WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/84 
16 June 2011 
 (11-2986) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 23 June 2011
1 
 
 
 The present document compiles questions receive d by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
8 June 2011 as specified in WTO/AIR/3760.  
_______________ 
  
Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ............... 4  
A.  QUESTION BY AUSTRALIA :  U.S.  DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM  ................................ 4  
B.  QUESTION BY INDIA :  U.S.  SUBSIDIES ON UPLAND COTTON - COMPLIANCE WITH 
RULING  .............................................................................................................................. .......... 4 
C.  QUESTION BY ISRAEL /UNITED STATES : ARGENTINA 'S IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  ........................................................................................................ 4  
D.  QUESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  .................................................... 5  
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 EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON COTTON  ................... 5  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 6  
A.  NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE ADMIN ISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ................................................................................................... 6  
1.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/8 and Rev.1 ...................................................................................... 6  
(a)  Questions by Colombia ......................................................................................................... ...... 6 
B.  NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) ................................................................................................... 6  
1.  Chile   G/AG/N/CHL/36 ......................................................................................................... .. 6 
(a)  Question by Australia ......................................................................................................... ........ 6 
2.  European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/67 ......................................................................................... 6  
(a)  Questions by Canada............................................................................................................ ....... 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/84 
Page 2  
 
  3.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/162 ........................................................................................................ . 6 
(a)  Question by Australia ......................................................................................................... ........ 6 
(b)  Question by Ne w Zealand ....................................................................................................... .... 7 
(c)  Question by the United States ................................................................................................. .... 7 
4.  Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/59 ....................................................................................................... 7 
(a)  Question by the European Union ................................................................................................  7 
5.  South Africa   G/AG/N/ZAF/75 ............................................................................................... 8  
(a)  Questions by the European Union .............................................................................................. 8 
6.  Chinese Taipei   G/ AG/N/TPKM/87 ........................................................................................ 8  
(a)  Question by Australia ......................................................................................................... ........ 8 
(b)  Question by the European Union ................................................................................................  8 
C.  N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO 
MA:5) ......................................................................................................................... ................. 8  
1.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/163 ........................................................................................................ . 8 
(a)  Question by Australia ......................................................................................................... ........ 8 
2.  Chinese Taipei   G/ AG/N/TPKM/86 ........................................................................................ 9  
(a)  Question by Ne w Zealand ....................................................................................................... .... 9 
D.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1) ........................................................................................................................ ...... 9 
1.  Australia   G/ AG/N/AUS/76 .....................................................................................................  9 
(a)  Questions by  India ............................................................................................................ .......... 9 
2.  Bahrain   G/AG/N/BHR/5 ...................................................................................................... 1 0 
(a)  Question by the United States ................................................................................................. .. 10 
3.  European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/68 ....................................................................................... 10  
(a)  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................ . 10 
4.  Hong Kong, China   G/AG/N/HKG/30 .................................................................................. 11  
(a)  Question by Ne w Zealand ....................................................................................................... .. 11 
5.  Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/47 ........................................................................................................ ... 11 
(a)  Question by Ne w Zealand ....................................................................................................... .. 11 
(b)  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................ . 11 
6.  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia   G/AG/N/SAU/4 ......................................................................... 11  
(a)  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................ . 11 
7.  Mexico   G/AG /N/MEX/21 ..................................................................................................... 11  
(a)  Question by the United States ................................................................................................. .. 11 
8.  New Zealand   G/AG/N/NZL/69 ............................................................................................ 11  
(a)  Questions by  Chile ............................................................................................................ ........ 11  G/AG/W/84 
 Page 3 
 
 
  9.  Tunisia   G/AG/N/TUN/40 and Corr.1 .................................................................................. 12  
(a)  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................ . 12 
10.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/9 ...................................................................................................... 1 2 
(a)  Questions by Canada............................................................................................................ ..... 12 
(b)  Question by Japan ............................................................................................................. ........ 13 
11.  United States   G/AG/N/USA/77 ............................................................................................ 13  
(a)  Question by the European Union .............................................................................................. 1 3 
E.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES 
ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) ................................................................................................................... 13  
1.  European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/70 ....................................................................................... 13  
(a)  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................ . 13 
F.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 13 
1.  Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/13 ........................................... 13  
(a)  Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................ 13  
2.  Kyrgyz Republic   G/AG/N/KGZ/3 ....................................................................................... 14  
(a)  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................ . 14 
3.  Moldova   G/AG/N/MOL/3/Add.1 ......................................................................................... 14  
(a)  Question by the European Union .............................................................................................. 1 4 
4.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 and Add.3 ........................................................................ 14  
(a)  Question by Australia ......................................................................................................... ...... 14 
(b)  Question by the European Union .............................................................................................. 1 4 
(c)  Question by the United States ................................................................................................. .. 14 
G.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE DECISION ON MEASURES 
CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFE CTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON 
LEAST -DEVELOPED AND NET -FOOD IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
(TABLE  NF:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 15 
1.  Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/80 and 81 ....................................................................................... 15  
(a)  Question by India ............................................................................................................. ......... 15 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 15  
A.  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA  ....................................................................................................... 15  
(a)  China:  Domestic support ...................................................................................................... .... 15 
(b)  Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies ........................................................................ 15  
(c)  India:  Domestic support and export subsidies ......................................................................... 15  
(d)  Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard ...................................................................... 15  
(e)  Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies ...................................................................... 16  
 G/AG/W/84 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. Q
UESTION BY AUSTRALIA :  U.S.  DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM  
1. Australia expressed concerns at the Committ ee on Agriculture meeting on 31 March 2011 
regarding the treatment of imports under the U.S. Dairy Import Assessment.  As these concerns were 
previously raised without notice, Austra lia would like to reiterate them again. 
(a) Can the United States explain how the method of assessment for imported products 
does not place a greater administrative burden on imported dairy products than it does 
on domestic milk producers? 
(b) Can the United States explain how importe d dairy products receive comparable 
benefits from the promotion and research programme when the bulk of imported 
dairy proteins, such as caseins, are used as ingredients in foods that are not covered 
by this programme? 
2. New Zealand would also like to reiterate the point it had raised  at the 31 March 2011 meeting, 
which had remained unanswered.2  New Zealand would like to take this opportunity to comment on 
the United States’ recent extension of its Dairy Import Assessment or "Promotion Check-Off" policy 
to imports.  The measure will impose a levy on all dairy-based imports, the proceeds of which will be 
used to build demand for domestic dairy consumpti on.  Since import barriers such as quotas and tariff 
levels limit the growth of dairy imports into the United States' market , the levy unfairly targets 
imports which will not necessarily be able to benefit from the promotion, and any increased 
consumption, of dairy products in the market.  Further we anticipate that the levy will 
create additional regulatory and administrative costs for exporters.  New Zealand, along with other 
dairy exporting countries, has conveyed its concer ns about this measure to the United States 
government and is therefore disappointed that the United States has proceeded with the measure.  
New Zealand is now assessing the measure in light of international rules and talking to industry about 
the likely impact of the measure.  New Zeala nd would like to receive comments from the United 
States. 
B. QUESTION BY INDIA :  U.S.  SUBSIDIES ON UPLAND COTTON - COMPLIANCE WITH RULING  
3. In the case U.S. Upland Cotton case, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel findings that 
certain subsidies provided by the United States were inconsistent with the provisions of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and other WTO Agreements .  The United States is requested to inform 
whether it has fully complied with the WTO provisions.  If not, would the United States indicate the 
time-frame for bringing its measures into conformity  with the Agreement on Agriculture so that the 
impact of these subsidies on Members' cotton growers can be mitigated? 
C. QUESTION BY ISRAEL /UNITED STATES : ARGENTINA 'S IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
4. Israel would like to express its systemic c oncern related to the requirements imposed by 
Argentina with respect to imports.  Argentina's meas ures lead to restricting or delaying imports of a 
long list of goods that compete with locally produ ced agricultural goods or foodstuffs.  According to 
the concerns expressed by Israeli exporters, various types of border measures are being imposed on 
importers.  In Israel's view, the unpredictability, lack  of transparency and the discriminatory treatment 
                                                      
2 G/AG/W/81/Rev.1, para. 6, page 6.  G/AG/W/84 
 Page 5 
 
 
  of imports in the implementation of such measures create a de facto  disruption of trade flows and 
adversely affect Israeli exporters' interests. 
5. The United States and other Members have raised on several occasions concerns about 
Argentina's treatment of imports in this Committee and other WTO Committees.  Based on recent 
feedback from U.S. exporters, the import access problem s appear to be worsening.  What steps is 
Argentina taking to ensure that imports do not face unjustified and arbitrary non-tariff barriers, such 
as requiring importers to prove to the officials of th e Government of Argentina that they are exporting 
more than importing in order to receive the necessary import documentation? 
D. QUESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  
(i) Ice cream promotion initiative 
6. At the 59th meeting of the Committee of Agriculture , Canada confirmed that the Canadian 
Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, calculates the pooling returns and sharing of 
promotion costs related to the Ice Cream Promoti on Initiative on behalf of Dairy Farmers of Canada 
(DFC).  Given the role of this Crown corporatio n in administering the DFC programme, can Canada 
provide details on the amount of CDC resources that ar e allocated to supporting this initiative e.g. full 
time equivalents (FTE) or budget allocation? 
(ii) Milk Class 4(m) 
7. New Zealand and other Members have at previ ous Committee meetings raised concerns about 
Canada's approach of offering reduced prices und er Milk Class 4(m) to stimulate demand from 
Canadian dairy processors to buy domestic milk protein concentrates (MPCs) rather than imported 
MPCs.  This measure effectively displaces and undercuts demand for MPC imports.  Can Canada 
provide WTO Members with material to s ubstantiate their response made at the 59th Committee of 
Agriculture meeting that the modifications to Cl ass 4(m) has not/will not have a negative impact on 
the overall imports of MPCs? 
E. QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  STATE -OF-PLAY OF COSTA RICA'S REFORM POLICIES TO 
ADDRESS BREACH IN AMS  COMMITMENTS  
8. In the March 2011 meeting of the Committee on Ag riculture, Costa Rica described the actions 
it planned to take to ensure that its Aggregat e Measurement of Support (AMS) drops below its bound 
ceiling.  The United States welcomed those pronou ncements.  Unfortunately, it appears that 
Costa Rica may not have taken any concrete act ions to reduce its AMS since the March 2011 
announcement, which, if true, allows this breach of WTO commitments to continue unabated.  Can 
Costa Rica report positively on concrete steps take n to address this breach, and provide detail on any 
policies implemented with respect to these steps?  
F. QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  INDIA 'S EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON COTTON  
9. India has enacted a number of cotton export restrictions since 2009.  Although Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture is specific only to  foodstuffs, these export re strictions have had a 
significant effect in distorting international cotton tr ade.  We assume that India has implemented these 
restrictions on a temporary basis.  When does Indi a plan to end these disruptive export restrictions? G/AG/W/84 
Page 6  
 
  II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. N
OTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE ADMIN ISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
1. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/8 and Rev.1 
(a) Questions by Colombia 
10. According to notifications G/AG/N/UKR/8 a nd G/AG/N/UKR/8/Rev.1, an import licence 
issued by the Ministry of Economic Development an d Trade of Ukraine is required for the allocation 
of the sugar tariff quota.  Applicants must also receive prior approvals from the State Agency on 
Material Reserve of Ukraine and the Ministry  of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine. 
11. In the light of the above, Colombia would ask the Government of Ukraine to list each one of 
the formalities and requirements laid down by the State Agency on Material Reserve and by the 
Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food to enable  importers seeking import licences issued by the 
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine to obtain approval. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Chile   G/AG/N/CHL/36 
(a) Question by Australia 
12. Chile has notified that there were no imports w ithin its tariff quota for "Cane or beet sugar 
and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form" in 201 0.  Could Chile provide an explanation for why no 
imports were received? 
2. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/67 
(a) Questions by Canada 
13. The European Union has a tariff rate quota of 11,500 tonnes in place for "high-quality meat of 
bovine animals, fresh, chilled or frozen", which is  shared by Canada and the United States as 
supplying countries.  Could the European Union confirm that imports under this tariff quota are 
notified under the tariff quota identified as "meat of bovine animals, fresh, chilled, frozen and edible 
offal", with a tariff quota quantity of 37,950 tonn es(page 2 of G/AG/N/EEC/67)?  If this is the case, 
could the European Union provide specific informat ion on the fill rate for the 11,500 tonnes of the 
tariff quota reserved for Canada and the United States? 
14. The European Union cr eated a duty-free tariff quota of 20,000 tonnes for hormone-free high-
quality beef on 13 July 2009 as outlined in Council Re gulation (EC) No 617/2009.  Will the European 
Union be providing details on the fill rate for this  tariff quota in future market access notifications? 
3. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/162 
(a) Question by Australia 
15. Australia notes that Japan significantly under-f illed its tariff quotas for several products, 
including skimmed milk powder;  whey and modified  whey for feeding purposes;  prepared whey for  G/AG/W/84 
 Page 7 
 
 
  infant formula;  butter and butter oil;  mineral and concentrated whey;  dried leguminous vegetables;  
and ground nuts.  Can Japan provide reasons  for why these tariff quotas were not filled? 
(b) Question by New Zealand 
16. Some dairy product tariff quotas are signifi cantly under-filled (e.g. Skim milk powder 
29 per cent fill; butter and butter oil 13 per cent fill,  mineral concentrated whey 21 per cent fill).  If 
market forces were the reason be hind the under fill why does Japan cons ider it still needs tariff quotas 
on these products? 
(c) Question by the United States 
17. The United States notes several cases in which a tariff quota was less than half filled in fiscal 
year 2009 but over-quota imports occurred at very high tariffs.  The over-quota imports seem to 
indicate demand within Japan that could have been satisfied by the tariff quotas.  Why does Japan not 
allow all imports to enter within these tariff quotas? 
4. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/59 
(a) Question by the European Union 
18. During the 61st meeting of the Committee on Agricultu re, the European Union raised the 
following question: 
"Norway uses auctioning for the allocation of most tariff quotas.  If the European Union's 
information is correct, the auctioning price for beef in auctions carried out during 2008 was 
16.81 NOK/kg and for auctions carried out in 2009 it was 31.63 NOK/kg.  For sheep and goat meat the auctioning price was 21.54 NOK/kg for auctions carried out in 2008 and 10 NOK/kg 
for auctions carried out 2009.  Could Norway  elaborate on the reasons leading to these 
significant price differences?" 
19. Norway gave the following answer: 
"It is left to the actors to place their bids fo r the various quotas. Demand, and consequently 
prices, for quotas can vary greatly depending on th e current situation in the domestic market. 
It is often more attractive to use domestic produc ts in the years when there is a large enough 
supply to satisfy the market." 
20. Still, the EU notes that for some products, the auctioning prices can be fairly high resulting in 
a reduction of the value of the market access conc ession made by Norway. Also the fact that the 
auctioning prices can vary consider ably creates uncertainties and a l ack of predictability for market 
actors, especially for small and medium-sized co mpanies. Against this background the European 
Union would like to raise the following questions: 
(a) Could Norway elaborate on the justificati on for the use of a TRQ auctioning system 
and its relation to the use of domestic products  when there is a large enough supply to 
satisfy the market?  Does the use of an auctioning system not add to the price 
variability in the domestic market? 
(b) How does Norway consider the admitted price variability also resulting from the 
auctioning system to be in accordance with  predictability and transparency of trade 
flows? G/AG/W/84 
Page 8  
 
  5. South Africa   G/AG/N/ZAF/75 
(a) Questions by the European Union 
21. The European Union notes a tariff quota fill of  only 1 per cent for skimmed milk powder, 
19 per cent for butter and 36 per cent for cheese.  Could South Africa explain the reason for these low 
fill rates?  
22. A number of tariff rate quotas show  a 100 per cent fill rate. In c ase of such a full utilization of 
tariff quotas, for out-of-quota imports, does South A frica also apply the in-quota rates, the MFN 
bound rates or any other rate? 
6. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/87 
(a) Question by Australia 
23. Australia notes that Chinese Ta ipei significantly under-filled its tariff quotas for several 
products, including bananas, liquid milk, garlic bul bs, pineapples, and mangoes.  Can Chinese Taipei 
provide reasons for why these quotas were not filled? 
(b) Question by the European Union 
24. Chinese Taipei notifies that "bound tariff quotas not shown in the attached table are those that 
were not activated during the reporting period."  Th e notification contains 16 different tariff quotas of 
which the following three are not utilized: bananas,  mangoes and shaddock. Ha ve these products been 
imported at applied tariffs lower than in-quota rates? 
25. For the sake of transparency, the European Union would appreciate that non-operated TRQs 
nevertheless be included in the list TRQs notified in the context of the annual MA:2 notification. 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/163 
(a) Question by Australia 
26. Australia is concerned by Japan's use of the SSG.  Firstly, in the period 1 April 2010 to 
31 March 2011, Japan invoked the volume-based SSG  on "Milk and cream, not concentrated nor 
containing added sugar or other sweetening matte r" on a quantity of 1.31 tonnes and on "Yogurt; 
frozen, preserved or containing added sugar or othe r sweetening matter, flavouring, fruits, or nuts 
(excluding frozen yogurt)" on a quantity of 2.75 tonnes.  It also invoked the SSG for maize (corn) 
starch, where imports represented approximately 0.03 per cent of the three-year average domestic 
consumption.  Does Japan believe these actions to be  in the spirit of the safeguard, namely to provide 
domestic producers with protection against a surge of imports as a result of trade liberalization?  
27. In addition to the volume-based actions, Japan has also used the price-based SSG, including 
six applications to the tariff line 1901.90.179 (Food pr eparations of flour, meal, or starch, containing 
groats, meal, pellets or starch of rice, wheat, tr iticale, barley, which total weight is more than 
85 per cent of the articles) in the twelve-month pe riod between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011.  Can 
Japan confirm that the volume of imports was not declining during these invocations? 
28. In G/AG/N/JPN/163, Japan indicates that it applied the SSG to 11 products between 1 April 
2010 and 31 March 2011, yet it appears that Japan h as only submitted notifications for three of these  G/AG/W/84 
 Page 9 
 
 
  products:  milk and cream;  yoghurt;  and maize (cor n) starch.  Can Japan explain how this represents 
compliance with the requirement in Article 5, paragraph 7, that Members give notice to the 
Committee on Agriculture in writing within 10 da ys of the implementation of a SSG remedy?  
2. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/86 
(a) Question by New Zealand 
29. New Zealand notes that there was a significant tariff quota under-fill for liquid milk for 
calendar year 2010 (11,369 tonnes imported versus a quantity of 21,298 tonnes – see 
G/AG/N/TPKM/87).  Given the under-fill, New Z ealand would like to know why a volume-based 
safeguard action was taken for liquid mi lk from 28 July 2010 to 31 December 2010. 
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/76 
(a) Questions by India 
(i) Supporting Table DS:1 - Section (a) General Se rvices – Extension and Advisory Services 
30. Can Australia specify the type of financial counselling service provided under the AAA - 
Rural Financial Counselling Services to the primar y producers, fishing enterprises and small rural 
businesses in rural areas as mentioned on page 6 of the notification?  
(ii) Supporting Table DS:1 - Section (a) Gene ral Services – Inspection Services 
31. Can Australia explain the justification for par tial cost recovery of inspection of Australian 
Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) fees and charges as mentioned on page 7 of the 
notification?   
(iii) Supporting Table DS:1 - Section (d) Decoupled income support 
32. As mentioned on page 14 of the notification,  Australia provides decoupled income to low-
income farmers experiencing financial hardship a nd for those who cannot borrow further against their 
assets. What are the criteria to identify low-income farmers?  
(iv) Supporting Table DS:1 - Section (e) Income insurance and income safety-net programs  
33. Can Australia indicate the basis for determin ing low income year under Farm Management 
Deposit Scheme (FMDS) as mentione d on page 14 of the notification?  As FMDS is a tax-linked 
scheme could Australia clarify how it is ensured that  the tax benefit is extended only to situations of 
income loss as provided in 7 (a) of Annex 2 of Agreement on Agriculture?  
(v) Supporting Table DS:1 - Section (f) Payments for relief from natural disasters 
34. Can Australia provide details of  relevant domestic regulation that define what the exceptional 
circumstances are for relief paymen ts entitlement as mentioned on page  14 of the notification?  How 
is it ensured that payments under these schemes comp ensate for not more than the actual losses?  How 
is the interest rate subsidy calculated? G/AG/W/84 
Page 10  
 
  (vi) Supporting Table DS:1 - Section (l) Other – Direct Payments to producers 
35. How does the measure "Sugar Industry Reform Pr ogram – regional / community projects" as 
mentioned on page 18 of the notification work? Does it involve direct payments to sugar industry as 
part of the reform programme? 
2. Bahrain   G/AG/N/BHR/5 
(a) Question by the United States 
36. The United States appreciates Bahrain's answers to  the United States' questions at the March 
2011 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, regarding Bahrain's definition of its "poultry sector" 
programme, which is generally available to ag riculture, and wishes to follow-up on a response 
provided by Bahrain. 
37. Please describe the purpose of the subsidy identified as "poultry sector" classified under 
"investment subsidies generally available to agri culture," and how the payments are implemented. 
38. It appears that this programme may not meet the criteria of Article 6.2 as an "investment 
subsidy generally available to agriculture," since it is only available to producers in one agricultural 
sector.  Are the broiler farms it supports considered low-income or resource-poor farms? 
3. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/68 
(a) Questions by the United States 
39. The United States appreciates the European Uni on's answers to the United States' questions 
posed at the March 2011 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, and wishes to ask a follow-up 
question with regard to the AMS for fruit and ve getables, as well as on environmental payments for 
organic production. 
(i) AMS for fruit and vegetables 
40. It is United States' understanding that the pr imary measure providing support for fruit and 
vegetables for which the AMS was calculated as a product-specific equivalent measure of support, 
prior to the 2007 reforms, was the entry-price system  which is still in place.  Can the European Union 
confirm whether this understanding is correct?  Since this system was not replaced by the new 
measures, but rather the new types of support are provided in addition to the entry price system, why wouldn't the correct calculation of AMS be the sum of support as previously calculated for the 
existing measures, and the additional su pport provided under the new mechanisms? 
41. In addition, the European Union's explana tion of its new support measures for fruit and 
vegetables indicates that the new system came into effect only on 1 January 2008.  Why is support 
that was provided to the sector during the first half  of the reporting period (1 July 2007- 31 December 
2007) not reported according to the previous methodology? 
(ii) Environmental payments for organic production 
42. Does the European Union make payments to fa rmers on a one-time basis, only at the time of 
conversion from non-organic to orga nic production, or are payments  made to farmers who adopt 
organic methods on an on-going basis?   G/AG/W/84 
 Page 11 
 
 
  4. Hong Kong, China   G/AG/N/HKG/30 
(a) Question by New Zealand 
43. Can Hong Kong, China provide details on th e support provided for promoting organic 
farming?  Is payment associated with production? 
5. Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/47 
(a) Question by New Zealand 
44. Would Israel provide additional detail on the nature of support included in the category 
"Investment in Agriculture" listed under Servi ces Provided for Farmers in the Green Box? 
(b) Questions by the United States 
45. In previous responses to questions raised in the Committee on Agriculture, Israel had 
indicated that poultry meat production could be as high as 270,000 tonnes.  Could Israel explain why 
no production is indicated for poultry meat in its Supporting Table DS:5?  
6. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia   G/AG/N/SAU/4 
(a) Questions by the United States 
46. The United States notes an increase in the repor ted total Aggregate Measurement of Support 
(AMS) between 2007 and 2008, mostly due to the mo re than tripling of support for livestock and 
poultry.  The United States also notes that Saudi Ar abia approached its AMS limit in 2008.  Please 
explain what steps the Government of Saudi Arabia takes to ensure that Saudi Arabia does not exceed 
its WTO AMS commitments? 
7. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/21 
(a) Question by the United States 
47. The United States appreciates Mexico's answers to  its questions about its agricultural diesel 
subsidy programme posed at the March 2011 meetin g of the Committee on Agriculture, and wishes to 
follow-up on a response provided by Mexico. 
48. Based on Mexico's answer to the question regard ing the criteria used in  the agricultural diesel 
programme, can Mexico confirm that the programme does not distinguish low-income or resource-
poor producers from other producers? 
8. New Zealand   G/AG/N/NZL/69 
(a) Questions by Chile 
49. Notification G/AG/N/NZL/69 of 19 May 2001 concerning domestic support commitments 
cites, under "Research", the figures NZ$65.765 milli on (July 2008-June 2009)  and NZ$67.135 million 
(July 2009-June 2010) as "Funds provided by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology 
(FRST) for research directly related to agricu ltural production including fo rage, animal and dairy 
industries, horticulture, arable and other food and beverage industries". G/AG/W/84 
Page 12  
 
  50. According to information publis hed on the website of the FRST
3 in November 2009, the 
Ministry of Research, Science and Technolog y announced a NZ$35.7 million seven-year joint 
financing programme (FRST, Plant and Food Research and ZESPRI) to develop new kiwifruit 
varieties. 
(a) Could New Zealand confirm whether the gove rnment contribution to this programme 
is part of the FRST allocations notified re gularly in the framework of its domestic 
support commitments? 
(b) Could New Zealand provide details concer ning the programme, in particular:  the 
amounts allocated by the government, the allocation method used, and a description 
of the beneficiaries? 
9. Tunisia   G/AG/N/TUN/40 and Corr.1 
(a) Questions by the United States 
51. The United States understands that production figures estimated by the Ministry of 
Agriculture are substantially higher than the figures listed.  Could Tunisia explain why the figures for 
eligible production for wheat, barley and m ilk are so low in its Supporting Tables DS:5? 
52. In its Supporting Tables DS:5, Tunisia indicates th at it has adjusted reference prices to take 
account of inflation and exchange rate movements.  Our understanding  of the calculation guidelines in 
Annex 3 of the Agreement is that the reference price shoul d be fixed at the 1986-88 level.  What is the 
basis in the Agreement on Agriculture  for making these adjustments?   
10. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/9 
(a) Questions by Canada 
53. Supporting Table DS:5, calculation of market price support for sugar produced from sugar 
beets: Canada understands from WT/ACC/SPEC/UKR /1/Rev.12 that Ukraine's fixed external 
reference price for 2004-06 is UAH 1,747.33/tonne.  Th is was used in calculating Ukraine's Total 
AMS commitment level, which in Ukraine's Schedule is expressed in UAH.  Ukraine's fixed external 
reference price of UAH 1,747.33/tonne was derive d from export price observations that averaged 
US$340 /tonne in 2004-06.   
54. Given that paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Ag reement on Agriculture requires the external 
reference price to be fixed, Ukraine's indexing of  the reference price in Supporting Table DS:5 does 
not seem to follow the rules of the Agreement.  It results in raising the reference price to 
Hrv 2,798.1/tonne in 2009 (we presume that the Hrv in Ukraine's notification is intended to be the 
same as the currency unit UAH in Ukraine's Schedu le and Supporting Tables).  A calculation that 
properly uses the fixed external reference pr ice of UAH 1,747.33/tonne, and which also uses 
Ukraine's notified eligible production of 1,267.0 thou sand tonnes, results in market price support of 
UAH 1,745.5 million instead of the notified UAH (or Hrv) 414.1 million. 
55. Could Ukraine indicate when they intend to provide a revised DS:1 notification for 2009 
which would include the accurate fixed external reference price of UAH 1,747.33/tonne for sugar 
produced from sugar beets?  
                                                      
3 http://www.frst.govt.nz/ news/kiwifruit-research .  G/AG/W/84 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (b) Question by Japan 
56. Japan would kindly ask Ukraine to explain the method for calculating the external reference 
price of sugar in Supporting Table DS:5 and would like to know whether the external reference price 
in Hrv would change in every annual notification. 
11. United States   G/AG/N/USA/77 
(a) Question by the European Union 
57. In response to the questions asked during the 60th and 61st meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the United States explained that "Sta te Credit Programs" were no longer notified as non-
product-specific AMS, since the series of surveys u sed to collect the data on the programmes in 
question was discontinued in 1994.  Moreover, the Un ites States informed that the 1994 data had been 
used to report State Credit Programs each year through 2007 and that reporting was discontinued 
because of the length of time since the last new da ta were collected.  Finally, the United States 
explained that the surveys were discontinued because they were originally established in response to 
the farm financial crisis of the 1980's and by 1994 that crisis was resolved. 
(a) Can the United States clarify whether these "S tate Credit Programs" are still in use?  
(b) If the "State Credit Programs" are still in u se: where are the current programs to be 
found in the notification and what sources of information are used to quantify the 
level of support? 
58. Will the United States reintroduce surveys need ed to collect the data on these programs? 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/70 
(a) Questions by the United States 
59. The European Union indicates that during the 2008-2009 reporting period it exported 
950,000 tonnes of sugar with subsidies, but that there were no export subsidy outlays involved 
because these exports did not "attract any export re funds".  Could the European Union explain what 
subsidies were applied to these exports?    
F. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) 
1. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/13 
(a) Questions by the European Union 
60. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia no tifies the introduction of an export ban for 
wheat flour (HS 1101.00). The submission is da ted 15 April 2011 and the ban was introduced on 
8 April 2011. Article 12, paragraph 1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture states that "before any 
Member institutes an export prohibition or restriction,  it shall give notice in writing, as far in advance 
as practicable, to the Committee of Agriculture".  Could the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
elaborate on the reasons behind the late notification of the export ban? G/AG/W/84 
Page 14  
 
  61. Could the Former Yugoslav Republic of Mace donia elaborate on the critical shortages of 
wheat and wheat flour which prompted the introduction of the measure? 
62. Did the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia give due consideration to the effects of 
such a restriction on importing Members' food security? 
2. Kyrgyz Republic   G/AG/N/KGZ/3 
(a) Questions by the United States 
63. In Table ER:1 notification (G/AG/N/KGZ/3), the Kyrgyz Republic states that export 
restrictions in the form of export taxes for certain  agricultural products have been introduced due to 
shortages in the domestic market and the low leve l of income of the population.  Can the Kyrgyz 
Republic confirm that the meas ure expired on 5 May 2011?   
64. The United States would like to repeat the ques tion it raised at the March 2011 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture:  for each product (HS c odes 1005, 1213, 1214, 23 01, 2302, 2304, 2306, 
and 2308) please provide the volume of production in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009, and how 
many metric tonnes of each product were expected to  be consumed domestically in 2010 compared to 
2008 and 2009? 
3. Moldova   G/AG/N/MOL/3/Add.1 
(a) Question by the European Union 
65. The European Union welcomes the decision of Mo ldova to repeal the export restrictions on 
wheat. Could Moldova elaborate on its intentions in relation to export restrictions for the near future? 
4. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 and Add.3 
(a) Question by Australia 
66. Ukraine explains that, after taking into account domestic consumption and retained stocks, its 
export capabilities of grain cultures in the current market year am ount to 13.6 million tonnes, of 
which 7.8 million tonnes have already been exported. This leaves 5.8 million tonnes available for 
export during April – June 2011.  Ukraine has indicated its intention to export half of this quantity, 
2.9 million tonnes, through quotas and its FTAs.  With the recent and commendable decision to 
exclude corn from quantitative export restrictions, ca n Ukraine provide a revised figure for its likely 
exports during April – June 2011?  
(b) Question by the European Union 
67. Could Ukraine report on the latest state-of-p lay concerning the imposition of export 
restriction on cereals, and the policy to be followed during the rest of 2011? 
(c) Question by the United States 
68. In G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2, Ukraine stated that the licensing and distribution of export quotas 
on wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat is exte nded until 30 June 2011. However, the United States 
understands that Resolution of the Cabinet of Mini sters of Ukraine No. 566 of 25 May 2011 cancelled 
export quotas on wheat and barley.  Can Ukraine confirm that the export quotas on wheat and barley have been lifted?  Can Ukraine confirm that the export quotas on rye and buckwheat will not extend 
beyond June 2011?   G/AG/W/84 
 Page 15 
 
 
  69. In the March 2011 meeting of the Committee on Ag riculture, Ukraine indicated that despite 
the implementation of the export quota system , domestic prices for domestic consumers have 
increased by 50 per cent.  Can Ukraine provide u pdated data on offer prices at the over-the-counter 
(spot) market for wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat for March 2011 and beyond? 
70. In G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.3, Ukraine stated that, pursuant to Resolution of the Cabinet of 
Ministers of Ukraine No. 463 of 27 April 2011,  corn (HS code 1005 90 00 00) will no longer be 
subject to quantitative export restrictions outlin ed under No. 938 of 4 October 2010.  The United 
States commends Ukraine for lifting the export restriction.  
G. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE DECISION ON MEASURES 
CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFE CTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST -
DEVELOPED AND NET -FOOD IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (TABLE  NF:1) 
1. Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/80 and 81 
(a) Question by India 
71. India would like to know whether food aid by Au stralia to the LDCs and NFIDCs has fallen 
after 2005, i.e. after Australia untied its food aid.   If so, India would like to know the reasons. 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
A. QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA  
(a) China:  Domestic support 
72. Australia notes that domestic support notif ications for the period 2005-2010 are still 
outstanding.  Could China explain the cause for the delay and indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  We would be grateful if China could observe "best practice" and provide 
its response in writing.   
(b) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
73. Australia notes that Egypt has outstanding domes tic support and export subsidy notifications 
for the period 1999-2010 (Egypt's last notification was submitted in May 1999).  Could Egypt explain 
the cause for the long delay and indicate when it in tends to submit these outst anding notifications?  
We would be grateful if Egypt could observe "best  practice" and provide its response in writing.   
(c) India:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
74. Could India update Members on progress in gathering information to prepare its WTO 
agriculture notifications?  Could India provide an  indicative time when it intends to submit its 
outstanding notifications particularly in the area of  domestic support and expor t subsidies?  We would 
be grateful if India could observe "best prac tice" and provide its response in writing.   
(d) Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard 
75. Australia notes that Korea has outstandi ng domestic support a nd special safeguard 
notifications for calendar years 2005-2010.  Coul d Korea indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  We would be grateful if Korea could observe "best practice" and provide 
its response in writing.  G/AG/W/84 
Page 16  
 
  (e) Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
76. Australia notes that Turkey has outstanding dom estic support and export subsidy notifications 
(Turkey's last notification was su bmitted in May 2002).  Could Turkey explain the cause for the long 
delay and indicate when it intends to submit its out standing notifications?  We would be grateful if 
Turkey could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing.   
 
__________