RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
11 August 2010 
 (10-4277) 
Committee on Agriculture  
 Original:   English 
 
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of responses to questions raised during   
the Committee on Agriculture meeting  
on 10 March 20101  
 
Revision  
   The present revision reflects the inclusion of written responses by Lithuania, submitted by the 
Delegation of the European Union on 29 Ju ly 2010, contained in paragraphs 45-47. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. R
ESPONSE TO QUESTION BY AUSTRALIA :  EU-252 AND EU-27  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENT 
LEVELS (SEE G/AG/W/74/R EV.1, PARAS . 2-4) 
1. The European Union (EU) would like to highlight that on 22 February 2010 the General 
Council took note of the statements with regard to the EC-15 CXL Schedule.  The EU has also 
received confirmation that Australia has indeed lifte d its reservation.  On that basis the EU expects 
that the fully-fledged EC-15 Schedule will now be certified by the Director-General. 
2. The EU is aware that Australia's position concerning the EU-15 enlargement does not 
constitute a precedent for subsequent enlargements and that there is no agreement on the method for 
changes to Part IV of a schedule.  The EU also notes Australia's preparedness to further engage on 
this issue and indeed the EU equa lly looks forward to doing so.  
3. By the same token, the EU wishes to underscore th at the reality is that it has 27 members.  To 
proceed on a historical and out-of-date basis of 15 members does not make sense.  The EU would consider Members to expect it to apply TRQs wh ich correspond to EU-27 not EU-15.  As regards 
export subsidies, it is impor tant to note that netting-out of intra- EU export subsidies leads to decreases 
of export subsidy limits for certain products.  A nd, secondly, the EU wishes to underline that the 
method of netting-out intra-EU expor t subsidies results in lower e xport subsidy limits than simply 
adding up the EU and the new member States limits. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
Page 2  
 
  B. R
ESPONSE TO QUESTION BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S TRADE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES ON 
DAIRY PRODUCTS (SEE G/AG/W/74/R EV.1, PARA . 5) 
4. As already noted in Canada's response to the same questions posed by New Zealand at the 
57th Committee on Agriculture, Canada does not see these measures as new trade restrictive measures.  
Canada considers that these measures are cons istent with its WTO rights and obligations. 
C. RESPONSE TO QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  THAILAND 'S REQUIREMENT TO EXPORT 
RICE STOCKS (SEE G/AG/W/74/R EV.1, PARA . 6) 
5. Under the bidding process for Thai rice stock, the starting price is usually lower than the 
market price since the government would like to provi de an incentive to prospective bidders, thereby 
encouraging competition in bidding.  However, the final bidding price always ends up at the same 
level as the market price. 
6. The government strongly encourages the bidding process to have the bidding price set at least 
at the market price level.  If the final bidding pr ice is lower than the market price, the government 
maintains its prerogative to reject that bidding.  For the latest bidding held in February 2010, the 
government decided to cancel rice bidding because the final price was lower than the market price. 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
1. Thailand   G/AG/N/THA/70 
(a) Response to question by the European Union (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 7)  
7. Thailand has issued import licences for TRQ produ cts on a yearly basis.  As a result, each 
product licence is valid until 31 December of each year . 
(b) Response to questions by the United St ates (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 8)  
8. The Thai government has designated the Pub lic Warehouse Organization (PWO) as the state 
trading enterprise authorized to issu e import licensing permits for maize used for feed stuff, garlic and 
palm oil.  The PWO has been established to mana ge all activities regarding agricultural goods as well 
as business services related to agricultural goods.  Th e PWO invites importers to submit applications 
for import licences.  If the applicants meet the qualific ation on standard and specification, they will be 
allowed to import those products. 
2. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/1/Add.1 and UKR/3 
(a) Response to question by the European Union (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 9)  
9. According to the Protocol on Ukraine's accession to the WTO, the tariff rate quota (TRQ) on 
raw cane sugar imported to Ukraine shall be  allocated on an annual basis as follows:  
(a) until 1 January 2019, 260 tonnes of the total amount of the TRQ shall be allocated to 
Paraguay in accordance with paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and Agreements reached in the course of multila teral negotiations for Ukraine's accession 
to the WTO regarding the fuller integrati on of small, vulnerable economies into the 
multilateral trading system;  G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (b) 80 per cent of the balance of the TRQ sha ll be allocated to supplying countries and 
20 per cent, to new supplying countries.  
10. Thus, any WTO Members that are not traditional suppliers of raw cane sugar to Ukraine are 
able to export raw cane sugar to Ukraine as new suppliers.  It should be noted that the above-
mentioned mechanism for TRQ allocation among supplying countries will be valid until 
1 January 2011.  As from 1 January 2011, the TRQ allocation for raw cane sugar will be implemented 
on a "first-come, first-served" basis (i.e. without allocation of the TRQ among countries) . 
B. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/37 
(a) Response to question by the European Union (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 10)  
11. The quantities imported by Colombia under the scheduled TRQs as well as the quantities in 
excess of those TRQs meet the country's WTO commitm ents.  Colombia notes in this respect that the 
imports are carried out under conditions that are equivalent to, or more favourable than, those 
established in the WTO-bound TRQs. 
2. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/53 
(a) Response to questions by the European Union (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, paras 11-12)  
12. The TRQ fill according to the scheduled TRQs  were as follows:  08.08.1010 (1 August – 
30 November), scheduled quantity:  750 tonnes – TRQ fill:  749 tonnes;  08.08.1010 (1 November – 
30 November), scheduled quantity:  250 tonn es – TRQ fill: 160 tonnes;  08.08.1090 (1 May – 
31 July), scheduled quantity:  7,000 tonnes – TRQ fi ll:  6,692 tonnes.  These quantities are merged in 
G/AG/N/NOR/53 as the TRQs are linked to present tari ff numbers in the notification.  The TRQs are 
still, however, administered separately.  The tariff numbers these TRQs used to be identified with are 
replaced by 08.08.1011 which we ha ve used for the notification. 
13. The monetary value generated from the aucti oning system for allocation of TRQs amounted 
to NKr 53 million (approximately 6.5 million Euro ) in 2008.  The income generated from the 
auctioning system for allocation of TRQs is transferred to the Ministry of Finance, and placed at their 
disposal. 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/70 
(a) Response to questions by the United States (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, paras 13-14)  
14. Chinese Taipei confirms that its calculation and triggering of SSG for peanuts is fully in 
accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agri culture.  Regarding the government statistical 
data, customs trade statistics database would only sh ow those import figures which have been audited.  
Having recognized that there is a time lag between  imports and data-auditing, the authority will 
therefore keep updating the relevant import data.  With that, Chinese Taipei confirms that the 
accumulative imports of peanuts on 27 November 2009 amounted to 5,938.7 tonnes which has been 
above the trigger level.  Furthermore, the volume of peanuts imported by the date of 15 December 
2009 was 5,989.7 tonnes. G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
Page 4  
 
  15. As for the variation in peanut consumption le vels in the period 2005-2007, it was mainly due 
to the fluctuation in domestic production. 
D. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Albania   G/AG/N/ALB/4 
(a) Response to questions by the United St ates (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 15)  
16. No written response has been received .   
2. Chile   G/AG/N/CHL/31 
(a) Response to question by the European Union (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 16)  
17. Chile has notified "Agricultural insurance" unde r paragraph 5 of Annex 2 because it is a form 
of support provided by the State for insurance prem iums so that agricultural production can be insured 
against adverse climatic events.  At the same time , it ensures that farmers can recover their working 
capital if their insured crop is damaged by a climat ic event.  It also seeks to encourage farmers to 
improve their risk management, transferring it to the insurance market and thereby limiting 
production losses by recovering part of the working cap ital so that they can continue their agricultural 
work.  
(b) Response to questions by the United States (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, paras. 17-18)  
18. The extraordinary payment of 11 billion peso s to the CNR was in connection with the 
droughts which affected agriculture in 2008.  It is not reflected in the notification for 2008 because 
these resources were announced and budgeted for comp etitive bidding in 2008, but were not actually 
paid during that year.  The extraordinary payment will be included in the notifications for 2009 and 
2010. 
19. In the course of 2008, Chile experienced a num ber of agricultural emergencies, for instance 
the eruption of the Chaitén volcano, drought, frost, and the fruit fly and Lobesia botrana health 
emergencies.  Consequently, the State budgeted add itional sums for certain notified programmes.  In 
some cases, the increase is reflect ed in the notification for 2008, and in other cases it will be included 
in the notification for 2009. 
20. The overall objective of the Investment Develo pment Programme (PDI) is to co-finance the 
implementation of investment projects aimed at modernizing the production processes of small 
producer enterprises to make them more competitiv e on the domestic market and sustainable over 
time.  Resources are provided in the form of incentiv es or grants to INDAP farmers who wish to carry 
out investment projects on their farms.  The resource s are allocated through tendering, i.e. the process 
is competitive.  Interested parties may bid under any one of the different components – PDI 
Livestock, PDI Agriculture and PDI Irrigation – which form part of the regular programme, as well as 
under specific programmes whic h are created each year. 
21. The projects run in 2008 concerned irrigation, agriculture, livestock, allowance for higher 
production input costs, support for the development of investment in the Orígenes indigenous  
programme, investment to enhance the productivity  of farmers (PRODESAL), support for increased 
competitiveness in the maize, rice and wine sect ors, investment projects to promote innovation, 
support for the development of dry farming and ot hers, such as support under the Indebted Farmers 
Relief Programme (PRUM), competitions under the INDAP–PRODEMU Agreement and support for project development.  G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
 Page 5 
 
 
  3. Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/57 
(a) Response to questions by Australia (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, paras 19-20)  
22. The amount notified in Supporting Table DS:3 covers "Payments based on fixed area and 
yields".  This support was granted under a set-asi de programme as a payment per hectare of arable 
land.  Eligibility for this support was conditioned by  the set-aside of a fixed area of arable land. 
23. The total value of agricultural production in the calendar year 2003 amounted to 
91.638 billion CZK. 
(b) Response to questions by the United States  
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 21 
24. Ecological agriculture covers farming methods  beneficial to the environment by setting 
limitations or bans for using substances which burde n, pollute or contaminate the environment.  The 
programme conforms to the gene ral criteria of paragraph 1 of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and it meets the policy-specific criteria under paragraph 12 of A nnex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  The eligibility for payments is dete rmined as part of a clearly-defined government 
environmental programme and the amount of payment is limited to the extra costs or loss of income 
involved in complying with the government programme. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 22 
25. A revised notification will be forwarded to the Committee on Agriculture.3 
4. Ecuador   G/AG/N/ECU/21 
(a) Response to question by Australia (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 23)  
26. Ecuador is preparing a revision of its notification of domestic support commitments for the 
period 2006-2009, which will be circulated to all Members in the next few days. 
5. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/64 
(a) Response to question by Canada (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 24)  
27. The measure was notified in Table DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EEC/58 as being in compliance 
with paragraph 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The measure conforms to the 
criteria (b) through (e) of paragraph 6 of Annex 2 and to the general cr iteria set out in paragraph 1 of 
Annex 2. 
(b) Response to questions by the United St ates (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 25)  
28. The support provides for the income forgone and the cost incurred in undertaking organic 
production.  Organic production methods are beneficial to the environment. 
                                                      
3 Subsequently circulated as G/AG/N/CZE/57/Rev.1 dated 3 May 2010. G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
Page 6  
 
  6. New Zealand   G/AG/N/NZL/59 
(a) Response to question by the European Union (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 26)
 
29. These programmes are part of a national framework for sustainable management of natural 
resources, under statutes including the Resource Management Act and the Soil Conservation and 
Rivers Control Act.  These Acts require Regional Councils to develop plans to address environmental 
issues in their regions including soil conservation.   Eligibility for payment is dependent on the 
fulfilment of specific conditions derived from the regional council plans and the overarching statutes 
and then specified in agreements with the landowne r, such as a binding farm plan.  The amount of any 
payment reflects partial cost sharing on the works re quired in the farm plan and the specific activities 
that are required.  The cost sharing by regional co uncils is generally in the range of 50 per cent – 
70 per cent of the total cost incurred by the landow ner by undertaking these activities.  Examples of 
these specific activities include costs associated with  fencing off land that is retired from agricultural 
production, or the costs associated with tree planting for reducing soil erosion. 
7. Romania   G/AG/N/ROU/22 
(a) Response to question by Canada (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 27)  
30. Romania did not have the obligation to calculate total market price support and the figures 
inscribed in Supporting Table DS:5 represent th e total value of domestic support per product. 
(b) Response to questions by the United States  
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 28 
31. A revised notification will be forwarded to the Committee on Agriculture.4 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 29 
32. See response provided in paragraph 30 above. 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/65 
(a) Responses to questions by Australia  
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 30 
33. The granting of specific benefits to yo ung farmers may facilitate both their initial 
establishment and the structural adjustment of thei r holdings after their initial setting up.  The setting-
up measure was made conditional on the establishment of a business plan as an instrument to ensure 
over time the development of the activities of the new agricultural holding.  In each individual case, the business plan clearly determines the structur al disadvantage that the new agricultural holding 
faces.  It is to be noted that under the current Rural Development programming period the "Young 
farmers" measures under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) apply in all member States 
including the Czech Republic.  The programme prev iously applicable in the Czech Republic was 
                                                     
 
4 Subsequently circulated as G/AG/N/ROU/22/Rev.1 dated 3 May 2010.  G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
 Page 7 
 
 
  notified under non-product-specific support and has been replaced by the European Union's "Young 
farmers" scheme. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 31 
34. The support targets investments aimed at im proving efficiency in the processing and 
marketing sector, promoting the processing of agri cultural and forestry production for renewable 
energy, introducing new technologies and inn ovation, opening new market opportunities for 
agricultural and forestry products, putting emphasi s on quality, improving environmental protection, 
occupational safety, hygiene and animal welfare.  As a general rule the benefit accrues to micro, 
small- and medium-sized enterprises which are better placed to add value to local products. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 32 
35. The aim of the measure providing support for fa rmers participating in Community or national 
food quality schemes is to provide consumers with assurances on the quality of the product or the 
production process used as a result of their participa tion in such schemes, to achieve added value for 
agricultural primary products and enhance market oppor tunities.  Since participation in such schemes 
may give rise to additional costs and obligations which are not fully rewarded by the marketplace, 
farmers should be encouraged to participate in such schemes.  The measure respects criteria (b) 
through (e) in paragraph 6 of Annex 2 in addition to the general cr iteria set out in paragraph 1 thereof. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 33 
36. Support is granted to farmers to help address specific disadvantages in the areas concerned 
resulting from the implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC  of 2 April 1979 on the 
conservation of wild birds and Council Directiv e 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of 
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in or der to contribute to the effective management of 
Natura 2000 sites, while support should also be made available to farmers to help address 
disadvantages in river basin areas resulting from the implementation of Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of the water policy. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 34 
37. Agri-environmental payments continue to play a prominent role in supporting the sustainable 
development of rural areas and in responding to society's increasing demand for environmental 
services.  They continue to encourage farmers and other land managers to serve society as a whole by 
introducing or continuing to apply agricultural produ ction methods compatible with the protection and 
improvement of the environment, the landscape and its  features, natural resources, the soil and genetic 
diversity.  In this context the conservation of gene tic resources in agriculture should be given specific 
attention.  In accordance with the "polluter-pays" principle these payments should cover only those 
commitments going beyond the relevant mandatory standards.  The payments cover costs incurred 
and income forgone. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 35 
38. Support for non-productive investments is gran ted for non-remunerative investments where 
they are necessary to achieve th e commitments undertaken under agri-environmental schemes or other 
agri-environmental objectives, or where they enha nce on-farm the public amenity value of Natura 
2000 areas and other areas of high natural value, w ithout being eligible under these two programmes 
mentioned. G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
Page 8  
 
  (b) Responses to questions by Brazil
  
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 36 
39. Brazil will have noticed that the EU in the cour se of the last twelve months has notified the 
annual domestic support for the marketing years 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.  All three notifications, for the first time, contained support r esulting from the reforms that were carried through 
during the period 2003-2006.  The publication of these annual notifications was accompanied by 
relevant Table DS:2 notifications for new and modi fied Green and Blue Box measures as contained in 
the Table DS:1 notifications.  To date, all refo rms up to and including the sugar reform of 2006 and 
the support schemes for the new Rural Development pe riod 2007-2013 have been notified.  The EU is 
currently collecting the data for the Table DS:1 no tification for 2007/2008.  The relevant Table DS:2 
notifications fully documenting the ongoing reform process will also  be submitted in due course.  
The EU should like to point out that the last annua l domestic support notification by Brazil dates from 
2003/2004. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 37 
40. The AMS support for sugar is notified resu lting from the price gap between the EU 
intervention price for sugar and the external reference price multiplied by total sugar production.  In 
the 2006 sugar reform it was decided to first cut the intervention price and to ultimately phase-out 
public intervention altogether.  The AMS fo r price support will equally be reduced. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 38 
41. Eligible quantities refer to suga r production under quota.  Out- of-quota sugar is not eligible 
for intervention. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 39 
42. The amount notified was not a budget ceiling, but the budgetary need for direct payments for 
the budget year 2007.  There is no annual ceiling fo r the Single Payment Scheme (SPS);  there are 
member State envelopes for direct payments.  Th ese envelopes are represented in Annex VIII and 
VIII(a) to Council Re gulation 1782/2003. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 40 
43. Reforms in the wine, fruit and vegetables, and dairy sectors have been carried through in the 
period 2007-2008.  These reforms will be reflected in future notifications. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 41 
44. Producers entitled to decoupled payments can also  receive coupled support.  The products for 
which coupled support existed in 2006/07 are shown in  Supporting Tables DS:3 (Blue Box) and DS:4 
(Amber Box) of notification G/AG/N/EEC/64. 
2. Lithuania   G/AG/N/LTU/5 
(a) Response to questions by the United St ates (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 42)
 
45. Eligibility for "Investment support for specialized  dairy farms, which meet environmental, 
quality and other criteria" was based on a cl early-defined government programme for the 
reprivatization of agricultural land.  The pr ogramme allowed for the financial and physical  G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
 Page 9 
 
 
  restructuring of producers' operations in response to clearly-demonstrated structural disadvantages in 
transition economies.  Before transition, dair y production was intensive.  The amount of the 
investment support allowed for the conversion from  intensive to less-intensive, environmentally-
friendly production methods responsive to market demand for quality products, and compensated for 
25 per cent of the cost of the investments needed. 
46. The "organic farming" support allows farmer s to convert to environmentally-friendly 
ecological farming practices, more particularly tho se that prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers and 
pesticides.  A fixed, digressive amount per hectare was paid that compensated for less than the full 
costs incurred and income foregone.  The progra mme respected the criteri a of paragraph 1 and 
paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of th e Agreement on Agriculture. 
47. Both programmes have currently been replaced by investment schemes and environmental 
programmes of the European Union.  The schemes applicable for the period 2007-2013 were notified 
in notification G/AG/N/EEC/65. 
3. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/55 
(a) Responses to questions by Australia   
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 43 
48. Participation in the programme is voluntary. 
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 44 
49. The economic measures under the environmenta l programmes shall cover additional costs 
linked to the participation in the programme thr ough the maintenance of the agricultural landscape 
and other environmental requirements, and represen t payments for the prod uction of environmental 
goods.  See also replies to questions posed by the EU in paragraphs 54 to 56 regarding consequences 
of non-compliance.   
See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 45-46 
50. Measures to enhance the environmental goods need  to be effective, efficient and have low 
transaction costs.  Payments per hectare and payments per animal are the practical ways of reaching 
the goals effectively.  The payments also have th e advantage of being easy to control and measure. 
51. The acreage and cultural landscape scheme under the National Environmental Programme are 
differentiated.  The basis is the cultural landscape payment for all agricultural land with a flat rate 
throughout the country.  This payment covers the cost of compliance in some regions, but is not 
sufficient in most areas.  Ther efore an acreage payment is added.  This additional payment is 
differentiated throughout the country to reflect th e different compliance costs due to topographical, 
geographical and climatic variati ons.  The payment is also differentiated to cover the costs of 
maintaining the landscape values and cultura l values related to small scale fields. 
52. Grazing is an important contributor to mainta ining landscape and biodiversity associated with 
this landscape.  25 per cent of the Norwegian Red Li st for threatened biodiver sity are threatened by 
abandonment of agricultural fields and reduced grazing.   However, it is very difficult to organize and 
control a payment scheme based on flora and fauna di versity.  The payments are therefore organized 
per animal who is the "worker" in this case.  Farmers can receive payments for all grazing domesticated animals. G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
Page 10  
 
  See G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 47 
53. The Regional Environmental Programme also en tails direct payments to producers.  The 
schemes under the Regional Environmental Programme ha ve a large variation.  The main block of 
payments are organized as payments per hectare or per animal, but payments per tree (pollard), per 
summer dairy farm, per heritage site , per meter (vegetation zones, stone walls), per hour work, etc. is 
also used. 
(b) Responses to questions by the European  Union (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 48)
 
54. If the farmers fail to carry out the necessary me asures in order to produce the environmental 
goods for which they are paid, the payments in  question will be reduced or withdrawn.  Inter alia , 
payments for grazing animals (i.e. production of agricultural landscape and biodiversity) will be 
withdrawn if the farmers do not keep grazing animal s, do not keep the animals on the pasture for the 
required period, etc. 
55. As pointed out in the Norwegian notification (G/AG/N/NOR/55), there are criteria to be met 
under the specific payments, and there are the underlying requirements in the Environmental Plan Regulation.  The quality criteria varies between diffe rent measures, and the amount of payments is 
higher for higher quality le vels because of rising cost of compliance.  The regional programme 
measures have stricter quality requirements for th e farmer's performance than the national broad-
based measures. 
56. The economic measures under the environmental programmes shall cover the additional costs 
linked to participation in the programme.  In cases where the farmers neglect their participation in the 
programme through the maintenance of the agricultural landscape and other environmental 
requirements, they may lose all the payments under the programme. 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA 
(a) Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:  Domestic support, export subsidies, tariff quota fill and 
special safeguard (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 49)  
57. As is well known by the international comm unity, since 1999 the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela has been pushing forward a revolutionary process of agrarian reform, with long-term goals, 
in application of the constitutional principle of sovereignty and food security.  This entails major 
changes in the legal framework and the working methods and monitoring of agricultural policy, 
leading to delays in compliance with notification commitments. 
58. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is awar e of WTO commitments and considers that 
those commitments should be honoured by all WT O Members, on the basi s of respect for the 
principle of the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples. 
(b) China:  Domestic support (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 50)  
59. China has submitted the domestic support no tification for fiscal years 2002-2004 on 
9 March 2010.  The domestic support notifications fo r the following years are now under preparation, 
and will be notified once they are ready.5 
                                                      
5 Subsequently circulated as G/AG/N/CHN/17 dated 24 March 2010.  G/AG/W/75/Rev.4 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subs idies (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 51)  
60. The issue is given a high priority by the Egyptian Delegation.  Although there are many 
difficulties that are being faced in the course of data  collection, the Ministry of Trade has started a 
process of coordination with other Egyptian authorities concer ned and it is expected that this process 
would lead, in the near future, to enabling Egypt to  submit its notifications.  Egypt will be keen to 
inform the Committee of any other developments in this regard.  
(d) India:  Tariff quota administration, tariff quota f ill, domestic support a nd export subsidies (see 
G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 52-53)  
61. India would like to inform that the process of  validation and compilation of the information 
required for the notifications is at an advanced stage.   Efforts are being made to file the notification at 
the earliest possible. 
(e) Korea:  Domestic support and export su bsidies (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 54)  
62. Last year, Korea notified Table MA:2 for the year s 2005 to 2007.  With regard to the issue of 
outstanding domestic support and e xport subsidy notifications (Tables DS:1 and ES:1) as raised by 
Australia, Korea will make its best efforts to complete the notifications as soon as possible and 
circulate them among Members. 
(f) Turkey:  Domestic support and export s ubsidies (see G/AG/W/74/Rev.1, para. 55)  
63. The same question had been raised in the previous Committee on Agriculture meeting and 
Turkey had given a statement as regards the cause for delay.  Turkey is aware of the notification 
obligation and the capital is working on complyin g with the notification obligations as soon as 
possible. 
 
__________