RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
6 April 2011 
 (11-1745) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 31 March 2011
1 
 
Revision  
 
 
 The revised document compiles questions recei ved by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
18 March 2011 as specified in WTO/AIR/3714;  includes questions posed by New Zealand to the United States, received by the Secretariat on 30 March 2011, as contained in paragraph 3;  and reflects 
the withdrawal of the question by Australia to th e European Union previously listed under paragraph 
40.  
_______________ 
 
 
Table of Contents
 
 
I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ...............5  
A. QUESTIONS BY COLOMBIA :  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTA FOR RAW 
CANE SUGAR BY UKRAINE IN 2011 ............................................................................................5  
B. QUESTIONS BY INDIA :  UNITED STATES ' EXPORT SUBSIDIES ON DAIRY ....................................6  
C. QUESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  UNITED STATES ' DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT 
PROGRAMME ............................................................................................................................... 6 
D. QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES :  COSTA RICA'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
COMMITMENTS ...........................................................................................................................6  
E. QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES :  THAILAND 'S REQUIREMENTS TO EXPORT RICE 
STOCKS ............................................................................................................................... ........6  
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............7  
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)...................................................................................................7  
1. Canada   G/ AG/N/CAN/83 .......................................................................................................7  
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .......7  
2. Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/41....................................................................................................7  
(a) Questions by the European Union ..............................................................................................7  
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility a nd is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  3.
 Costa Rica   G/AG/N/CRI/33 ...................................................................................................7  
(a) Questions by Switzerland ....................................................................................................... ....7 
4. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/67.........................................................................................7  
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .......7  
(b) Questions by Japan ............................................................................................................. ........7  
5. Guatemala   G/AG/N/GTM/39.................................................................................................8  
(a) Questions by the European Union ..............................................................................................8  
6. India   G/AG/N/IND/5........................................................................................................... ....8 
(a) Questions by the European Union ..............................................................................................8  
7. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/56.......................................................................................................8  
(a) Questions by the European Union ..............................................................................................8  
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..8 
B. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1)......................................................................................................................... .....8 
1. Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/30...................................................................................................8  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..8 
2. Bahrain, Kingdom of   G/AG/N/BHR/5 ..................................................................................9  
(a) Questions by the European Union ..............................................................................................9  
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..9 
3. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 ......................................................................................................... .9 
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..9 
4. Bulgaria   G/AG/N/BGR/16....................................................................................................10  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 10 
5. Canada   G/ AG/N/CAN/82 .....................................................................................................10  
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .....10  
(b) Questions by Japan ............................................................................................................. ......10  
(c) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 10 
6. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17........................................................................................................10  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 10 
7. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/68.......................................................................................11  
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .....11  
(b) Questions by  Brazil............................................................................................................ .......12  
(c) Questions by Canada............................................................................................................ .....12  
(d) Questions by Japan ............................................................................................................. ......12  
(e) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 12  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  8. Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/10 ...........................................12  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 12 
9. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/21 .....................................................................................................13  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 13 
10. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/59.....................................................................................................13  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................13  
11. Poland   G/AG/N/POL/67.......................................................................................................13  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 13 
12. Thailand   G/AG/N/THA/72...................................................................................................14  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 14 
13. United States    G/AG/N/USA/77 ...........................................................................................14  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................14  
(b) Questions by India ............................................................................................................. .......15  
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2).........................................................................................................15  
1. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/69.......................................................................................15  
(a) Questions by New Zealand ....................................................................................................... 15 
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 15 
2. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/22 .....................................................................................................16  
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .....16  
(b) Questions by Canada............................................................................................................ .....16  
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES 
ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) ...................................................................................................................16  
1. Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/46......................................................................................................... ..16 
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 16 
2. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/20 .....................................................................................................16  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................16  
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1)......................................................................................................................... ...17 
1. Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/12 ...........................................17  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................17  
2. Kyrgyz Republic   G/AG/N/KGZ/3 .......................................................................................17  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................17  
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 17 
3. Moldova   G/AG/N/MOL/3 ....................................................................................................18  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 18 G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  4.
 Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.1...........................................................................................18  
(a) Questions by Japan ............................................................................................................. ......18  
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 18 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS .............................................................................................19  
A. QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA .......................................................................................................19  
(a) Canada:  Domestic support ...................................................................................................... .19 
(b) China:  Domestic support....................................................................................................... ...19 
(c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies........................................................................19  
(d) India:  Domestic support and export subsidies .........................................................................19  
(e) Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard ......................................................................19  
(f) Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies......................................................................20  
B. QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES .........................................................................................20  
(a) Peru:  Domestic support........................................................................................................ ....20  
  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. QUESTIONS BY COLOMBIA :  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTA FOR RAW CANE 
SUGAR BY UKRAINE IN 2011 
1. Pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the delegation of Colombia would 
like to put to the delegation of Ukraine a number of  concerns regarding the administration of its tariff 
rate quota for raw cane sugar: 
(a) According to the Protocol of Accession of the Republic of Ukraine (document 
WT/L/718) and Table 14, as from 1 January 2011 the tariff quota is to be allocated using the "first-come-first-served" method.  Has the new regulation for administering 
the tariff quota been notified to the WTO and,  if not, when will such notification take 
place? 
(b) Colombia wishes to thank the Ukrainian Mission to the WTO for the information 
supplied recently to the effect that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine issued 
Resolution 204 of 28 February 2011, which lays down the procedures for 
administering the tariff rate quota for sugar imported into Ukraine. 
(c) According to Resolution 204, the tariff quot a shall be allocated on the basis of 
licences issued by the State Ag ency on Material Reserve and the Ministry of Agrarian 
Policy and Food of Ukraine; and the tariff quota allocation shall be published before 
1 October of the previous year. 
With this regulation a system of prior licensing would be established, to be 
administered by the State Agency on Materi al Reserve and the Ministry of Agrarian 
Policy and Food, which will allocate imports within the tariff quota the previous year. 
In Colombia's view, such a system would conflict with the first-come-first-served 
procedure set out in the Protocol of A ccession by subjecting imports to the obtaining 
of a prior licence, whereas in this case an automatic licence ought to apply. 
Article 2 of Resolution 204 issued by the Government of Ukraine on 28 February 
2011 provides that:  "Importing raw cane sugar to Ukraine within the tariff rate quota 
shall be carried out based on licences issued by the Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade.  Licences are issued on the approval of the State Agency on 
Material Reserve of Ukraine and the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine.  The approvals of both Agencies a re enclosed by the applicants with the 
applications for obtaining licences."
 
(d) However, Article 5 abolishes the allocation of tariff quotas by country and refers to 
the establishment of the first-come-first-served mechanism, stating that:  " as of 
1 January  2011 the rest of the annual tariff rate quota for raw cane sugar (tariff item 
number 1701 11) will be allocated by the fi rst-come-first-served method according to 
Section I of the Table 14 "Administering the tariff rate quota" of Ukraine's WTO 
Accession Protocol ratified by the Verkhov na Rada of Ukraine on 10 April 2008.  
Applications to obtain licences for suppli es of goods within the tariff quotas are 
reviewed in the order of their receipt. " G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  (e) In view of the foregoing Colombia would appreciate clarification of this matter, 
particularly the possible incompatibility be tween the licensing mechanism set forth in 
Article 2 and the first-come-first-served  procedure established in Article 5 of 
Resolution 204 of 28 February 2011. 
B. Q
UESTIONS BY INDIA :  UNITED STATES ' EXPORT SUBSIDIES ON DAIRY  
2. Has the United States made any subsidized dairy exports during 2005-2008 under the Dairy 
Export Incentive Programme?  Have subsidized exports been reintroduced in 2009?  Does this include 
disbursement of cash bonus to United Stat es' exporters to target destinations? 
C. QUESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  UNITED STATES ' DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME  
3. New Zealand would like to take this opportu nity to comment on the United States’ recent 
extension of its Dairy Import Assessment or "P romotion Check-Off" policy to imports.  The measure 
will impose a levy on all dairy-based imports, the pro ceeds of which will be used to build demand for 
domestic dairy consumption.  Since import barriers such as quotas and tariff levels limit the growth of 
dairy imports into the United States' market , the levy unfairly targets imports which will not 
necessarily be able to benefit from the promotion,  and any increased consumption, of dairy products 
in the market.  Further we anticipate that the le vy will create additional regulatory and administrative 
costs for exporters.  New Zealand, al ong with other dairy exporting countries, 
has conveyed its concerns about this measure to  the United States government and is therefore 
disappointed that the United States has proceeded w ith the measure.  New Zealand is now assessing 
the measure in light of international rules and ta lking to industry about the likely impact of the 
measure. 
D. QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES :  COSTA RICA'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS  
4. Costa Rica has transparently provided data to the Committee on Agriculture which clearly 
shows a breaching of its Bound Total AMS commitment.  The breach has occurred in crop years 2007, 2008 and 2009 at an alarmi ngly increased rate.  Costa Rica h as repeatedly assured Members of 
its efforts to align domestic policies to lower dom estic support and meet its WTO commitments.  The 
United States understands that in late 2010 Co sta Rica undertook policy changes to reduce the 
necessary internal prices (albeit likel y not sufficiently to remain under its binding).  As of late January 
the United States understands that a court decision blocks the previous price reductions.  If this 
information is confirmed and not immediately addressed, it appears highly likely that Costa Rica will yet again be administering agricultural policies in direct conflict with its WTO obligations. 
5. What steps is the Government of Costa Ri ca taking to fully meet its WTO commitment? 
E. Q
UESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES :  THAILAND 'S REQUIREMENTS TO EXPORT RICE STOCKS  
6. The United States appreciates Thailand's response to the question posed at the March 2010 
Committee meeting and would find it helpful to have additional data and information on this issue. 
7. Can Thailand provide data for the years in qu estion (2005, 2006, and 2007) on the sale of rice 
stocks to exporters and any direct sales to thir d countries from government-owned stocks, including 
the prices at which stocks were acquired and pri ces at which export sales were made?  Additionally, 
can Thailand respond to the United States' previous question as to whether the Thai Government has 
imposed any type of requirement to export the ri ce (and not sell in the domestic market) acquired 
through the bidding process?  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/83 
(a) Questions by Australia  
8. Australia notes that in-quota imports of wheat and barley in the marketing year 2008/2009 
were significantly below the tariff quota quantity for the period in question.  Can Canada explain the 
underfill of the relevant tariff quotas? 
9. Could Canada elaborate on why the in-quota imports for fluid milk are identified as "N.A." in 
the marketing year 2008/2009, when the tariff quota quantity for the period in question is 
64,500 tonnes?  Australia notes the footnoted explana tion that imports of fluid milk by consumers are 
not counted, but would appreciate clarification as to why commercial imports have not occurred. 
2. Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/41 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
10. Could Colombia explain the reasons for the low tariff quota fill for animal-, marine- and 
plant-oils? 
3. Costa Rica   G/AG/N/CRI/33 
(a) Questions by Switzerland  
11. Costa Rica's Table MA:2 notification shows re latively low in-quota imports especially for 
dairy products and cheese.  Could Costa Rica expl ain the reason for this low quantity of in-quota 
imports?  What is the valid basis for the tariff quot a allocation mechanism?  Is the respective Table 
MA:1 notification (G/AG/N/CRI/17, dated 8 Marc h 2007) covering years 200 3 and 2005 still valid?  
Is the allocation of licences or access to the tariff quota based on past imports (the respective 
notification makes reference to "total volume of im ports of the product covered by the tariff quota by 
applicant  i during the previous calendar year") still app lied by Costa Rica?  Do es Costa Rica consider 
in the near future a shift towa rds a more simple allocation mech anism due to low tariff quota fill 
rates?  What measures does Costa Rica unde rtake to increase tariff quota fill rates? 
4. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/67 
(a) Questions by Australia  
12. Can the European Union elaborate on the signifi cant tariff quota underfill in the calendar year 
2009 for a number of agricultural products, including  sweet potatoes, oranges, grain sorghum, malt 
and barley?  Does this suggest that the tariff quotas are no longer necessary? 
(b) Questions by Japan  
13. European Union's Table MA:2 notification re ports zero imports on several products.  Would 
the European Union explain why some products (i.e., butter of New Zealand origin, cheese for 
processing of New Zealand or Australian origin) were not imported in the notified year while there G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  had been some imports in previous years?  Besi des, would the European Union explain why some 
products (i.e., chemically pure fructose) ha ve not been imported at all continuously? 
5. Guatemala   G/AG/N/GTM/39 
(a) Questions by the European Union
 
14. The notification for 2007 includes figures for four tariff quotas.  What is the tariff quota fill 
status of other tariff quotas listed in Guatemala's schedule, but not included in the notification?  Could the notification list all scheduled tari ff rate quotas for transparency reasons? 
6. India   G/AG/N/IND/5 
(a) Questions by the European Union
 
15. Could India explain the reasons for the zero or  low tariff quota fill for "milk and cream in 
powder" in the years after 2003/2004? 
7. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/56 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
16. Could Norway explain the reasons for the low ta riff quota fill for frozen meat of swine, meat 
of turkeys, hens' eggs, red a nd white cabbage and elk meat? 
17. Norway uses auctioning for the allocation of most tariff quotas.  If the European Union's 
information is correct, the auctioning price for b eef in auctions carried out during 2008 was 16.81 
NOK/kg and for auctions carried out in 2009 it was 31.63 NOK/kg.  For sheep and goat meat the 
auctioning price was 21.54 NOK/kg for auctions carri ed out in 2008 and 10.00 NOK/kg for auctions 
carried out 2009.  Could Norway elaborate on th e reasons leading to these significant price 
differences? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
18. The United States notes the low volume of in-quota imports for swine.  What are the reasons 
for this low volume and has Norway considered eliminating or reducing the in-quota tariff rate? 
B. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/30 
(a) Questions by the United States  
19. In Supporting Table DS:1, Annex 2, paragra ph 11, Argentina notified "Special Fund for 
Tobacco".  Could Argentina provide further inform ation on how this programme functions, and what 
is entailed in "construction of centres" and "processi ng and storage"?  How are these items related to 
the restructuring of production activities?  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  2. Bahrain, Kingdom of   G/AG/N/BHR/5 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
20. The European Union notes that Bahrain no tifies support under "investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture" compliant with  Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
However one of these measures seems to be rather se lectively targeted.  The measure is intended for 
the poultry sector.  Could Bahrain elaborate on the reasoning for including this measure under special and differential treatment? 
(b) Questions by the United States
 
21. Please explain the definition of "poultry sector" classified under "investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture".  Please provide  details as to who qualifies for these subsidies and 
the requirements for qualification. 
22. Please clarify whether Bahrain's input subsidies for crop and animal product inputs are 
generally available to low-income or resource-poor producers. 
3. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 
(a) Questions by the United States  
23. The United States appreciates Brazil's replies to  the questions posed at the November 2010 
Committee meeting and wishes to follow-up on some of the responses provided by Brazil. 
24. As Brazil suggested, the United States has review ed the Central Bank of Brazil's website, and 
notes that in Table II.39 of the Monthly Bulletin, the Central Bank of Brazil reports actual lending 
rates for individuals and corporations. 
25. In its response at the 60th meeting of the Committee, Brazil indicated that it notifies "only the 
implicit benefit for agricultural producers, and not the benefits for the financ ial institutions".  Could 
Brazil clarify why it uses the SELIC rate (plus 2 per cent) as its benchmark rate to calculate certain 
interest rate subsidies on the basis that it "represents  the cost of opportunity for banks", instead of the 
lending rates reported by the Central Bank of Brazil which would appear to more closely approximate 
commercial rates that a producer would face and re present a more accurate measure of the "implicit 
benefit for agricultural producers"? 
26. For example, in the OECD's 2005 publication "R eview of Agricultural Policies in Brazil", the 
OECD notes that the SELIC rate is the "reference rate for short-term government securities, and is 
commonly accepted as an average rate on loans betw een commercial banks", and that the SELIC rate 
"cannot be considered as 'free market  interest' rates in a strict sense" .  This would appear to indicate 
that using the SELIC rate as the benchmark rate to cal culate certain interest rate subsidies may be an 
inappropriate benchmark rate to use in measuring the "implicit benefit for agricultural producers". 
27. In its response at the 59th meeting of the Committee, Brazil referred the United States to the 
IBGE website (Brasileiro de Geografica e Estatis tica) for value of production data.  The detailed 
search of the IBGE website has only been able to identify value of production data for certain crops.  
No data on livestock could be found.  Can Brazil pr ovide a specific link to the IBGE website so that 
the data could be verified? G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
  4. Bulgaria   G/AG/N/BGR/16 
(a) Questions by the United States
 
28. What percentage of producers are eligible to  receive the non-product specific assistance 
notified in Supporting Table DS:9? 
5. Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/82 
(a) Questions by Australia  
29. Could Canada elaborate on the caveat contained on the cover note (" Canada reserves the 
right to identify certain payments as meeting the criteria of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
irrespective of how programmes are classified in this notification ").  Can Canada explain why it 
considers this caveat to be necessary? 
(b) Questions by Japan  
30. Would Canada explain why the production sal es for further processing and animal feed 
(class 5a, b, c & class 4m) and total exports have  been deducted from the total production in the 
calculation of the price support for butter and skimmed milk powder? 
31. Does this mean that the products of these categor ies do not have target prices and thus are not 
eligible for any market price support? 
(c) Questions by the United States  
32. The United States appreciates Canada's revisi ons to its domestic support notifications for 
1995-2004 and applauds the elimination of the value of direct government payments from the value of 
production. 
33. Can Canada provide more information on the criteria by which payments under the CAIS 
programme are reported in Annex 2 (i.e., the Income  Disaster Component) and the payments that are 
reported as non-product specific in Supporting Table DS:9 (i.e., the Stabilization Component).  How 
does Production Insurance relate to the CAIS programme? 
34. Can Canada provide additional information on the payments under CAIS enhancements, the 
Canadian Inventory Transition Initiative  (CITI), and the CITI enhancements? 
35. What is the status of the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) programme?  Statistics 
Canada  data show payments are still being made by this programme. 
36. How does Canada categorize its AgriRecovery programme? 
37. Can Canada confirm that there were no e xpenditures on domestic food aid in 2005? 
6. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17 
(a) Questions by the United States  
38. The United States appreciates China's replies to  the questions posed at the November 2010 
Committee meeting and wishes to follow-up on a response provided by China.  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  39. Has the role of the Central Grain Reserve changed from previous years or in the years 
subsequent to the notification in question? 
7. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/68 
(a) Questions by Australia  
40. Given that only off-farm infrastructural serv ices are exempt from reduction commitments, can 
the European Union expand on what is involv ed in "development and maintenance of farm 
infrastructure" under infrastructural services (vii) in Supporting Table DS:1? 
41. Can the European Union provide a breakdown of "Elementary services for rural economy and 
population" under Other farm services (viii) in Su pporting Table DS:1?  Why have payments under 
this category increased from €39.6 million to  €198.4 million from 2006/2007 to 2007/2008? 
42. Can the European Union expand on the meaning of "free distribution" under Domestic food 
aid and explain how this satisfies the requirement that eligibility to receive food aid be subject to 
clearly defined criteria rela ted to nutritional objectives? 
43. Can the European Union provide details on its Separate Sugar Payment programme 
(Decoupled income support (d), Supporting Table DS:1)? 
44. Can the European Union explain why it has included measures to prevent natural disasters 
under payments for relief from natural disasters (measure type f)?  
45. Why have payments for extension and advisory services increased more than threefold from 
€304.7 million in 2006/2007 to €1,113.6 million in 2007/2008? 
46. Can the European Union explain why Structur al adjustment assistance provided through 
producer retirement programmes increased by almost  40 per cent from €676.3 m illion in 2006/2007 to 
€944 million in 2007/2008? 
47. Can the European Union provide detail around the addition of "per hectare aid for energy 
crops" and "aid for bananas" under Exempt direct payments?  
48. Direct payments to milk producers have dropped from €640.5 million in 2006/2007 to only 
€3.5 million in 2007/2008.  Can the European Union e xplain why payments to milk producers were so 
high in 2006/2007? 
49. Can the European Union explain why the pu rchase of animals and equipment does not 
designate the agricultural products to be produced by  recipients, as per paragr aphs 11(b) and (e) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
50. Can the European Union explain, with refere nce to paragraph 12 of Annex 2, why "support 
and protection of organic production by creating conditions of fa ir competition" should be included 
under environmental programmes in Supporting Table DS:1? 
51. Can the European Union explai n the large increase in "Market withdrawal by Producers' 
organizations" measures in Supporting Tables DS:6 and DS:7? G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  (b) Questions by Brazil
 
52. Analyzing the data and information provided by the European Union in Supporting Table 
DS:1, Brazil noted an increase (from approximately €4. 5 billion to approximately €7.5 billion) in the 
support provided for the measure type "(i) Stru ctural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids" in comparison to the value presente d the by the European Union in its notification 
for marketing year 2006/2007.  Could the European Union explain in detail the reasons for such an 
increase in the level of support? 
53. According to Supporting Table DS:4, the support provided for some products, mainly fruits 
and vegetables, became de minimis  in marketing year 2007/2008.  Could the European Union clarify 
if this is a result of the reform implemented for such programmes or mainly a result of changes in 
prices in the relevant marketing years? 
54. Related to the banana compensatory aid schem e, replaced with an increased budget allocation 
which was added to the so-called POSEI arrangements, Brazil notes that there was an increase in Blue Box payments (€278.8 million) when compared  with the product-specific AMS for bananas in 
previous years.  Could the European Union provid e clarifications on how the programme was adjusted 
to fit Blue Box requirements and why ther e was an increase in the support provided? 
(c) Questions by Canada
 
55. Supporting Table DS:6 now reports "Market w ithdrawal by Producers' organizations" for 
numerous products previously enjoying EMS.  Are the amounts now reported the same as the 
amounts called "EU financial assistance" for operati onal funds notified in Table DS:2 notification 
G/AG/N/EEC/69?  Have any member States paid  out additional amounts for what was called 
"national financial assistance" in G/AG/N/EEC/69? 
(d) Questions by Japan  
56. Would the European Union explain why price support for vegetables and fruit which had 
been notified in Supporting Table DS:8 until 2006/2007 was no longer notified in the 2007/2008 notification? 
57. Does this mean that the compensation withdrawal system has been abolished altogether, or 
that the entry price as a reference price of th e compensation withdrawal has been abolished? 
(e) Questions by the United States
 
58. What specific programmes did the European Un ion have in place for which it was calculating 
EMS?  What was the applied administered price and how was it determined? 
59. Does the European Union still maintain the entry-price system for fruit and vegetable 
imports?  If so, how are entry prices determined? 
8. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/10 
(a) Questions by the United States  
60. What percentage of producers are eligible to  receive the non-product specific assistance 
notified in Supporting Table DS:9?  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  9. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/21 
(a) Questions by the United States  
61. In the agricultural diesel programme, are there cr iteria used to distinguish low-income or 
resource-poor producers from other producers?  If so, what are they? 
62. In the Countryside Alliance Programme (als o known as Acquisition of Productive Assets), 
what are the clearly designated contiguous geogra phical areas that are eligib le for such assistance? 
63. What are the activities related to the certifie d Federal Inspection Type (TIF) slaughter 
facilities?  
64. Please explain how the Programme for the Acquisition of Water-Use Rights (PADUA) is 
qualified under "environmental programmes"? 
10. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/59 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
65. When Norway breached its AMS commitment le vel for 2008, the domestic support system 
for the Norwegian meat sector was modified in or der to make sure that the commitment level in 
question would not be violated again.  In response to questions raised during the 60th Committee 
meeting in November 2010, Norway stated that the ad ministered target price for beef was eliminated 
as of 1 July 2009.  In parallel, a new support schem e consisting of budgetary payments for beef used 
in processed products was introduced.  Is it correct th at this support is paid to processors based on the 
quantity of Norwegian beef used in processed products? 
66. Even though Norway discontinued its administered  target price for beef, Norway still retains 
the possibility for storage of predetermined quantities of beef. 2 
(a) Could Norway elaborate on the functioning of this storage system? 
(b) How are the quantities to be stored determined? 
(c) Is there any indication in the legislation a bout the price level at which this meat will 
be stored? 
(d) If yes, how is this price level determined? 
11. Poland   G/AG/N/POL/67 
(a) Questions by the United States  
67. Could Poland list the types of expenditures under "Support for agricultural products 
processing and promotion (SAPARD)" and "assistance for agricultural producer groups"?  Are 
processing costs paid for with these funds, and/or ar e any expenditures used for unspecified purposes 
that could be used by sellers to reduce their selling price? 
68. Could Poland explain why subsidies to produ cers who use organic methods are considered 
environmental payments? 
                                                      
2 https://www.slf.dep.no/no/om-slf/service-og-innsyn/horinger/_attachment/7222?_ts=1283ed689d8 . G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 14  
 
  12. Thailand   G/AG/N/THA/72 
(a) Questions by the United States
 
69. For 2002-2004, Thailand's rice AMS had three components:  Paddy Pledging Scheme, Soft 
Loan Measure, and Market Price Intervention.  Fo r 2005-2007, only the Pa ddy Pledging Scheme and 
Soft Loan Measure are included.  Could Thailand explain what is included within each category and 
how the budgetary outlays were calculated?  For ex ample, how is the interest subsidy calculated?  
Why was Market Price Intervention no longer notified for 2005-2007? 
70. How are the various Government schemes to support storage costs accounted for in the 
domestic support notification? 
71. As part of the Paddy Pledging Scheme, the Thai  Government often acquires large stocks of 
rice.  These rice stocks are then sold under government  tenders.  If the rice stocks are sold at a price 
less than the price at which the rice was acquired,  how is that budgetary loss accounted for in the 
AMS for rice? 
72. For many years, Thailand has set a minimum intervention price for rice under which the 
government supports domestic prices; acquires stocks if producers choose not to redeem their loans;  
and makes direct sales to companies for use in the domestic market or for export.  Thai Government 
interventions (such as the Paddy Pledging Scheme , the Direct Purchase Programme (of the PWO), 
and others) were intended to increase farm income by increasing the value of rice; that is, by increasing the effective price farmers received.  Why has Thailand not notified its rice support as market price support, since the intervention price a ppears to be an applied administered price, as 
described in Annex 3, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
73. Could Thailand provide more detail about the programme for "consolidation of land use in 
agriculture irrigation areas", including what progra mme expenditures are for?  Does the programme 
buy agricultural land, consolidate su ch holdings, and then provide that land to producers?  If so, what 
are the terms at which such land is made available to producers? 
74. Are "intervention prices" connected to the Paddy Pledging Scheme and the Soft Loan 
Measures in any direct way, i.e., are interv ention prices referenced in administrative or 
implementation documents and authorities of the "Paddy Pledging Scheme" and the Soft Loan 
Measures?  (Supporting Table DS:7) 
13. United States    G/AG/N/USA/77 
(a) Questions by the European Union
 
75. In response to a question asked at the 60th Committee meeting in November 2010, the 
United States explained that "State Credit Progr ammes" are no longer notified because the length of 
time since the last new data had been collected. 
(a) Could the United States clarify whether th ese "State Credit Programmes" are still 
operated? 
(b) If so, how will future reporting of the programmes be ensured?  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (b) Questions by India  
76. Through the 2008 Farm Bill, the United States dairy price support programme has undergone 
a change from Market Price Support for milk to Dairy Product Price Support.  What would be the impact of this change in United States' Total AMS in  the coming years?  In light of changes in the 
nature of the programme does the United States fo resee any difficulty in keeping within its Bound 
Total AMS commitment limits? 
77. As per the domestic support notification for 20 08 compared to 2007, the Total AMS for dairy 
has fallen.  Further, the market support prices have  risen for all dairy products;  the gap between the 
applied administrative price and the external refere nce price has also risen, however, there has been a 
fall in the production eligible to receive the support.   In light of the above, could the United States 
clarify as to whether "eligible production" is predet ermined for each of the dairy products, and is it 
incorporated in the Farm Act? 
78. Under the Dairy Product Price Support Programme, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
(CCC) of the United States provides support purchase price to its dairy sector.  How does it work?  Are the commodities purchased by CCC resold to the industr y, and if so, at what prices?  Is it used for 
any particular objective, e.g., for domestic or fo reign food aid programmes.  What is the basis of 
setting minimum prices? 
79. In the last Committee meeting the United St ates informed that for Counter Cyclical 
Programme (CCP) would be expected to qualify as a Bl ue Box programme.  It was also informed that 
as any crop can be grown on the base acres;  payments  cannot be attributed to a specific product.  In 
view of this, how would the Blue Box support amounts be attributed at a product-specific level after 
such limits are established in the DDA modalities? 
C. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/69 
(a) Questions by New Zealand  
80. Would the European Union provide additiona l detail on the sourcing of fruit for the free 
distribution of fruit and vegetables to schools, hos pitals and charitable bodies and the School Fruit 
Scheme?  Can imported fruit be purchased for these two schemes? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
81. According to European Union's notification, support in the fruit a nd vegetable sector is 
structured through "Producers' Organizations", which may set up "operational funds", financed in part 
by the European Union, to carry out "operational pr ogrammes".  It is reported that typical elements 
included in an operational programme are the following: 
(a) purchase of sorting and packing equipment; 
(b) employment of quality control staff and marketing staff; 
(c) investments in irrigation facilities and greenhouses; 
(d) subsidies to growers for replanting fruit trees;  and 
(e) costs of natural pest and disease control. G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 16  
 
  82. Could the European Union confirm that such  expenditures are or can be included in 
operational programmes?  The United States notes that the European Union states in this notification 
that certain measures which do not comply with Green Box criteria will be notified as Amber Box 
support and will not be included in this notificati on.  Can the European Union confirm that any 
expenditures noted above that are in part or are completely Amber Box expenditures are not included 
in this notification? 
83. Could the European Union explain how s upport for organic production qualifies under 
environmental payments and why such support does not constitute support specific to certain 
producers and production that would dir ectly affect such production levels? 
2. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/22 
(a) Questions by Australia
 
84. Can Mexico elaborate on the "Fund to Support Rural Communities Affected by Extreme 
Climatic Events" programme?  Australia would we lcome clarification from Mexico on the minimum 
thresholds of production losses for eligibility, and whether the compensation or "temporary sources of 
income" are limited to not more than  the losses incurred from the disaster. 
(b) Questions by Canada  
85. Mexico's notification describes the new measure "Fund to Support Rural Communities 
Affected by Extreme Climatic Events (FAPRACC)".   Could Mexico elaborate on how this measure 
meets each and every one of the policy specific criteri a of sub-paragraphs 8(a) to 8(e), Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  This includes the calculation of the production loss under sub-
paragraph 8(a). 
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/46 
(a) Questions by the United States  
86. The United States notes that, while within commit ment levels, Israel's export subsidies for 
fruits and vegetables increased dramatically during recent years.  Can Israel provide the reasons for these increases? 
2. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/20 
(a) Questions by the European Union
 
87. Mexico notifies the use of export subsidies that are exempted from reduction commitments 
for developing country Members pursuant to Article  9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  According 
to Article 9.4, such export subsidies were exempt from reduction commitments for developing 
country Members during the implementation period for those Members.  Since the implementation 
period for developing country Members ran betw een 1995 and 2004, this exemption was no longer 
available for the years 2005 to 2007.  However, acco rding to its notification, Mexico continues to 
notify export subsidies of the type Article 9.4 afte r the end of the implementation period.  What is 
Mexico's interpretation of "impleme ntation period" in this context? 
88. Mexico has implemented export subsidies fo r wheat during the years 2005 to 2007 and for 
corn during the years 2006 to 2007.   Should Mexico not notify these export subsidies in a Table ES:1 
along with the relevant commitment levels?  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  89. The export subsidy outlays for wheat notified by Mexico exceed the scheduled commitment 
levels for the years 2005 to 2007, while the subs idised quantities of wheat exceed Mexico's scheduled 
quantity commitment for 2005 and 2006. 
(a) What are the reasons for exceeding commitment levels?  
(b) What steps is Mexico taking for fu ture respect of commitment levels? 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) 
1. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/12 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
90. On 7 March 2011 the Former Yugoslav Repub lic of Macedonia (FYROM) notified export 
restrictions for wheat under Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The measures will be 
applicable from 10 March 2011 for a period of six mont hs.  The European Union reserves the right to 
request consultations. 
(a) Could FYROM provide all rele vant information regarding the existence and causes of 
the need to prevent a serious shortage on the domestic market such as referred to in 
the notification? 
(b) Could FYROM elaborate on the due consideration that it has given to the effects of 
the export restriction on importing Members' food security? 
(c) Could FYROM indicate why the time between the date of notification and entry in 
force of the restrictions is so short? 
2. Kyrgyz Republic   G/AG/N/KGZ/3 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
91. The European Union notes that the Kyrgyz Republic explains the export restrictions notified 
mentioning "critical shortages of agricultural prod ucts on the domestic market and low level of 
income of the population".  The measure is in force from 5 November 2010 to 5 May 2011.  The 
European Union reserves the right to request consultations. 
(a) Could the Kyrgyz Republic provide all rele vant information regarding the existence 
and causes of the critical shortage on the domes tic market such as referred to in the 
notification? 
(b) Could the Kyrgyz Republic elaborate on the due consideration that it has given to the 
effects of the export restriction on importing Members' food security? 
(c) Will the measure expire on 5 May 2011 or is there an intention to extend its duration? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
92. In its Table ER:1 notification, the Kyrgyz Republic  states that export restrictions in the form 
of export tax for certain agricultural products have  been introduced due to shortages on the domestic 
market and the low level of income of the population.  Can the Kyrgyz Republic provide more G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 18  
 
  detailed information about the contributing factors to  the domestic shortage and resulting imbalance?  
Can the Kyrgyz Republic confirm th e taxes will expire on 5 May 2011? 
93. For each product (HS Codes 1005,  1213, 1214, 2301, 2302, 23 04, 2306, and 2308) provide 
the volume of production in 2010 compared to 20 08 and 2009.  How many tonnes of these products 
are expected to be consumed domestically  in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009? 
3. Moldova   G/AG/N/MOL/3 
(a) Questions by the United States
 
94. In its notification, Moldova states that a temporary export ban on wheat and blend of wheat 
and rye (meslin) is in place until 1 May 2011.  The United States understands that the measure to 
restrict exports was put in place as of early Febr uary 2011.  Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture requires Members to give written no tice to the Committee, as far in advance as 
practicable, before instituting an export restriction on foodstuffs.  Moldova's notification, submitted 
on 2 March 2011, does not allow enough time for Member s with substantial interest to adequately 
review and respond as per the Agreement.  Can Moldova provide data comparing the volume of 
production in 2010 to that in 2008 and 2009, as we ll as domestic consumption data (tonnes consumed) 
in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009? 
4. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.1 
(a) Questions by Japan  
95. Japan welcomes the submission of this notifica tion by Ukraine, although it regrets that the 
notification had not been made before the introduction of the export restriction.  Ukraine extended the 
application of the measu re until 31 March 2011. 
96. Could Ukraine provide information on the current and prospective supply and demand 
situation for the products concerned?   
97. Are more extensions of this measure possible beyond March 2011? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
98. Ukraine states that the licensing and distribution of export quotas on wheat, corn, barley, rye 
and buckwheat is extended until 31 March 2011.  The data Ukraine provided to the Committee 
appears to show that Ukraine holds grain stock in wheat, corn, and barley above domestic demand 
levels.  Can Ukraine explain the ra tionale behind the extension of th e export restrictions, and provide 
updated information on Ukraine's production of wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat for 2011, as 
well as domestic demand for these products?  Specif ically, while Ukraine's wheat production has 
decreased in market year 2010-2011, data provide d by Ukraine indicates that with demand remaining 
stagnant, there still remain sever al million tonnes of excess stocks .  Can Ukraine explain why the 
export quota for wheat is only one-third of the export quota allotted for corn, considering that 
Ukraine's excess wheat stocks appears to be higher than corn stocks? 
99. In Ukraine's response to questions regarding the contributing factors to the export restrictions, 
Ukraine notes that offer prices for grain have risen  substantially from Octobe r to June 2010.  Can 
Ukraine provide the offer price of wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat in 2011 compared to 
quarterly data in 2008, 2009, and 2010?  Can Uk raine explain the formula through which the offer 
price is used to determine the need for export rest rictions?  Has the offer price decreased subsequent 
to the placement of export restrictions?  G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  100. In response to questions on the export quota a llocation process, Ukraine notes that the issuing 
of licences and allocation of export quotas is acco mplished in accordance with the recommendations 
of a specially created commission.  Can Ukraine prov ide a detailed explanation of the process through 
which the commission or the relevant agency facilitates the licensing process and export quota allocation?  What steps has Ukraine taken to provide transparency of processing to applicant 
companies?  Can Ukraine please provide the percenta ge of applicant companies which have received 
export quota allocations and explain what factors determine the size of export quota allocated for a 
particular company?  If prior export quantity is a factor, are there specific export quota allocations 
reserved for newcomers on the market?  Can Ukraine also provide a timeline of the licence 
application process?  For example, what is the ty pical waiting period for obta ining the certification of 
available stocks by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food? 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
A. QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA  
(a) Canada:  Domestic support  
101. Australia notes that Canada's most recent dom estic support notification covers calendar year 
2005.  Could Canada advise when it will submit no tifications for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 
2009?  
(b) China:  Domestic support  
102. Australia notes that domestic support notifi cations for the period 2005-2009 are still 
outstanding.  Could China explain the cause for the delay and indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  Australia would be grat eful if China could observe "best practice" and 
provide its response in writing. 
(c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
103. Australia notes Egypt has outstanding domestic  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 intends to submit these outstanding notifications?  
Australia would be grateful if Egypt could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing. 
(d) India:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
104. Australia welcomes India's recent submission of notifications on tariff quota administration 
and tariff quota fill, the first since June 2002. 
105. 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 
its outstanding notifications particularly in the area of domestic support and export subsidies?  
Australia would be grateful if India could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing. 
(e) Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard  
106. Australia notes that Korea has outstanding domestic support and the special safeguard 
notifications for calendar years 2005-2009.  Coul d Korea indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  Australia would be grat eful if Korea could observe "best practice" and 
provide its response in writing. G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 
Page 20  
 
  (f) Turkey:  Domestic suppor t and export subsidies
 
107. 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 outst anding notifications?  Aust ralia would be grateful 
if Turkey could observe "best practice"  and provide its response in writing. 
B. QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES  
(a) Peru:  Domestic support  
108. The United States appreciates Peru's domest ic support notification for 1999 through 2003 – 
the first notification in 11 years – and trusts that mo re notifications will be forthcoming.  Peru last 
notified domestic support for 1995 through 1 997.  When will Peru notify for 1998?  
 
__________