WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/87 
22 September 2011 
 (11-4604) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 29 September 2011
1 
 
 
 The present document compiles questions receive d by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
15 September 2011 as specified in WTO/AIR/3792.  
_______________ 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ............... 3  
A.  QUESTIONS BY CANADA /EU/U NITED STATES :  BRAZIL 'S PEP— PRÊMIO PARA 
ESCOAMENTO DE PRODUTO PROGRAMME :  EXPORT SUBSIDIES FOR RICE AND WHEAT  ........... 3 
B.  QUESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  .................................................... 4  
1.  Ice cream promotion initiative ................................................................................................ . 4 
2.  Milk Class 4(m) and the Milk Class 4 A2 proposal ............................................................... 4  
C.  QUESTION BY NEW ZEALAND :  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPULSORY LEVY ON MILK 
PRODUCTION  .............................................................................................................................. . 4 
D.  QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES :  THAILAND 'S NEW RICE POLICY  ...................................... 4  
E.  QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  STATE -OF-PLAY OF COSTA RICA'S REFORM 
POLICIES TO ADDRESS BREACH IN AMS  COMMITMENTS  .......................................................... 5  
F.  QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  INDIA 'S MILK TARIFF QUOTA  ........................................... 5  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 5  
A.  NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) ................................................................................................... 5  
1.  Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/53 and 56 .......................................................................................... 5  
2.  Chinese Taipei   G/ AG/N/TPKM/87 ........................................................................................ 6  
B.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO 
MA:5) ........................................................................................................................... ................ 6  
1.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/165 and 166 ........................................................................................... 6  
2.  Chinese Taipei   G/ AG/N/TPKM/88 ........................................................................................ 6  
                                                      
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/87 
Page 2  
 
  C.  N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1) ........................................................................................................................ ...... 7 
1.  Costa Rica   G/AG/N/ CRI/30/Rev.1 and 34 ............................................................................ 7  
2.  India   G/AG/N/IND/7 .......................................................................................................... ..... 7 
3.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/167 and Corr.1.................................................................................... 14  
4.  Tonga   G/AG/N/TON/2.......................................................................................................... 16 
5.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/9 ...................................................................................................... 1 7 
6.  United States   G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 and USA/80 ............................................................ 17  
7.  Uruguay   G/AG/N/URY/42 ................................................................................................... 19  
D.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ......................................................................................................... 20  
1.  Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/83 ................................................................................................... 2 0 
2.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/168 ....................................................................................................... 20 
E.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES 
ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) ................................................................................................................... 21  
1.  India   G/AG/N/IND/8 .......................................................................................................... ... 21 
F.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 21 
1.  Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/13 ........................................... 21  
2.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 ........................................................................................... 21  
III. DEFERRED REPLIES .......................................................................................................... 21  
1.  Questions by the United States: Thailand' s requirements to export rice stocks ............... 21  
2.  Question by Canada on India's notification G/AG/N/IND/2 .............................................. 22  
  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. QUESTIONS BY CANADA /EU/U NITED STATES :  BRAZIL 'S PEP— PRÊMIO PARA ESCOAMENTO 
DE PRODUTO PROGRAMME :  EXPORT SUBSIDIES FOR RICE AND WHEAT  
1. Canada is concerned that according to r ecent media reports, the Brazilian government 
recently granted an export subsidy of about US$53  per tonne covering 117, 711 tonnes of rice under 
the Premium for Marketing Products Programme ( Prêmio para Escoamento de Produto  (PEP)).  
According to these reports, total reported subsidi es under the programme ha ve supported 1,476,626 
tonnes of Brazilian rice costing about US$120.2 million this calendar year.  Other reports state that 
the PEP is also used for Brazilian wheat exports  (GAIN Report #BR0705).  As neither wheat 
(HS10.01) nor rice (HS10.06.10, HS10.06.20, HS10.06.30, and HS10.06.40) are part of Brazil's 
Uruguay Round Schedule of Commitments for export s ubsidies, could Brazil please explain the PEP 
programme and how it complies with Brazil's co mmitments under the Agreement on Agriculture? 
2. The European Union noted in press reports , as well as those from the "Ministerio do 
Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão", that Brazil recently granted export subsidies for rice.  According 
to these reports the subsidies were granted in orde r to export a production surplus of rice following a 
bumper harvest in 2010/11.  As  a consequence, Brazil would export up to 1.5 million tonnes. 
- Can Brazil confirm these reports? 
- If yes, has the surplus initially been the object of government intervention on the 
internal market? 
- And, if so, could Brazil inform which WTO commitment covers the subsidised 
exports? 
3. The United States wishes to better understa nd the scope and impact of Brazil's PEP 
Programme.  The United States understands the PEP has been used in recent months extensively for 
rice.  Generally, this programme, which has been  listed as a trade-distorting support in Brazil's 
domestic support notifications (Table DS:1) seems to  provide benefits for the movement of certain 
limited Brazilian agricultural products to certain d estinations.  More specifically, commercial buyers 
receive benefits if Brazilian commodities are sold eith er in certain geographic regions in Brazil or if 
the commodities are exported to any destination outside of Brazil. 
- The United States requests that Brazil provide  an explanation of the objectives of the 
PEP Programme. 
- Does the Government of Brazil use criteri a to decide which commodities will be 
eligible for the programme each year;  if so, what are those criteria? 
- Does the implementation of the programme (and hence the benefits) vary by 
commodity?  
- Since Brazil has not notified domestic support since 2005/06, we request Brazil 
provide outlays by commodity for the programme for recent years. 
- With respect to rice, we request Brazil provide a breakdown of activity by tonnage 
under the PEP between the domestic movement  under the programme compared to 
that moving into export channels. G/AG/W/87 
Page 4  
 
  B. Q
UESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  
1. Ice cream promotion initiative 
4. In response to previous questions from Ne w Zealand in the Committee on Agriculture, 
Canada has confirmed that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, calculates 
the pooling returns and sharing of promotion cost s related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative on 
behalf of the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC).  This Crown Corporation plays an active role in 
administering the DFC promotion initiative.  Given the function of this Crown corporation in 
supporting this initiative, would Ca nada provide the Committee with the total value (Can$) of the 
pooling returns and a break-down of the promo tion costs since the initiative was launched? 
2. Milk Class 4(m) and the Milk Class 4 A2 proposal  
5. New Zealand wishes to continue to register con cern about Canada's special milk class system.  
New Zealand questions the WTO consistency of Cana da's approach of offering reduced prices under 
Milk Class 4(m) to stimulate demand from Canadian dairy processors to use domestic milk protein concentrates (MPCs) rather than imported MPCs.  New Zealand understands th at Canada now intends 
to introduce another milk class:  Milk Class 4 A2.  The Canadian Milk Supply Committee (CMSC) is 
currently working on the Milk Class 4 A2 proposal a nd we understand it is likely to be endorsed at the 
next CMSC meeting.  New Zealand requests that Canada provide the Committee with background 
material on: 
- The rationale for another milk class;  
- Key provisions of the Milk Class 4 A2 proposal; 
- Details as to how the milk class complies with Canada's WTO commitments;  and 
- Information to confirm that both Milk Class 4(m) & Milk Class 4 A2 has not/will not 
have a negative impact on overall imports of MPCs? 
C. Q
UESTION BY NEW ZEALAND :  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPULSORY LEVY ON MILK PRODUCTION  
6. On 31 August, the Swiss Government announced that it had taken a decision to implement a 
compulsory levy of Sw F 0.01/kg of marketed m ilk to support the export of milk fat until 30 April 
2013.  The press release announcing this decision states that revenues of around Sw F 34 million are expected every year, to support "relief on the bu tter market".  Would Switzerland please provide more 
detail of how this compulsory levy on milk producti on is to be administered and confirm that it is 
within Switzerland's export subsidy commitments? 
D. Q
UESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES :  THAILAND 'S NEW RICE POLICY  
7. The United States understands that the new Th ai Government has im plemented a domestic 
rice policy which involves a rather large in crease in the support price for rice production. 
- Could Thailand provide the Committee with a short overview of the major changes in 
their new rice policy? 
- When are the changed support provisions to go into effect?  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 5 
 
 
  E. QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  STATE -OF-PLAY OF COSTA RICA'S REFORM POLICIES TO 
ADDRESS BREACH IN AMS  COMMITMENTS  
8. According to Costa Rica's formal notifications , beginning in 2007, Costa Rica's rice support 
policies have breached its WTO commitments for trade-distorting support as measured by the Total 
Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS).  Cost a Rica has assured Members at several meetings 
since then that it would make changes to its rice support policy that would result in Costa Rica 
honouring its WTO commitments.  To date, however , it appears that little or no concrete action has 
been implemented and the breach of Costa Rica's WTO commitment continues unabated, and in fact, 
according to Costa Rica's notificati ons, has worsened.  We note that all other Members that have 
broken total AMS commitments have taken immediate steps the following year to bring their trade-
distorting support down within commitment levels. 
9. The United States requests that Costa Rica provide details on any changes that have been 
implemented to its rice support policies, including the specific effects on the support price and production.  If such actions have not been taken or  have been insufficient, we request Costa Rica to 
explain why it has not completed steps that sufficiently reduce the trade-distorting support that has 
grown each year since it first broke its commitment in 2007. 
F. Q
UESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  INDIA 'S MILK TARIFF QUOTA  
10. The United States understands that India is increasing a tariff rate quota (TRQ) on milk 
powder.  The United States requests that India provides details on the TRQ.  Does it plan to submit a Table MA:1 notification to the Committee on Agriculture? 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. N
OTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/53 and 56 
11. Questions by the European Union: 
- Could Norway please specify which products (at 8-digit tariff level) were imported 
within the Norwegian WTO TRQs for beef and sheep meat during 2008 and 2009?  Which quantities and values of each of the products at the 8-digit tariff level were 
imported within the TRQs from each exporting country? 
- What level of protection in ad valorem te rms would the Norwegian auctioning prices 
for beef and sheep meat correspond to for the products (at 8-digit level) eligible to be 
imported within the TRQs during 2008 and 2009?   How does this relate to the applied 
out-of-quota duty rates in ad valorem terms? 
- According to EU information, the auction pr ice for beef TRQs (different headings at 
8-digit level) amounted to NKr 50.74/kg in 2007.  This amount is 1.5-5.5 times higher 
than the in-quota duty rate for these different headings.  In this context, we invite 
Norway to comment on compliance with GA TT Article II:2(c) stating that fees or 
other charges should be commensurate with the cost of services rendered. G/AG/W/87 
Page 6  
 
  2. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/87 
12. Question by the European Union:  during the 62nd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Chinese Taipei confirmed that there had been no imports of mango, bana na and shaddock under 
TRQs in 2010.  The EU would like to ask a follow-up question concerning imports of shaddock. 
13. According to Table MA:2 notifications covering 2008 and 2009, the bound TRQ for 
shaddock of 4,300 tonnes with an in-quota rate of 25 per cent was not used (G/AG/N/TPKM/67/Rev.1 
for 2008;  G/AG/N/TPKM/75 for 2009).  At the same time, according to Table MA:3 and Table MA:5 
notifications covering 2008 and 2009 (G/ AG/N/TPKM/57 and G/AG/N/TPKM/65 for 2008;  
G/AG/N/TPKM/66 and G/AG/N/TPKM/74 for 2009) Chinese Taipei applied volume-based SSG on 
shaddock with a trigger of 0 tonnes in 2008 and 0.1 tonnes in 2009.  Could Chinese Taipei explain the 
reasons for the application of a volume-based SSG  on shaddock in 2008 and 2009 with very low 
trigger levels despite unutilized bound TRQs? 
B. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA :5) 
1. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/165 and 166 
14. Questions by the United States:  Japan's notifications on special safeguard actions (volume-
based) indicate that sufficient out-of-quota imports  for yogurt (G/AG/N/JPN/165) and, buttermilk and 
other dairy products (G/AG/N/JPN/166) occurred and that additional duties could be applied.  The 
United States believes that imports under TRQs could be relevant as to whether a safeguard should be 
triggered: 
- The United States requests that Japan suppl y quantities imported to date under the 
"Other Dairy Products for General Use" TRQ. 
- If that TRQ is not yet filled, please provide background to explain why traders are not 
filling the lower cost TRQ before meeting the demand with higher cost out-of-quota imports.  
- If the TRQ is not yet filled, are there special  conditions which lead traders not to meet 
the lower-cost demand first? 
- If the TRQ is not yet filled, has Japan considered taking steps to encourage greater 
use of TRQs? 
2. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/88 
15. Question by New Zealand: Could Chinese Taipei  please explain why it has used 2007 to 2009 
data to calculate the trigger level for its SSG on fresh milk when data for 2010 are available from the 
Directorate General of Customs?  Using 2008 to 2010 da ta as stipulated in Article 5 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture (the trigger should be calculated based on imports from the three preceding years for 
which data are available) produces a trigger level of  3,327.7 tonnes versus Chin ese Taipei's calculated 
861.0 tonnes.  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 7 
 
 
  C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Costa Rica   G/AG/N/CRI/30/Rev.1 and 34 
(a) Questions by Australia 
16. A substantial amount of market  price support for rice producers remains in the revised 
notification, the level of which breaches Costa Rica's AMS commitments.  Can Costa Rica provide an update on efforts to bring domestic support expend iture in line with AM S commitments?  The 
notification states that a number of programmes were reclassified.  Can Costa Rica please provide an 
explanation of each change?  
(b) Question by Canada 
17. Canada appreciates the updates that Costa Rica  has provided at past meetings of the 
Committee regarding this issue.  However, we re iterate the grave concerns expressed about Costa 
Rica's continuing violations of Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Not only are the amounts 
of the excess support large, they are also increasing in size.  What concrete steps is Costa Rica taking 
to rapidly bring itself into complian ce with the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(c) Questions by Japan 
18. Japan appreciates the prompt notificati on by Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34) and its 
transparency, but is concerned that the Current To tal AMS continues to exceed its commitment level.  
What is the administered price of rice in 2011 in terms of market price support?  Can we understand 
that the Current Total AMS in 2011 will go below th e commitment level as a result of various efforts 
explained in the previous meetings? 
2. India   G/AG/N/IND/7 
(a) Questions by Australia 
19. While there was a significant increase in the overa ll level of input subsidies to low-income or 
resource-poor producers over the period 1998-2004, th ere was a marked decrease in the 2002-2003 
marketing year.  Was there a specific reason for this decrease?  Furthermore, can India explain why in 
the following period the spending rose sharply to pre- 2002-2003 levels?   
20. Regarding "other input subsidies", can I ndia please explain whether this is a single 
programme which provides support for fertilisers, irrigation, electricity, seeds?  Or does this entry 
include a collection of separate progr ammes?  If "other input subsidies" is a collection of individual 
programmes, can India please provide information on the purpose and design of each programme and the spending levels over recent years?  In additi on, it would be helpful if separate programmes are 
reported individually in th e notification to assist review by WTO Members.  
(b) Questions by Canada 
(i) AGST material 
21. India's underlying AGST document G/AG/AGST/IND uses Rs (Indian rupees) as its 
currency.  Notification G/AG/N/IND/7 uses US$ (US dollars).  This practice deviates from the requirement in Article 1(h)(ii) of the Agreemen t on Agriculture to calculate the level of support 
actually provided during any year "with the constitu ent data and methodology used in the tables of 
supporting material incorporated by reference in Part  IV" of India's Schedule, i.e., G/AG/AGST/IND.  G/AG/W/87 
Page 8  
 
  We would ask India to re-submit its notification us ing Indian rupees as per its constituent data and 
methodology. 
(ii) Supporting Table DS:1 
22. "Buffer stock operations (food grain)" is the ma jor item reported in the Green Box.  It has 
increased rapidly, by more than 150 per cent over th e six-year period reported.  The size and growth 
of this item motivates a need for more information. 
- Where can such information be found? 
- What products make up the aggregate "food grain"?  Does this aggregate include 
other crops than grain, such as oilseeds? 
- Following paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, what are the 
predetermined targets related solely to food security? 
- Have any food purchases by the government b een made at other than current market 
prices and, if so, how was the price determined? 
- Have any stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes been acquired at 
administered prices?  If so, which foodstuffs, and what was the acquisition price and 
what was the external reference price?  How is any difference between these prices 
accounted for in the product's AMS? 
23. The "Crop insurance scheme" has increased rapidly. 
- What does the monetary value reported here represent, e.g., is it the indemnities paid 
to producers, the government subsidy of premiums, a budgetary item for the operation 
of the scheme, or some other measurement? 
- How does India ensure that the scheme meets each and every one of the criteria of 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  This includes (but is not limited to) ensuring that eligibility for pa yment is determined by a production loss 
that exceeds 30 per cent as per paragraph 8. 
(iii) Supporting Table DS:2 
24. Could India explain on what basis "Repayment of loan dues for coffee plan grants to 
Government of India" would qualify as an investme nt subsidy generally av ailable to agriculture? 
25. "Other input subsidies" constitutes almost all of the support repor ted in Supporting Table 
DS:2.  It is said to include support for fertilisers, irri gation, electricity, seeds, etc.  Contrary to what is 
said in Table DS:1, there are no details of these me asures.  This absence of detail impedes the ability 
of the Committee to review progress in the implementation of commitments, as required by 
Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  We  ask India to provide a breakdown of the support 
according to the elements fertilizers, irrigation, elect ricity and seeds, and indicate what is included in 
the residual "etc.".  This would include the "name and description of measure" as required by the 
heading in column 2.  It would also include an explanation of how each measure qualifies as "generally available" to the target group mentione d in Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
For each measure, how is support measured?  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 9 
 
 
  26. The note to Supporting Table DS:2 indicates a la rge percentage of farm holdings being low-
income, resource-poor farmers: 
- What specific questions in the agricultural ce nsus are the basis for this finding?  What 
criteria qualify a farmer as low-income? 
- What criteria qualify a farmer as resource-poor? 
- What percentage of farmers are low-income and not resource-poor? 
- What percentage of farmers are resource-poor and not low-income? 
- How often is an agricultural census undertaken? 
- The information in Supporting Table DS:2 implies that all marginal (less than 2 
hectares) and small (2-4 hectares) carda mom farmers are low-income, resource-poor 
farmers.  Is it generally the case that farm ers in India with up to 4 hectares are 
considered resource-poor? 
- Can it be inferred from the note that Suppor ting Table DS:2 shows 98.97 per cent of 
all the support provided under the measures reported in section (b)?  If so, where is 
the remaining 1.03 per cent reported?  For example, using India's US dollar data in 
this version of the notification, this c ould amount to some $90 million in 2003-2004. 
(iv) Supporting Table DS:4 (all years) 
27. India shows a negative value of product-specific AMS for several products.  This contradicts 
the definition of AMS in Article 1(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture, under which AMS is support 
in favour of the producers, etc.  Negative support is  not support in favour of producers.  A negative 
result when calculating a product's AMS in Supportin g Table DS:7 should thus properly be set to zero 
and entered as a zero or nil in Supporting Table DS:4.  We would thus ask India for a revised 
notification.  In any case, a de minimis  claim under Article 6.4 requires a comparison between AMS 
and a percentage of value of production.  No va lue of production is shown in Supporting Table DS:4, 
which undermines the de minimis  claims for India's product-specific AMSs. 
(v) Supporting Table DS:5 
28. As mentioned more generally for the whole notif ication, data needs to be expressed in rupees 
in order for the notification to conform with the constituent data and methodol ogy requirement.  This 
becomes particularly salient in Supporting Table DS:5 , given that the external reference price and the 
calculations for 1986-89 in G/AG/AGST/IND are in rupees per tonne (Rs/T). 
- What is the nature of the applied administ ered price for products other than rice?  
How is it determined and applied? 
- What explains the variation across year s in the products for which an applied 
administered price is reported?  For exam ple, mustard seed is reported in 2000-2001, 
2001-2002, and 2002-2003 but not in other years. 
- The note indicates that India has compared the calculated market price support against 
the de minimis  level.  For each product and year, what is the de minimis  level, 
calculated as 10 per cent of the product's value of production? G/AG/W/87 
Page 10  
 
  (vi) Supporting Table DS:9 
29. If only a portion of subsidies for fertilizers, irriga tion and electricity is claimed as meeting the 
criteria of Article 6.2 and reported in Supporting Ta ble DS:2, why is the remainder not reported in 
Supporting Table DS:9? 
(c) Questions by the European Union 
30. With reference to the "agricultural input subsid ies to low-income or resource-poor producers" 
notified in Supporting Table DS:2: 
- Could India explain what criteria are used to define the low-income or resource-poor 
farmers eligible for such payments? 
- India notifies spending under "public stockholding for food security purposes".  What 
are the reasons behind the important increase of  this spending in the period notified? 
- What products are eligible for the buffer stock operations? 
31. Could India provide more detailed information on the elements of the crop insurance scheme 
which explain the reasons for notifica tion under paragraph 8 of Annex 2?  
32. The footnote at the bottom of Supporting Table DS :5 explains that external reference prices 
are established at the average exchange rate preval ent in the base period (1986-89).  Such choice of 
the exchange rate certainly has an effect on the cal culated support.  The EU invites India to comment. 
(d) Questions by Japan 
33. Would India kindly provide the following information regarding "Buffer stock operations": 
- The products stocked under the Buffer st ock operations from 1998-1999 to 2003-
2004. 
- The actual volume of each product stoc ked under the Buffer stock operations from 
1998-1999 to 2003-2004. 
- The predetermined target volume of each pr oduct under the Buff er stock operations 
from 1998-1999 and the formula to calculate such target amount, if any. 
- The purchase prices of each product procured  under the Buffer stock operations.  If 
the purchases by the government were made at the Market Support Price (MSP) and not the current market price, please explain how this measure can be classified as "Public stockholding for food security purpo ses" provided in Annex 2, paragraph 3. 
34. Regarding the "Development Programmes", woul d India kindly explain in detail the criteria 
to specify "low-income or resource-poor producers"  as provided for in Article 6.2?  Would India 
kindly explain the reason why various subsidy measur es (for fertilizers, irrigation, electricity and 
seed) are, in this notification, notified as "Devel opment Programmes"?  Were there any legislative 
changes in these subsidy measures si nce the previous notification?  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 11 
 
 
  35. What number did India use as "Eligible pr oduction" when calculating the market price 
support?  The actual amount of purchased crops?  Or, the total amount of domestic production?  If the 
actual amount of purchased crops was used and not the total amount of domestic production, please 
explain the reason why. 
36. What crops were subject to Market Support Price (MSP) from 1998-1999 to 2003-2004?  Is 
there any other crop subject to MSP other than the crops whose market price support is listed in this 
notification?  If other crops were subject to  MSP from 1998-1999 to 2003-2004, please explain the 
reason why India did not notify the market price support of such crops? 
(e) Questions by the United States 
37. The United States welcomes the opportunity to reflect on India's reporting of its domestic 
support to agriculture provided up to the 2004 peri od.  This is India's third domestic support 
notification to the WTO following the first in 1998 and the second in 2002.  As this document covers 
six years (1998-1999 to 2003-2004) the United States has a large number of questions. 
(i) Table DS:2 Notifications 
38. In each of the six periods covered by this no tification, India provides Supporting Table DS:1 
for its exempt (Green Box) measures. Unfortunately , India has not provided any separate notifications 
to explain how the (green) measures meet the Annex 2 criteria.  Table DS:2 notifications are generally 
due prior to the Table DS:1 notification listing the existence of an exempted measure.  When will 
India provide Table DS:2 notifications describing their exempted programmes? 
(ii) Buffer stock operations 
39. The operation of India's buffer stock scheme notified in Supporting Tables DS:1 would be 
very helpful to understand.  The United States understands that under India's Public Distribution 
System, a government agency procures commodities, primarily wheat and rice, at the Minimum 
Support Price and resells these commodities to low-income consumers at lower prices to promote 
food security.  Under Annex 2, paragraph 3, public stockholding programmes for food security 
purposes are allowed to be notified as Green Bo x, but require that:  "Food purchases by the 
government shall be made at current market prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less than the current domestic market price for the product and quality in question." 
- The United States requests that India provide details as to why budgetary outlays have 
increased so sharply. 
- Are these outlays associated only with the Public Distribution System or do other 
programmes use the public food stocks?  
- We request that India explain the operation of its Public Distribution System to 
confirm that the programme is operated cons istent with Annex 2, paragraph 3.  For 
example, please provide the predetermined targets for the volume and accumulation of public foodstocks.   
40. A further aspect of Annex 2, paragraph 3 on pub lic stockholding relates to footnote 5, which 
requires that the difference between the acquisiti on price and the external reference price be 
accounted for in the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS).  We request that India please explain how 
the public stockholding system is in conformity with the requirement of footnote 5, including the annual values that would be associated with th e specified price difference for each purchased 
commodity.  G/AG/W/87 
Page 12  
 
  (iii) Crop Insurance Scheme 
41. Crop insurance can be exempted as per Annex 2, paragraph 8, but no details have been 
provided by India in terms of how its specific cr op insurance programmes operate.  We request India 
explain how the crop insurance scheme in Supporti ng Tables DS:1 operates in general terms.  
Specifically, how does India implement this programme  consistent with the criteria of Annex 2?  
(iv) Environmental programmes 
42. India lists a "control of shifting cultivation"  programme under the environmental exemption 
and cites the Coffee Board as part of the data source. 
- Please explain how the "control of shifti ng cultivation" programme operates in 
general.  
- Is the programme only available to coffee farmers?  
- How is this programme implemented cons istent with the criteria of Annex 2? 
(v) Exchange rates 
43. The United States notes that India's fixed external  reference prices, converted to U.S. dollars 
at the rate of Rs 13.409 per US$, are significantl y overstated relative to any reasonable measure of 
world prices from the 1986-88 period, which has the effect of distorting the comparison between the 
fixed external reference prices and applied administer ed prices.  This notification covers six separate 
periods of time that reach back between seven to tw elve years ago.  No notification covers the latest 
six to seven years and leaves open how these more recent periods could be reported.  The United 
States notes that the use of dollar-based accounting is of particular concern.  India has significantly 
increased rupee-based minimum support prices for ma ny commodities in recent years.  The rupee-
based increase appears not to be fully captured or is  incorrectly reflected due to presentation of this 
domestic support in dollar-denominated  applied administered prices. 
- We request that India provide a detailed expl anation as to why the currency used in its 
base period tables (G/AG/AGST/IND) is not used in notifying market price support in 
Supporting Tables DS:5.   
- What is the rationale, according to provis ions in the Agreement on Agriculture, for 
converting rupee-based 1986-88 fixed external reference prices into U.S. dollars, and 
notifying its domestic support using applied administered prices converted to U.S. dollars?   
- As a practical matter, are decisions to  support India's agricultural production 
consistently reflected by the use of conver ting the applicable administered rupee price 
into U.S. dollar-based equivalents?  
- We request that India provide data on the minimum support prices in rupees for all the 
commodities and years notified in G/AG/N/IND/7. 
- Please provide documentation (source, grade, location, transport adjustments, quality 
adjustments) for the external referen ce prices for each commodity included in 
Supporting Tables DS:5.  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 13 
 
 
  - We request India provide the source data fo r the external reference and administered 
prices for each commodity included in Supporting Tables DS:5. 
(vi) Support to cotton 
44. In the case of cotton, India appears to suppor t seed cotton prices.  The constant external 
reference price in Supporting Tables DS:5 is US$1,292. 64, which is derived by dividing Rs 17,333 in 
G/AG/AGST/IND by the exchange rate of Rs 13.4 09 per US$.  Upon closer review, however, the 
external reference price in G/AG/AGST/IND is for co tton on a lint basis, not on a seed cotton basis.  
Therefore, a necessary additional conversion factor a ppears to be missing to ensure that cotton at the 
same processed stage is uniformly calculated.  It seems that the seed cotton basis would be the more 
appropriate stage as per the Agreement on Agriculture .  In such case, the fixed external reference 
price would need to be adjusted to a seed cotton basis.   
- We request that India clarify the correct b asis for the applied administered price and 
the external reference price in Supporti ng Tables DS:5.  The prices of US$367 (1998-
99), US$387 (1999-2000), US$378 (2000-01), US$372 (2001-02), US$371 (2002-03) 
and US$397 (2003-04) per tonne are indicated as  the applied administered prices for 
"cotton." 
- We request that India confirm these cotton calculation elements including the 
observation that in G/AG/N/IND/7 the same b asis for "cotton" is not applied for the 
administered prices and the external reference price.  
- According to India, what conversion rate  (cotton lint to seed cotton) should India 
apply to adjust these prices to the same basis? 
- Please provide a detailed accounting for the administered prices of all commodities 
included in Supporting Tables DS:5 with their external reference prices. 
(vii) Minimum Support Prices 
45. The United States notes that India used total production in its Table DS:1 notification from 
17 June 1998 (G/AG/N/IND/1), but switched to  another measure of eligible production in 
G/AG/N/IND/2, and has apparently continued the second practice in G/AG/N/IND/7.  The United 
States understands that for periods after those c overed by G/AG/N/IND/7, additional agricultural 
commodities may be designated to receive Minimum Support Prices. 
- We request that India provide an explanation of how its Minimum Support Price 
system works (notified as market price support in Supporting Table DS:5).   
- Please explain how "eligible production"  is defined and measured.   
- For any of the specified commodities, is all production eligible to receive the 
government's Minimum Price Support?   
- Did India undertake a specific policy change (in the context of the Agreement on 
Agriculture) that appropriately explains how and why India switched in the quantity 
for eligible production from total production to a lesser quantity? 
- We request India to inform Members if additional commodities other than the ones 
notified in G/AG/N/IND/7 have become eligible for the Minimum Support Price and which commodities have been able to benefit from this support measure.  G/AG/W/87 
Page 14  
 
  (viii) Market Intervention 
46. Was the Market Intervention Price programme in ef fect during the time of this notification?  
If so, what commodities were eligible? 
(ix) Input Subsidies 
47. India has modified the method by which it notifies input subsidies in its three domestic 
support notifications.  In G/AG/N/IND/1, India report ed all input subsidies for fertilizer, electricity, 
irrigation, seeds, and credit as non-product-specific Amber Box in Supporting Table DS:9.  In 
G/AG/N/IND/2, India reported a small share of the input subsidies as non-product-specific Amber 
Box and the remainder as Special and Differentia l Treatment.  Apparently, the rationale for the 
change at that time was that any farmer with ten hectares or less was considered a low-income or 
resource-poor farmer.  In its latest notification (G/AG/N/IND/7), India has classified all input 
subsidies as Special and Differential Treatment, cl aiming that 98.97 per cent of farm holdings are 
low-income, resource-poor farmers.  India has also  changed from notifying individual input subsidies 
to providing one aggregate figure, which lacks the earlier detail. 
- What is the definition used in India's ag ricultural census for low-income, resource-
poor farmers?   
- Did India undertake a specific policy change  and abandon the previous "ten-hectare" 
criteria for input subsidy eligibility?  Are all producers or farm holdings eligible for 
the input subsidies on an equal basis?  Do any larger farm holdings receive input 
subsidies? 
- Why does India conclude that 98.97 per cen t of farm holdings receive 98.97 per cent 
of the input subsidies? 
- Please provide a further breakdown of specific programmes notified as "other input 
subsidies" in Supporting Table DS:2, similar to the methodology provided in 
G/AG/N/IND/1.  
- Please explain the method used to account for the subsidy for each item (fertilizer, 
irrigation, electricity, seeds, and credit). 
3. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/167 and Corr.1 
(a) Questions by Australia 
48. Major increases in Japan's AMS appear to be in  the areas of market price interventions for 
livestock products, particularly beef and swine me at.  Between fiscal year 2007-2009, market price 
interventions increased 23.7 per cent for beef a nd 23.9 per cent for swine meat.  To date, price 
interventions into the beef market by the Agricu lture and Livestock Industries Corporation (ALIC) 
appear to have been made on a discretionary basis,  considering that ALIC's interventions have only 
been made when wholesale market prices fall below - rather than above - ALIC's target range.  In 
addition, Japan's Government Revitalisation Unit recently recommended that ALIC scale back many 
of its market price interventions, following an a udit of ALIC's budget by the Government Screening 
Panel.  In light of this: 
- Could Japan provide an explanation of the reasons for these recent increases in market 
price interventions in the livestock sector?  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 15 
 
 
  - Could Japan explain the "External Reference Price" for beef and veal used in these 
tables?  What does the "CIF price of Aust ralian beef" refer to?  The CIF price of 
frozen or chilled beef?  To which particular beef cuts?  Is this a weighted average of 
all frozen and chilled beef imports from Australia? 
- If the external reference price is based on the CIF price, how does this figure (626,000 
yen/tonne) remain constant throughout the three-year period, when the CIF price 
would have fluctuated in response to changes in the exchange rate and the 
supply/demand balance over this period?  
- How is the figure of "2.0" for the "Quality Difference Coefficient"  between Japanese 
beef and Australian beef calculated?  What  is the rationale for this coefficient? 
49. Do the payments related to sugar production re fer to the "Subsidy for Sweetener Resources" 
for sugar cane producers, or the "Rice and Field Crop Management Income Stabilisation Measure for sugar beet producers"?  Or a combination of these?   Are subsidies to sugar millers from ALIC's 
"Sugar Price Adjustment Fund" included in this figu re?  If not, are subsidies to Japanese sugar millers 
(and refiners) reported?  
50. Could Japan explain the rationale for mainta ining a tax exemption scheme which exempts 
sales of beef cattle in excess of one million yen (approximately USD 8,000) from income, corporate 
and municipal tax?  Does Japan intend to abo lish this scheme consistent with the strong 
recommendation by the Japanese Ruling Party's Taxa tion Reform Project Team in October 2010? 
51. Are subsidised loan programmes to mitigate f eed costs included in the calculation of non-
product-specific AMS?  Australia understands that  Japan has utilized such programmes since 2007. 
(b) Questions by Canada 
(i) Supporting Table DS:5 
52. From 2007 Japan no longer reports market price support for sugar (sugar beet and sugar cane) 
and starch (potato and sweet potato).  What policy change underlies Japan's claim that an 
administered price is no longer applied for these products? 
(ii) Supporting Table DS:6 
53. In Supporting Table DS:6 Japan reports "Payments related to volume of production", 
"Payments related to price", and "Deficiency payments". 
- What is the difference between a payment re lated to price and a deficiency payment? 
- For a payment related to price, how is the size of a producer's payment determined? 
- For a payment related to volume of producti on, how is the rate of payment determined 
(such as yen per tonne, i.e., the rate which,  when multiplied by the producer's volume 
of production, generates the payment). 
- For payments related to price and paymen ts related volume of production, do any 
conditions apply to the eligibility of  a producer to receive a payment? 
- The earlier 2006 notification reported payments related to price for wheat, barley and 
silkworm cocoons as well as payments relate d to volume of production for rice.  What G/AG/W/87 
Page 16  
 
  policy changes underlie the absence of repor ting any such payments in 2007, 2008 
and 2009?  
(c) Questions by the United States 
54. The United States appreciates past responses by  the Government of Japan to questions 
regarding Supporting Table DS:1 – Environmenta l Payments "Payments for conversion from rice 
production."  The United States understands from Japan' s responses that the programme is designed to 
preserve a favourable environment for paddy fields by growing crops other than rice or by adopting 
other appropriate management prac tices.  The purpose of maintaining paddy fields according to Japan 
is prevention of floods and soil erosion, cultiva tion of water resources, and preservation of natural 
environment: 
- The United States requests that Japan e xplain if (and what) production techniques 
must be changed by a farmer growing a crop other than rice, such as wheat, barley, or soybeans, to prevent an unfavourable environment for paddy fields.   
- We request that Japan identify an average pe r hectare cost for su ch changes in Japan. 
- We request that Japan clarify what "appropriate management practices" include.  Do 
these practices require land to remain ready to produce rice in the future or merely prevent floods, soil erosion, preservation of the natural environment, etc.?  Please identify an average per hectare cost for such management practices. 
- We request that Japan confirm if its polic y limits such environmental payments only 
to those situations when land is converted from rice production to a different 
agricultural crop. 
- Please explain why it is necessary for such envi ronmental payments to be restricted to 
only those situations when one particular crop (rice) is being converted to any other 
crop. 
- Under this programme do Japan's "payments for conversion from rice production" 
target the full coverage or only some pa rtial costs for "preserving a favourable 
environment for paddy fields"? 
- Support under the "crop insurance stabiliza tion payments" increased sharply between 
2007 and 2009.  Please explain how the progr amme works and the reasons for the 
increase in payments. 
4. Tonga   G/AG/N/TON/2 
55. Questions by the European Union:  The notifi cation includes support financed by external 
organizations.  However, according to the notif ication, external financing is excluded: 
- Could Tonga please comment on this notification practice aspect? 
- Could Tonga please inform the EU of the amounts of external financing from donor 
countries and agencies for every Green Box measure notified?  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 17 
 
 
  5. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/9 
56. Question by Japan:  Japan appreciates the written reply by Ukraine to its question in the last 
meeting on the external reference pric e used to calculate the market price support for sugar, but is still 
concerned about this measure's consistency w ith Article 18.4 as well as about its method of 
calculation.  Will Ukraine revise the calculation met hod or continue to use the same method for its 
future notifications? 
6. United States   G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 and USA/80 
(a) Questions by Australia 
57. Notification G/AG/N/USA/80 outlines funding prov ided by the Risk Management Agency 
(RMA) in support of the administration and provision of crop insurance.  G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 notes that a revised method for reporting crop in surance expenditures has been implemented. 
- Can the United States outline the rationale and methodology for the revised 
notification method?  
- Did the United States previously report the administrative, operating and underwriting 
expenses of crop insurance in the Supporting Table DS:9 as non-product-specific support?  
58. The notification shows a significant increase, in the range of US$16 billion, in "Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program" (formerly the "Food Stamp Program") expenditure from 2008 to 2009. 
- Can the United States please explain why programme expenditure increased so 
dramatically? 
- Acknowledging the change outlined above, to tal "Green Box" expenditure increased 
by approximately US$22 billion from 2008 to 2009.  Does this reflect changes to 
seasonal conditions and/or economic conditions, or is this a result of a change to 
policy?  
59. Between the 2008 and 2009 marketing years, to tal product-specific AMS for barley increased 
from US$118,000 to US$19.53 million, the figure for corn increased from US$20.82 million to 
US$119.066 million, while AMS for cotton decreased from US$1.13 billion to US$148.27 million.  Can the United States please explain these dramatic shifts in product-specific spending from one 
marketing year to the next? 
(b) Questions by Brazil 
60. Regarding Supporting Table DS:9 of document G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1, could the United 
States explain: 
- Why the programme "Supplemental Crop Revenue Assurance (SURE)" was not 
contemplated in the first version of the notification given the substantial size of the payments related to it (over US$2 billion). 
- The main differences between the method used to calculate the benefit to the recipient 
regarding the programme "Crop and revenue  insurance subsidized by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Corporation", in the mentioned notification, and the method used in previous notifications.  G/AG/W/87 
Page 18  
 
  61. Regarding Supporting Table DS:1 of documen t G/AG/N/USA/80, could the United States 
explain why its decoupled income support paym ents increased from US$5.7 billion in 2008 
(G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1) to US$6.1 billion in 2009. 
(c) Questions by Canada 
62. A major difference between the original G/AG/N/USA/77 and the revised 
G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 is the reporting of the s upport provided through the Risk Management 
Agency.  In G/AG/N/USA/77 an amount of about US$4.5 billion was reported in Supporting Table 
DS:9 for "Indemnities paid to farmers".  In G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 an amount of about 
US$5.7 billion is instead reported for "Premium  subsidies to producers", and new entries are 
introduced in Supporting Table DS:1 for the Risk  Management Agency, including the amount of 
about US$2.5 billion for "Underwriting gains to insurers". 
63. The domestic support provisions of the Agreemen t on Agriculture apply to domestic support 
measures in favour of agricultural producers. 
- Could the United States confirm that the inclusion of the "Underwriting gains to 
insurers" among the measures for which ex emption is claimed under Annex 2 implies 
that this measure, while providing underwr iting gains to insurance companies, in fact 
through this route also provides support in favour of agricultural producers?  
- Given that the new entries in Supporting Table DS:1 include amounts arising from 
programmes that did not exist when the base data for the United States were reported, 
a Table DS:2 notification of the new and modified programmes now being claimed as 
meeting the Green Box criteria seems to be in order.  When will the United States 
submit such a notification? 
- The amount reported for "Underwriting gains to insurers" in Supporting Table DS:1 
varies dramatically from year to year:  US$2,541 million in 2008;  US$810 million in 2009 (USA/80).  What explains the large year-to-year variation?  
- The notification G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 does not indicate the sub-paragraph of 
paragraph 2 (General Services) of Anne x 2 under which "Underwriting gains to 
insurers" is classified.  Under what sub-pa ragraph does the United States classify this 
item?  
- The notification G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 does not  indicate an exact data source where 
corresponding data on "Underwriting gains to insurers" might be found for other 
years.  Could the United States identify such a source, such as a website?  
- The method of calculating the entry in Supporting Table DS:9 for "Premium subsidies 
to producers" seems very different from wh at was done for the earlier entry.  Would 
the United States consider providing a conc ise guide to how this calculation is now 
done?  
- With G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/80 data is now available for two 
years.  Does the United States intend to provide revisions also of earlier years' notifications, incorporating the corresponding changes in ST DS:1 and ST DS:9?  
64. In Supporting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/USA/80, Would it be correct, based on Articles 1(h)(ii) 
and 6.4(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture, to read  footnote 2 as saying "… inclusion in the Current 
Total AMS …" instead of "…inclusion in the current AMS…"?  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 19 
 
 
  65. In Supporting Table DS:6 of G/AG/N/USA/80, it is unclear under what legislative authority 
"Crop assistance payments" were provided for cotton, rice, soybeans, and sweet potatoes, as explained in footnote 2.  A search of Public  Law 110-246 failed to reveal any such payments.  Could the United 
States please clarify? 
(d) Question by the European Union 
66. What were the amounts of countercyclical paym ents which benefited individual products in 
2008 and 2009?  The EU would like to request the US to include this detailed  information in their 
notifications. 
(e) Questions by Japan 
67. Would the United States explain in detail the function of the "Risk Management Agency" 
(RMA) and the system of the listed programme im plemented by the RMA?  Are these programmes 
newly established or modified domestic support m easures? If so, please explain the reason why the 
United States is not submitting Table DS :2 notifications for these programmes? 
68. Would the United States kindly explain the reason why the amount of the "Direct Payments" 
for decoupled income support in 2008 was reduced  from 2007 considerably and then increased in 
2009? 
69. Would the United States kindly explain th e reason why the "Biomass crop assistance 
program" has been delisted in G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1?   In case this measure has been accounted as a 
measure not in 2008 but in 2009 and relisted in G/AG/N/USA/80, why is the amount of the payment different from G/AG/N/USA/77 to G/AG/N/USA/80? 
70. Would the United States explain the reason why Associated fees/levies of "Crop and revenue 
insurance" are no longer reported in these notifications? 
7. Uruguay   G/AG/N/URY/42 
71. Questions by the European Union: 
- Could Uruguay please explain the important increase in spending on "extension and 
advisory services"? 
- Please explain the change in notification of the measure "traceability, animal health 
and food protection"' from c) direct  payments to a) general services. 
- The support notified by Uruguay under Green  Box, S&D treatment and AMS shows a 
variation over recent years:  support decr eased in 2009 compared to 2008, and then 
went up again in 2010.  Could Urug uay explain reasons for these changes? 
- The notification of Uruguay includes support financed by external organizations.  
However, according to the notification external financing is excluded.  Could 
Uruguay please comment on this notification practice aspect?  What are the shares of internal and IFAD financing under S&D treatment - "development programmes" 
notified. G/AG/W/87 
Page 20  
 
  D. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/83 
(a) Questions by Canada 
72. The "On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program" modernizes on-farm irrigation infrastructure.  
The "Irrigated Farm Modernization Project etc." provid es grants to irrigators for part of the cost of 
improving on-farm infrastructure, including rec onfiguring dams and installing water application 
systems.  Could Australia explain how these two programmes meet the criteria of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, specifically those of para graph 2 chapeau concerning direct payments to 
producers, and paragraph 2(g) concerning on-farm facilities. 
73. The "Farming Family Shire Rate Assistance" programme provides certain concessions to 
eligible farm families.  Could Australia explain how  eligibility under this programme is determined in 
terms of also meeting the 30 per cent loss criterion of paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
(b) Question by the European Union 
74. What are the eligibility criteria for farming fa milies to participate in the "Farming Family 
Shire Rate Assistance"? 
(c) Question by Japan 
75. Would Australia kindly explain in detail the reason why the "Farming Family Shire Rate 
Assistance" is classified as "Payments for relie f from natural disasters" provided in Annex 2, 
paragraph 8? 
2. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/168 
(a) Questions by Canada 
76. Regarding "Measures to Conserve and Improve  Land, Water, and the Environment", and 
given the fact that irrigation water is an input  for agricultural production (more water means more 
production), could Japan explain in more depth how "removing silt out of irrigation canals" qualifies 
as an environmental or conservation programme?  
77. Regarding the two programmes "Direct payment based on the historical reference amounts of 
production" and "Measures to Conser ve and Improve Land, Water, a nd the Environment", the period 
of application of this programme is stated as fi scal year 2007 only.  However, it appears that support 
under these programmes is also notified in G/AG/N/JPN/167 for 2008 and 2009.  Could Japan 
explain? 
78. Regarding "Direct payment based on the histor ical reference amounts of production", does the 
2004-06 base production apply also for pa yments made in 2008 and 2009? 
(b) Questions by the European Union 
79. What are the eligibility criteria for farmers to receive the decoupled direct payments?  G/AG/W/87 
 Page 21 
 
 
  80. Rice is not mentioned among the crops used as a base for the amounts of payment.  Could 
Japan please explain how rice production is treated in this scheme? 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. India   G/AG/N/IND/8 
(a) Questions by Australia 
81. The most recent period in which India has no tified its export subsid y commitments (2003/04), 
indicates that 637,283.65 tonnes of sugar exports were  subsidized.  Noting that export subsidies were 
not provided in the years preceding 2003-04, can India please provide information on whether sugar 
subsidies have been provided since 2003-04? 
(b) Questions by Japan 
82. According to the notification, India provided export subsidies to sugar, fresh fruit and 
vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, plants  and flowers, cardamom and animal products.  
Would India kindly name all the items which are comprised in "animal products" and "plants and 
flowers" respectively, and clarify the amount of export subsidies provided to each aforementioned 
item in the marketing years 1995-96 and from 2001-02 to 2003-04? 
F. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) 
1. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/13 
83. Question by the European Union:  The European  Union would like to seek confirmation that 
the export ban on wheat flour was abolished after 15 September 2011 as announced in the 
notification. 
2. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 
84. Question by the European Union:  Could Ukraine report on the latest state-of-play concerning 
the imposition of export restrictions and prohibiti ons on cereals since the la st Committee meeting in 
June?  
III. DEFERRED REPLIES 
1. Questions by the United States: Thailand's requirements to export rice stocks2  
85. The United States submitted the following questi ons to Thailand for response at the March 
and June 2011 meetings of the Committee on Agricu lture.  At both meetings, Thailand informed 
Members that it had not yet heard back from capital, but that it expected to shortly.  Despite this 
formal assurance in th e Committee and informal indications of a "response in process", the United 
States has not yet received a response to the questions.   
                                                      
2 Paragraphs 6-7 of G/AG/W/81/Rev.1 and paragraph 38 of G/AG/R/62 refer. G/AG/W/87 
Page 22  
 
  86. The United States requests Thailand provide data  for the years in question (2005, 2006, and 
2007) on the sale of rice stocks to exporters and any direct sales to third countries from government-owned stocks, including the prices at which stocks were acquired and prices at which export sales 
were made. 
87. Additionally, please respond to our previous ques tion 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. 
2. Question by Canada on India's notification G/AG/N/IND/2
3 
88. A question similar to the one in paragraph 25 was asked at the meeting of 26 September 2002. 
India undertook to provide a response.  We have been unable to find such a response and ask for 
details about when it might have been provided. 
__________ 
 
                                                      
3 Page 28 of G/AG/R/32 refers.