)
 
50. New Zealand notes that Costa Rica has notified Current Total AMS of US$62,477,560 in 
2008 and US$91,743,860 in 2009.  The reported AMS consisted of product-specific market price 
support for rice.  These notified amounts are in excess of Costa Rica's AMS commitment level of US$15,945,000.  Could Costa Rica explain why its AMS commitment appears to have been exceeded?  What steps are being take n to ensure that Current Total AM S is within commitment levels 
for future years?  G/AG/W/77 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (d) Question by Thailand (on G/AG/N/CRI/24/Rev.1 and CRI/30)  
51. Thailand would like to seek further clarification from Costa Rica on the reason why its AMS 
support during 2007-2009 exceeded the Total AMS commitment level. 
(e) Questions by the United States (on G/AG/N/CRI/24/Rev.1 and CRI/30)  
52. At the September 2009 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, we noted that Costa Rica 
exceeded its total AMS level for 2007 and asked wh at steps Costa Rica had taken or would take to 
ensure that the total AMS level would not be exceeded  in the future.  Costa Rica reported that it was 
studying this matter and that it would provide an answer to the Committee as soon as possible.  The United States asked again in November 2009 and received the same response.  Costa Rica again 
provided the same response in March 2010.  In May 2010, Costa Rica revised its previous Table DS:1 
notification for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, and notified a Table DS:1 for 2008 and 2009.  The 2007 
Current Total AMS that had exceeded Costa Rica's  ceiling was revised upward and the 2008 and 2009 
Current Total AMS were almost four times and si x times, respectively, higher than Costa Rica's 
ceiling.   
53. While the United States applauds Costa Rica's tran sparency, we have the following question:   
(a) what steps has Costa Rica taken to lower its  Current Total AMS to remain within its 
bound ceiling? 
(b) if Costa Rica has not taken any steps as yet,  what steps will Costa Rica take and when 
will it take those steps? 
(c) once steps are taken, how will Costa Rica ensu re that it will not exceed its total AMS 
in the future? 
54. In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2004-2007, under the "Productive conversion programme," 
what are the "objectively demonstrated structural disadvantages" referenced in Annex 2, paragraph 
11(a) that these producers face? 
55. Under the "Farming and livestock protection an d development trust for small and medium-
sized producers" programme, Costa Rica states th at this support is given to "producers who 
experienced difficulties as a result of…the behaviour of the international prices of agricultural goods."  
Can Costa Rica explain how this meets the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 11(c), which states that the amount of payments shall not be related to or based on the prices, domestic or international, applying 
to any production undertaken in any year after the base period? 
4. Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/57/Rev.1 
(a) Questions by Australia
 
56. We note the Czech Republic has included a ll product-specific AMS and non-product specific 
AMS in the calculation of its current total AMS.  This means that all product-specific AMS and non-
product specific AMS was above de minimis , which is five per cent of the value of production for 
each agricultural product and five per cent of the to tal value of agricultural production for non-product 
specific support.  Can the Czech Republic provide it s value of production data for 2003 to verify its 
AMS calculations? G/AG/W/77 
Page 10  
 
  5. Dominican Republic   G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1 
(a) Question by Australia
 
57. Can the Dominican Republic provide a brief d escription of its "rice production and marketing 
programme" and "marketing incentiv e programme for other crops"? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
58. In Supporting Table DS:1, under Marketing and Pr omotion Services, it appears that many of 
the listed programmes may involve payments to produ cers or subsidization of inputs that have an 
effect on production.  Could the Dominican Re public detail how these programmes meet Annex 2 
criteria? 
59. Can the Dominican Republic confirm that the Natural Resource Deve lopment Programme no 
longer exists in the Green Box programmes for 2008?  
6. Switzerland  G/AG/N/CHE/49 
(a) Questions by Australia  
60. Does Switzerland have a pre-determined target fo r public stockholding of concentrated fruit 
juice related solely to food secu rity?  What price does the Govern ment pay for concentrated fruit 
juice?  Is it a current market price? 
61. What are the criteria for receiving decoupled in come support payments?  Is the criteria based 
on a defined and fixed base period? 
62. What is the structural disadvantage being compen sated by investment credits (loss of interest 
on total credits granted)?  Are the payments limi ted to the amount required to compensate for the 
structural disadvantage? 
63. Are there any specific conditions that Swiss farmers must fulfil in order to receive support for 
environmental programmes?  What is the basi s for payments under environmental programmes? 
64. Is the regional assistance programme which provides "allowances for milk processed into 
cheese" limited to producers in a disadvantaged ar ea?  What is the basis on which these regions are 
deemed to be disadvantaged?  How is the allo wance for milk processed into cheese determined? 
(b) Questions by Brazil  
65. On page 3 of Supporting Table DS:1, regard ing Decoupled Income Support, Switzerland 
notified SwF 1,213.3 million for general direct paym ents, including "supplement to market earnings". 
(a) Could Switzerland describe this programme in more detail? 
(b) How does this programme comply with para graph 1 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  G/AG/W/77 
 Page 11 
 
 
  7. Uruguay  G/AG/N/URY/39 
(a) Questions by Australia  
66. Could Uruguay provide a brief explanation of its  "Responsible Production Project" notified as 
a payment under environmental programmes and its direct payments to producers for "traceability, 
animal health and food protection"?  We note that Uruguay has notified these programmes as Green 
Box;  we would therefore welcome a Table DS:2 notification for these programmes to provide further 
information on how they comply with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) Questions by the European Union  
67. With reference to Supporting Table DS:1, coul d Uruguay elaborate on how the expenditure 
under "(c) direct payments to producers: traceab ility, animal health and food protection" complies 
with the criteria of Annex 2? 
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. China   G/AG/N/CHN/18 
(a) Questions by Canada  
68. Could China provide a description of the criteria "contracted land"? 
69. It is not clear from the description in the notif ication as to what eligibility criteria a farmer 
must meet in order to receive a payment under the Direct Payment to Farmers.  Could China provide the eligibility criteria for this measure? 
(b) Question by the European Union
 
70. Under point 3 of the notification, China mentions  that "Any farmer with contracted land is 
eligible for the Direct Payment".  Can China info rm whether this eligibility is defined in national 
legislation together with a defi ned and fixed base period as required by paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2? 
(c) Questions by Japan  
71. Would China explain what kind of "acreage" is used (e.g. base period, any standard on 
eligibility) as the basis for "Direct Payment to  Farmers" which is notified as a Green Box 
measure? 
72. Is there any qualification for farmers to be eligible to the programme? 
(d) Questions by the United States  
73. What are the qualifications necessary for a farmer to be a "qualified" farmer?  Are all farmers 
eligible for this programme, or only certain farmers?  Also, are there any restrictions on what the land 
can be used for by the qualified farmers, and do farmers have to produce a product at all? 
74. Could China list how much these payments are per unit of land, and how much agricultural 
land is covered in this programme? G/AG/W/77 
Page 12  
 
  2. United States   G/AG/N/USA/73 
(a) Questions by Australia
 
75. We would welcome clarification from the United St ates as to how it will ensure that payments 
under the "Conservation Stewardship Program" are lim ited to the "extra costs or loss of income 
involved in complying with" the "Conservation St ewardship Program" within  paragraph 12(b) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
76. We note that the programme criteria provide th at "a participant's annual payment will be 
determined using the conservation performance  estimated by the conserva tion measurement tool, and 
computed by land-use type for enrolled eligible land"  and that "annual payment rates will be based to 
the maximum extent practicable , on ... costs incurred by the par ticipant ... income foregone by the 
participant; and expected  environmental benefits , determined by estimati ng conservation performance 
improvement using the conservation measurement t ool." (Paragraph (3), 1470.24 Payments, Part 1470 
of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations) 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES  ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/29 
(a) Questions by the United States  
77. Argentina reports that it had no export subs idies in the period from 1 December 2008 to 
30 November 2009.  The United States understands that the Government of Argentina has since 
introduced new measures affecting imports and exports of agricultural products.  It appears that since 
the end of April 2010, the Government of Argent ina has conditioned the issuance of import permits 
for food products ("certificate of free circulation") on a requirement that the importer commit to 
export as much or more than it is importing.  Insofar as this appears to be a benefit (receipt of import authorizations) conditioned on export performance, we would like to know if the Delegation of 
Argentina agrees that programmes of  such a nature (conferring bene fit) should be notified to the 
Committee on Agriculture as export subsidies? 
2.  Poland   G/AG/N/POL/66 
(a) Questions by Australia
 
78. Poland has notified that its annual budgetary outlay of export subsidies for powder milk in 
2002 was 9.5852 million US$.  This is considerably  more than its annual commitment of 5.6 million 
US$ as set out in Part VI of the multilaterally-agreed Schedule for Poland. 
(a) Can Poland explain why it exceeded its e xport subsidy annual commitment for 
powder milk in 2002? 
(b) How does Poland reconcile its 2002 budgetary  outlay for milk powder with its WTO 
obligations set out in Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/77 
 Page 13 
 
 
  III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA 
(a) Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:  Domestic support, export subsidies, tariff quota fill and 
special safeguard  
79. Australia notes that the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela has outstanding market access, 
domestic support and export subsidy notifications (t he last notification was submitted in April 2003).  
Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it 
intends to submit its outstanding no tifications?  We would be gratef ul if the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing.   
(b) China:  Domestic support  
80. Australia welcomes China's recently-submitted domestic support notifications for calendar 
years 2002-2004.  Australia notes that domestic support notifications for the period 2005-2009 are 
still outstanding.  Could China explain the cause fo r the delay and indicate when it intends to submit 
these outstanding notifications?  We would be gratef ul if China could observe "best practice" and 
provide its response in writing. 
(c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
81. Australia notes that Egypt has outstanding domes tic support and export subsidy notifications 
for the period 1999-2009 (Egypt's last notification was submitted in May 1999).  Could Egypt explain 
the cause for the long delay and indicate when it in tends to submit these outst anding notifications?  
We would be grateful if Egypt could observe "b est practice" and provide its response in writing. 
(d) India:  Tariff quota administration, tariff quot a fill, domestic suppor t and export subsidies  
82. Australia notes that India has not submitted a notification to the Committee on Agriculture 
since June 2002.  Australia notes also that since the 52nd regular meeting of the Committee of 
Agriculture, Australia has consistently asked India when Members could expect India to comply with 
its notification obligations.  When responding to Australia's question, India has indicated that the process of gathering information in preparation fo r compliance with its notification obligations was 
underway, and as soon as this process was complete d, India would circulate the outstanding 
notifications to Members. 
83. For example, India has still not made a Table MA:1 notification to explain the administration 
of tariff quotas that have been incorporated in its Schedule since 2003 (covering skim milk powder, 
corn, crude sunflower and safflower oil, and refined rape, colza, canola and mustard oil).  This issue 
was raised in 54th Regular meeting of the Committ ee on Agriculture (refer to G/AG/R/54, paragraphs 
59-61). 
84. Could India provide Members with an update on progress of gathering information to prepare 
its WTO agriculture notifications?  Could India provi de an indicative time when it intends to submit 
these outstanding notifications?  We would be gratef ul if India could observe "best practice" and 
provide its response in writing. G/AG/W/77 
Page 14  
 
  (e) Korea:  Domestic support and export subsidies§
 
85. Australia notes that Korea has outstanding domestic support, export subsidy and the special 
safeguard notifications for calendar years 2005-2009.  Could Korea indicate when it intends to submit 
these outstanding notifications?  We would be grateful if Korea could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing. 
(f) Turkey:  Domestic suppor t and export subsidies
 
86. Australia notes that Turkey has outstanding dom estic support and export subsidy notifications 
(Turkey's last notification was submitted in May 2002) .  Could Turkey explain the cause for the long 
delay and indicate when it intends to submit its out standing notifications?  We would be grateful if 
Turkey could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing. 
(g) United States:  NFIDC Food Aid  
87. Australia notes that the United States' most r ecent notification concerning actions taken 
within the framework of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the 
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net F ood-Importing Developing Countries (Table NF:1) 
was G/AG/N/USA/65, submitted on 21 November 2008, covering the fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 
2006.  Could the United States indicate when it intends to submit its outstanding notifications for 
2007-2009? 
 
  
__________