WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/95 
8 June 2012 
 (12-3065) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 20 June 2012
1 
 
 
 The present document compiles questions receive d by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
6 June 2012 as specified in WTO/AIR/3947.  
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
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/95 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 4  
A.  MARKET ACCESS OBSTRUCTIONS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  .............................................. 4  
B.  BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT PROGRAMMES  ............................................................................ 4  
C.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ........................................................... 5  
D.  TABLE DS:2  NOTIFICATIONS BY INDIA  ....................................................................................... 5  
E.  INDIA 'S EXPORT RESTRICTIONS  ................................................................................................... 5  
F.  INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  .............................................................................................................................. ..... 6 
G.  MOROCCO 'S RECENT CROP INSURANCE PROGRAMME  ............................................................... 7  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 8  
A.  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:1) ................... 8  
1.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/84) .............................................................................................. 8  
B.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) .......................... 8  
1.  Canada (G/AG/ N/CAN/89) ...................................................................................................... 8  
2.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/38) ................................................................................................... 8 
3.  El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38) ................................................................................................. 9  
C.  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) ........................................... 9  
1.  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/46) ................................................................................... 9  
2.  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/95 and G/AG/N/TPKM/96) .............................................. 9  
D.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) ................................................................ 10  
1.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ........................................................................................................  10 
2.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) ................................................... 13  
3.  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/37) .........................................................................................................  15 
4.  China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) ....................................................................................................... 1 5 
5.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Re v.1 and G/AG/N/CRI/40) .................................................. 17  
6.  Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1) ................................................................... 18  
7.  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/7) ........................................................................................... 18  
8.  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) .......................................................................................................... .. 21 
9.  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30) .................................................................................................. 22  
10.  Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/37) .................................................................................................. 25  
11.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) .................................................................................................... 26  
12.  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) .................................................................................................. 26  
13.  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/7) ....................................................................... 27  
E.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ........................................ 27  
1.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/91 and G/AG/N/CAN/91/Corr.1) ................................................... 27  
2.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/39) ................................................................................................. 28  
3.  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/8) ........................................................................................... 28  
F.  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) ..................................................... 29  
1.  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/6) ........................................................................................... 29   G/AG/W/95 
 Page 3 
 
 
  III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 29  
1.  Egypt – Outstanding notifications on dom estic support and export subsidies .................. 29  
2.  Indonesia – Outstanding notifications on domestic support ............................................... 29  
3.  Turkey – Outstanding notifications on do mestic support and export subsidies ............... 30  
ANNEX 1 ............................................................................................................................. .................... 31  
 G/AG/W/95 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. M
ARKET ACCESS OBSTRUCTIONS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  
1. Argentina will deliver a statement on the effects on market access of obstructions in the form 
of regulations that have no scientific or technical justification 
B. BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT PROGRAMMES  
(i) Questions by the United States 
2. Regarding Brazil's "Prêmio para Escoamen to do Produto" (PEP) programme, the United 
States notes that Brazil states the programme is  a domestic support programme that provides a 
premium, offered through public auc tion, to buyers interested in the purchase of the eligible products 
in a given region directly from a producer or coopera tive, by buying at the minimum price set by the 
Government.  Further, Brazil, in response to the question posed by the European Union (G/AG/W/88, 
paragraph 1 refers) states the progr amme is designed as an "instrument to complement supply in 
deficient regions through private stocks".  Howeve r, in response to the question posed by the United 
States (G/AG/W/92, paragraph 14(b) refers) Brazil states that the last year Brazil was able to confirm 
any product moving to supply deficient regions was in  2005/2006.  At that time, Brazil stated that 
final data for 2010/2011 would not be available until after February 2012.  Since then, the United 
States understands that in 2010/2011 most, if not a ll, rice auctioned under PEP was exported and little 
or none was supplied to defi cient regions.  Furthermore, Brazilian rice production increased 
significantly in 2010/2011 and resulted in record quantities of rice being auctioned through the PEP 
programme and then exported.  In addition, the United States has seen an increased number of exports 
of other products, some of which are typically ma jor import products that ha ve benefitted from the 
PEP programme.  These developments raise strong c oncerns that the PEP programme for all intents 
and purposes serves as a vehicle for supporting exports .  Based on official data from 2005 to 2011, 
can Brazil demonstrate, on an annual basis, what percentage of PEP rice and wheat transactions were 
auctioned for domestic markets? 
3. The United States understands that through the Agricultural and Livestock Plan (ALP), 
Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) allocates a budget for all support programmes that is linked to the minimu m prices.  From the ALP funding, MAPA then 
announces allocations of that funding for the pr ice support of specific commodities, such as rice 
through the Federal Government Acquisition Progr amme (AGF), PEP, and "Prêmio de Equalização 
pago ao Produtor" (PEPRO).  It is then at the discretion of "Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento" 
(CONAB), which is a part of MAPA, to auction the MAPA specified products.  Please explain in 
detail how the amount of funding for each  commodity is determined by MAPA. 
4. Please provide some indication of the policy framework for the various market price support 
programmes, particularly as products disappear  and then later reappear in the Supporting 
Tables DS:5?  Does this mean that programmes were simply not operational for some reason, or that 
the programmes were official stopped, then  re-launched or so me other rationale? 
5. The United States would like to follow up to the response provided by Brazil (G/AG/W/88, 
paragraph 3(b) refers) in which Brazil stated the crite ria used to decide which products will be eligible 
for a programme each year were the market price,  availability of funds, and the level of stocks. 
(a) Are these criteria used by CONAB to determine, at its discretion, which products it 
will auction?  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) Please describe in more detail how prevailing market prices are used to determine the 
eligible products each year and how that relates to the programme's objective of 
supplying deficient regions. 
6. The United States understands based on C ONAB announcements from 15 March 2012 and 
29 March 2012 that there are two types of PEP aucti on notices pertaining to approved destinations for 
wheat.  Some notices allow for product auctioned to be commercialized in any region other than the 
actual production states providing the commodity for au ction.  Other notices allow for only specified 
regions for the commercialization of wheat, similar to the rice notices. 
(a) Please describe the basis for the differing types of PEP auction notices for wheat. 
(b) Please explain in more detail how supply deficient regions are determined for rice, 
wheat, and other products s upported by the PEP programme. 
C. COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
(i) Question  by the European Union 
7. The European Union appreciates the transparency provided by Costa Rica through submission 
of domestic support notifications.  The Committee on Agriculture has noted on many occasions that 
Costa Rica remains in breach of its Total Aggreg ate Measurement of Support (AMS) commitment.  
Please update the Committee on the actions undertaken to address this situation since the March 2012 
meeting. 
(ii) Question by the United States 
8. The United States notes that the current world pri ce for rice is about half of Costa Rica's 
market price support.  What are the steps taken by since the last Committee meeting to lower its 
Current Total AMS to within its Final Bound Total AMS commitment? 
D. TABLE DS:2  NOTIFICATIONS BY INDIA  
(i) Question by the European Union 
9. The European Union would like to refer to the question on Table DS:2 notifications posed to 
India at the meeting of the Committee on Agricultu re of 29-30 September 2011 (G/AG/W/88/Rev.1, 
paragraph 33 refers) and the reply given.  Table DS:2 notifications  are required under Article 18.3 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture and the Committee's G/AG/2, hence the question of when India would 
provide the missing Table DS:2 notifications is of re levance.  Table DS:2 notifications help Members 
understand the programmes notified as exempt and are therefore a valuable input to transparency.  
The European Union invites India to provide th e Table DS:2 notifications for review in the 
Committee.  Are such notifications planned for the near future? 
E. INDIA 'S EXPORT RESTRICTIONS  
(i) Questions by the Euro pean Union 
10. Could India please confirm that the export bans for cotton, sugar, onion and casein have been 
lifted?  If yes, could India please indicate the respective dates of actual lifting? 
11. Is there any plan to re-instate export restricti ons for the products in question in the foreseeable 
future? G/AG/W/95 
Page 6  
 
  12. Did India contemplate at all notifying the sai d export bans under Article  12 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture to the Committee on Agriculture?  If not, how does India interpret provisions under Article 12 in terms of notification obligations, beari ng in mind that India is net-exporter of some of 
the concerned products? 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
13. At the March 2012 Committee on Agriculture meeting,  India stated that the earlier prohibition 
of the export of cotton had been removed via Notification No. 106 (RE-2010)/2009-14 as of 12 March 2012.  Subsequently, Members learned that the above noted 12 March 2012 action did not 
completely remove the export restrictions.  Accord ing to a press release dated 30 April 2012 issued by 
the Government of India's Ministry of Textiles, I ndia may consider re-imposing the ban in the future. 
(a) Please provide an update regarding any specifi c export restrictions the Government of 
India currently has in place for cotton. 
(b) Please describe India's cotton export policy and specifically address any key decision 
timeframes or criteria which may lead to re -imposition of export restrictions for 
India's cotton. 
(c) Given the serious disruptions export restric tions cause to world markets, does India 
have any intention to notify any such future export restriction measures? 
F. I
NDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  
(i) Questions by New Zealand 
14. New Zealand remains concerned about various In donesian measures that restrict trade in 
agricultural goods.  These include licensing requirement s, quantitative import restrictions for beef and 
beef products, and preventing the importation of horticultural products at key ports including the 
Jakarta seaport (Tanjung Priok).  Further, two add itional measures introduced but not yet entered in 
force, Regulations 3 and 30 of 2012, provide th at domestic supply and demand can be taken into 
account in deciding whether to issue import perm its for horticultural products.  New Zealand has 
raised these concerns bilaterally, and in this Committee and the SPS and Import Licensing 
Committees. 
15. New Zealand asks Indonesia to explain how th ese measures are consistent with its WTO 
obligations, and respond to the c oncerns raised about them in WTO committees by New Zealand and 
other WTO Members.  In the meantime New Zealand encourages Indonesia to postpone the 
implementation of proposed Regula tions 3 and 30 of 2012, until they are scrutinised for conformity 
with WTO obligations and Members' concerns addressed. 
16. Finally, New Zealand encourages Indonesia to provide greater clarity about its trade measures 
through their timely notification under relevant WTO Agreements. 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
17. Indonesia's responses to questions on quantitativ e restrictions at the March 2012 Committee 
on Agriculture highlighted Indonesia's policy desire to achieve greater domestic food and agricultural 
production.  Advances in farm production, distribut ion and marketing are important goals.  These 
goals may, however, be difficult to meet if farm ers cannot function efficiently in the context of 
competitive, diversified, and responsive mark ets.  Moreover, policies based on quantitative  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 7 
 
 
  restrictions raise significant questions regarding In donesia's compliance with its obligations under the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Agriculture.  Please explain how Indonesia's quantitative restrictions are consistent with Indonesia's WTO commitments, including under Articles III and XI of 
the GATT 1994, and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
18. Indonesia stated, " [i]mports will be conducted if the dom estic production and supply of the 
products have not been sufficient to meet  public consumption at affordable price ".  What is meant by 
affordable price?  If domestic consumption is satisfied by domestic  production at so-called affordable 
prices, does this mean the Government of Indonesi a will not allow issuance of import permits for the 
relevant products?  The United States believes that  the use of such criteria to administer import 
permits raises questions of  consistency with Indonesia's WTO obligations.   
19. Indonesia noted that Annex II of Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No. 50/2011 contains a 
list of livestock products that can be imported.  Th e United States is concerned that some commonly 
traded products, such as poultry products within HS 0207.13 and 0207.14, are not listed in this annex.  
Are import permits required for the import of these pr oducts?  If yes, are these products eligible to 
obtain import permits?  If eligible, how are import permits for these products obtained? 
20. Since the March 2012 Committee meeting, the Un ited States understands that the Ministry of 
Trade has issued Regulation 30, which deals with  the import permit process for fresh and processed 
fruit and vegetable products.  Please explain how this Regulation and Ministry of Agriculture 
Regulation 3 will work together to govern the impor t permit process for fresh and processed fruit and 
vegetable products.  In addition, please explain wh y these Regulations do not allow for direct imports 
of fruit and vegetable products by retailers.  Finally, the United St ates repeats its question from the 
March Committee meeting:  Can the Government of Indonesia give assurances that fresh and 
processed fruit and vegetable products will not be quantitatively limited or managed under an import 
permit system? 
21. The United States notes that, according to the legislation, imported horticultural products may 
only be traded and/or transferred to a distributor an d may not be sold or transferred directly to the 
consumer or retailer.  Do domestically-produced horticultural products face the same distribution 
requirements? 
G. M
OROCCO 'S RECENT CROP INSURANCE PROGRAMME  
(i) Questions by the United States 
22. The United States understands that in Septem ber 2011, Morocco implemented a new crop 
insurance programme for grain and pulse farmers to d eal with risks associated with the impact of 
weather conditions on production.  Through th is programme, the Moroccan Government will 
subsidize about 50-90 per cent of the farmers' insu rance premium, depending on the size of the farm. 
(a) Please provide additional details regardi ng this programme.  Specifically, please 
describe how Morocco intends to implement the programme. 
(b) How does Morocco plan to notify the pr ogramme to the Committee on Agriculture? 
(c) When does Morocco plan to make this no tification to the Committee on Agriculture? G/AG/W/95 
Page 8  
 
  II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. A
DMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:1) 
1. United States (G/AG/N/USA/84) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Transparency issues 
(i) Question by Australia 
23. Australia notes greater levels of United States s ugar imports in recent years and in particular 
the decline in imports from Mexico over the past year and United States' production levels down.  
Australia also notes recent calls from United Stat es' domestic food processing industries for further 
increases in the TRQ amounts which were subsequently granted.2  Furthermore, Australia notes a 
number of industry groups have recently written to U STR Kirk stating (30 April 2012) "it is time for 
the Administration to re-examine its sugar trade po licy as part of a broader reaffirmation of an open 
trade agenda for the U.S.".  Can the United Stat es indicate whether any further reforms are envisaged 
to the TRQ regime notified in its current table MA:1 notification? 
B. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) 
1. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/89) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Tariff quota fill 
(i) Question by the European Union 
24. Canada notifies the in-quota imports under th e concerned tariff rate quota at 8,832 tonnes 
during the period 2010/2011 which corresponds to a ta riff quota fill of 88.32 per cent.  Could Canada 
please give its overall assessment on imports under th is tariff quota and notably explain why a higher 
rate of import was not recorded dur ing the period concerned by the notification?  Could the tariff rate 
quota management in place be part of the explanatio n?  If this interpretation is not entirely excluded, 
would Canada consider modifying the wa y it administers this tariff rate quota? 
2. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/38) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Transparency issues 
(i) Question by the European Union 
25. Costa Rica's commitments comprise 27 bound ta riff quotas.  However, the notification only 
includes eight of them.  The European Union requ ests Costa Rica to include all bound tariff quotas in 
the notification as a matter of transparency. 
                                                      
2 http://www.sweetenerusers.org/SUA%20 Press%20Release%20FINAL%204-11-12.pdf   G/AG/W/95 
 Page 9 
 
 
  3. El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Transparency issues  
(i) Question by the European Union 
26. The commitments of El Salva dor comprise eleven bound tariff quotas, while the notification 
includes only one of them.  The European Union woul d like to request El Salvador to include all 
bound tariff quotas in the notification as a matter of transparency. 
C. SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/46) 
(a) SSG – Trigger calculations 
(i) Questions by the United States 
27. A concern in regard to the safeguard penalt y relates to page 5 of Korea's Table MA:3 
notification and specifically to the commodity list ed as "other worked grains".  Korea placed 
volume-based safeguards on "other worked grains" in  2006 and 2007.  According to the calculations 
provided in by Korea in this notification, import leve ls were the same as consumption levels in each 
year, 2002-2005. 
(a) Please confirm that domestic production of worked grains is zero. 
(b) If there is no domestic production, why does Korea apply a safeguard penalty on 
imports of these worked grains? 
2. Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/95 and G/AG/N/TPKM/96) 
(a) SSG – Link with TRQ commitments 
(i) Question by Australia 
28. Australia notes from Chinese Taipei's Table MA :3 notification that it has introduced a 
volume-based safeguard on dried shiitake mushr ooms for the period March 2012 to December 2012 
despite the fact that it had not applied safeguards on this product for the previous fiscal year and 
looking at TRQ fill rates (of 51 per cent in the 2011  calendar year).  Chinese Taipei has previously 
explained that its TRQ underfills are due to cha nges in domestic supply a nd consumption patterns 
and, on occasion, SPS measures.  Can it explain how  TRQ fill rates could be impacted upon by the 
imposition of safeguards such as the one placed on dried shiitake mushrooms on this occasion and 
whether the relationship with TRQ fill rates are cons idered before the implementation of a safeguard 
measure? G/AG/W/95 
Page 10  
 
  D. D
OMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  research 
(i) Question by Australia 
29. In the context of Green Box support, Aust ralia notes that research and development 
expenditure more than doubled in the years 2007 to  2009.  Could Brazil provide more information on 
the "sustainability and competitiveness research  programme" – a major component of this 
expenditure? 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General service s:  extension and advisory services 
(i) Question by Australia 
30. Australia notes the increase in funding for extension and advi sory services (fivefold increase 
between 2007 and 2009); could Brazil provide an outline of the major drivers for this increase in 
funding, and the significant variability in funding of sub categories year-on-year? 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  infrastructural services 
(i) Question by Australia 
31. The tenfold increase in infrastructural services from 2007 to 2008 is notable – does the 
significant increase in investment in infrastructure re late to the development of new agricultural areas 
or the renewal of aging infrastructure?  Can Brazil confirm that spending on these services did not include on-farm facilities other than for the re ticulation of generally available public utilities? 
(d) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Question by the European Union 
32. Could Brazil please explain whether Government food purchases and sales from food security 
stocks are made at market prices? 
33. How does Brazil define "family farming"? 
(e) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  income insurance and income safety-net 
programmes 
(i) Question by the European Union 
34. Could Brazil please explain under what criteria the insurance payments under the 
Warranty-Crop Fund are granted? 
(f) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatm ent/Development Programmes) – Input subsidies 
available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
(i) Question by the European Union 
35. Could Brazil please explain how it defines "l ow-income or resource-poor producers"?  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (g) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Question by Australia 
36. Australia understands that applied administer ed prices are established by MAPA/CONAB for 
each year.  Can Brazil provide details on how applied administered prices are set and whether there is any differentiation in approach between products? 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
37. In Supporting Table 6 of G/AG/AGST/BRA fo r market price support commodities, Brazil 
notified total production as eligible production, ye t in G/AG/N/BRA/27 Supporting Table DS:5 Brazil 
has notified quantities that are considerab ly smaller than total production.   
(a) Please explain what quantities are represen ted in G/AG/N/BRA/27 in the column 
designated for eligible production.   
(b) Please provide a rationale for the deviati on from Brazil's original AGST notification 
and, to the extent applicable, from previous Table DS:1 notifications? 
38. The United States notes that the average Thai m illed, 100 per cent, Grade B price for rice in 
1986-1988 was about $252 per metric ton, considerably  above Brazil's fixed external reference price 
of $174.13 per metric ton in G/AG/AGST/BRA.  Are the notified applied administered and fixed 
external reference prices for Brazil's domestic s upport of rice on a paddy (rough) or milled basis? 
(h) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Question by Australia 
39. Australia understands the Premium for the Flow of Products Programme (PEP) objective is to 
limit the difference between the minimum price and the market price.  As part of this programme, 
agents pay the price for the product and internal tr ansportation costs which are presumably included in 
the costs of transaction between the agent and the buye r.  However, the buyer then is compensated by 
the Government.  Australia notes under previous questions (November 2011) Members asked what 
percentage of the programme was directed at in ternal and overseas markets for rice.  PEP has been 
used in the 2008/2009 period on edible beans, grapes  (wine), maize and milk.  How much of these 
products which were suppor ted under PEP were destined for overseas markets? 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
40. The United States understands that reported da ta for "Prêmio de Equalização pago ao 
Produtor" (PEPRO) can be affected by definitions of  marketing years and lags in reporting.  But the 
United States have difficulties reconciling the repo rted data with data found on official Brazilian 
websites, such as that maintained by CONAB.  For example, publicly available data from the 
"Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento" (CONAB) show significant support for cotton under the 
PEPRO programme for 2007, 2008, and 2009.3  The OECD PSE/CSE database also shows outlays for 
PEPRO for cotton between 2007 and 2009.  Brazil, however, did not notify any support for cotton 
under PEPRO in 2008/2009.  Please clarify how Braz il reconciles these conflicting data observations. 
                                                      
3 See, USDA FAS:  
"http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publica tions/Cotton%20and%20Products%20Annual_Brasilia_B
razil_3-30-2012.pdf ", page 9; USDA ERS:  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CWS/2011/06Jun/CWS11D01/CWS11D01.pdf , page 17.  G/AG/W/95 
Page 12  
 
  41. The United States also understands that the PEP programme has been used extensively for 
wheat in recent years, beyond the use notified in Supporting Table DS:7 for the 2008/2009 notification and that Brazil's wheat exports have increased as well.  Please confirm if Brazilian wheat exports have also benefited fro m the PEP programme and the degree of support if 
provided? 
(i) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
42. The European Union would like to ask a fo llow-up from the meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in March 2011 (G/AG/W/ 83, paragraph 23 refers) which at that time referred to Brazilian 
notification G/AG/N/BRA/26.  Would Brazil be in a position to share with the Members the results of 
its evaluation of the possibility of using other benchmark rates instead of SELIC? 
43. In relation to the measure "Risk Minimizing Agribusiness Programme", the European Union 
would like to ask the following questions: 
(a) Please explain how this measure operates 
(b) Please explain reasons for notification under non-product specific AMS. 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
44. In response to the United States questi on at an earlier Committee on Agriculture 
(G/AG/W/83, paragraph 22(a) refers), Brazil indi cated it would evaluate whether other benchmark 
rates such as actual lending rates for individuals an d corporations to be s ourced from Central Bank of 
Brazil constitute better benchmarks than SELIC inte rest rates or not.  The United States notes that 
Brazil has not indicated any change in how the inter est rate subsidies are calculated in its most recent 
notification. 
(a) Please explain what Brazil found out in its evaluation of benchmark rates. 
(b) Please explain what, if any, changes Brazil has made in terms of how Brazil notifies 
its non-product-specific production and marketi ng credits since Brazil's last domestic 
support notification. 
(j) Classification of measures 
(i) Questions by the United States 
45. Regarding previous questions to Brazil (G/ AG/W/94, paragraph 10 refers) and Supporting 
Table DS:7 of G/AG/N/BRA/27, the United States unde rstands that Brazil's "Prêmio para Escoamento 
do Produto" (PEP) and "Prêmio de Risco para Aqui sição de Produto Agricola oriundo de Contrato 
Privado de Opação de Venda" (PROP) programmes ar e notified as "other product specific support" by 
Brazil.  The United States understands that both PEP  and PROP generally provide support to covered 
products by paying the difference between the mini mum support price and actual prices for product as 
determined through public auction.  Since the premise of the programme appears to be to ensure that 
producers receive at least the minimum support price, as announced by the Government, why does Brazil not notify these programmes as market price support (Supporting Table DS:5)? 
46. Where does Brazil notify support under the "Empréstimo do Governo Federal" (EGF) 
programme?  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 13 
 
 
  47. It appears that support under the EGF programme is based on a minimum announced support 
price.  CONAB data show support under this programme specific to cotton.4  T h e  O E C D  
PSE/CSE database also shows EGF outlays as support  to specific products.  Should EGF outlays be 
allocated to specific commodities? 
2. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  income insurance and income safety-net 
programmes 
(i) Question by Japan 
48. Could Canada kindly explain any particular reason why "e) income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes" substantially decreased from 2007 to 2008, if any, other than price increases 
in the international agricultural markets? 
(ii) Question by the United States  
49. With respect to the Income Disaster Component of AgriStability Programme, notified in 
G/AG/N/CAN/90 and 91 as "income insurance and in come safety-net programmes" in Supporting 
Table DS:1, the programme is based on a margin cal culated as the difference between total eligible 
sales and other revenues and eligible expenses.  Do eligible sales and expenses cover sales and 
expenses from the supply-managed da iry, poultry, and egg sectors? 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
(i) Question by Japan 
50. Could Canada kindly explain the reason wh y "j) Environmental programmes (federal, 
federal/provincial)" substantia lly decreased from 2007 to 2008? 
(c) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Question by the European Union 
51. In the notification for 2008 and 2009 presented fo r review at this meeting, the European 
Union notes a significant increase of Current Tota l AMS as compared to the previous Canadian 
notification G/AG/N/CAN/86.  Could Canada please explain the reasons for this increase? 
(d) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Questions by Australia 
52. Current AMS as a percentage of value for milk has increased to being above 10 per cent for 
the last three years notified:  10.2 per cent in 2007, 12.9 per cent in 2008, and 10.1 per cent in 2009.  This is primarily due to increases in the administ ered prices despite overall eligible production levels 
declining between 2008 and 2009 leve ls.  Can Canada explain why acco rding to the Canadian Dairy 
                                                      
4 See, USDA FAS:  
"http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publica tions/Cotton%20and%20Products%20Annual_Brasilia_B
razil_3-30-2012.pdf ", page 9; USDA ERS:  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CWS/2011/06Jun/CWS11D01/CWS11D01.pdf , page 17.  G/AG/W/95 
Page 14  
 
  Commission
5, applied administered prices continue to rise despite overall dairy prices increasing and 
prospects for continued robust demand? 
(e) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Question by Australia 
53. The non-exempt direct payments made for Pork "Assurance stabilisation des revenus 
agricoles" has increased from Can$143.9 million in 2007  to Can$238 million in 2008 and stands at 
Can$201.0 million in 2009.  In a time of historically high commodity prices why have payments increased from the level in 2007? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
54. Could Canada provide more details on the "T obacco Transition Programme" which seems to 
have caused the substantial increase in support to tobacco in 2009 notification? 
(iii) Questions by Japan 
55. Could Canada kindly expl ain the reason for substantial increases in the product-specific AMS 
of beef and pork from 2007 to 2008? 
56. Could Canada kindly explain th e details of the "Tobacco Transition Programme" in 2009? 
(iv) Questions by the United States 
57. The United States notes that Canada paid out Can$22.2 million to cull swine in 2008 in 
G/AG/N/CAN/90, as well as reported an estimated Can$72 million in additional outlays under the 
Hog Farm Transition Programme for 2009 and 2010 in G/AG/N/CAN/91, while  at the same time 
reporting an AMS for the hog sector of Can$402 .5 million in 2008 a nd Can$247.5 in 2009 in 
G/AG/N/CAN/90.  Were these programmes directed at  different provinces, which might account for 
this anomalous situation? 
58. Please explain how the Ontario Cattle, Hog, a nd Horticulture Payment programme works. 
(f) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
59. Could Canada explain how payments unde r the Advance Payments Programme are 
calculated? 
60. In relation to the change in Canada's notifica tion from notification of the Advance Payments 
Programme in product-specific AMS to non-product- specific AMS, could Canada please list products 
which are currently eligible for these payments? 
61. Please explain what measures are notified unde r the Growing Forward Framework Initiatives 
in Supporting Table DS:9? 
                                                      
5 http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?link=115   G/AG/W/95 
 Page 15 
 
 
  3. Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/37) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
62. The amount notified under "disaster relief payments" in Supporting Table DS:1 is much 
higher than in the previous years.  
(a) Could Chile please explain the reason behind this increase? 
(b) Under which criteria are the "disaster relief payments" granted? 
(b) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treat ment/Development Programmes) – Investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture 
(i) Question by Canada 
63. Chile notifies an "Investment incentive" as "Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture".  Could Chile provide more detail on this measure and expl ain how Chile ensures that this 
scheme meets the criteria of Article 6.2, including "generally available"? 
(c) Classification of measures 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
64. Could Chile please explain the reasons behi nd notifying agricultural insurance under 
paragraph 5 of Annex 2? 
65. Under what criteria are the insurance payments granted? 
66. Could Chile explain why the Irrigation Law No. 18.450 is included in the notification both 
under General services and under non-product specific AMS? 
4. China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Questions by the United States 
67. The United States thanks China for responses to  questions at the March 2012 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture and has some follow up ques tions regarding China's responses.  In order to 
better understand China's agricultural policies and th e alignment of these policies with WTO rules, 
further clarification and information is requested  based on responses in paragraph 43 of G/AG/W/94. 
(a) Please provide the internet link to "The  Outline of the National Programme for 
Long-term and Medium-term Food Security (2008-2010)".  Also, if subsequent 
documents exist for one or more periods after 2010, please provide these links as 
well. 
(b) Please provide the internet links to any av ailable price information (or publications) 
regarding the purchasing and selling of commodities in China's public stockholdings. G/AG/W/95 
Page 16  
 
  68. China's response in paragraph 43 of G/AG/W/94 was the following:  "Fourth, to maintain a 
reasonable level of grain reserve and to optimize the reserve layout and the structure of varieties;  the 
proportion of wheat and rice in the reserve will be no less than 70 per cent.  Fifth, to establish a sound 
system of "Four Bulks" grain logistics that feat ures bulk loading, bulk unloading, bulk storage and 
bulk transportation; and to accelerate the develo pment of a modern grain logistics system.  The 
proportion of "Four Bulks" to national grain l ogistics would reach 30 per cent by 2010 and 55 per 
cent by 2020. "  Please explain in further detail what is meant by the above highlighted portions  of the 
fourth and fifth goals of China's guaranteeing food security. 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents:  decoupled income support 
(i) Question by the United States 
69. Regarding the response in paragraph 43 of G/AG/W/94, the United States notes that China's 
response indicates that "no specific product is requ ired to be produced".  Please confirm whether 
farmers remain eligible to receive these payments  even when the farmer produces nothing at all. 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
(i) Questions by the United States 
70. Regarding China's responses in paragraph 48 of  G/AG/W/94, the United States can appreciate 
that a large number of diverse programmes may be involved and that subsequently a large amount of 
space might be potentially utilized to respond in detail.  Nonetheless, the United States continues 
having a strong interest in understanding the po licy framework and in particular the policy 
implementation for these programmes. 
(a) Could China select at least one or two examples of how programmes for natural 
disasters and the environment are implemented? 
(b) How do these examples illustrate the basic policy and regulatory framework? 
(c) Please provide where interested Members could review (internet locations, other 
documents) other specific policy and implem enting guidance more generally for these 
programmes for natural disasters and environment? 
(d) How does China ensure that relevant criteri a of these programmes are considered as 
part of the overarching agricultural policy framework in China, and are implemented 
in accordance with the WT O Agreement on Agriculture? 
(d) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
(i) Question by the United States 
71. Responses to previous questions (G/AG/W/92, paragraph 42 and G/AG/W/93, paragraph 66 
refer) unfortunately leave room for a better unders tanding of the various programmes.  Moreover, 
payments for environmental programmes have increas ed dramatically between 2005 and 2008.  Please 
provide a more detailed description of the program mes including a description of the operational and 
administrative aspects of these programmes.  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (e) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Negative support amounts 
(i) Question by the European Union 
72. The European Union joins other Members in expressing concerns over China's methodology 
applied to calculations involvi ng negative AMS.  As a follow -up to China's reply from the 
March 2012 meeting (G/AG/W/94, para graph 52 refers).  Please explain why China considers this 
methodology is correct.  Would China consider revising the methodology it uses? 
(f) Classification of measures 
(i) Questions by Canada 
73. According to China's recent Trade Policy Revi ew (WT/TPR/S/264, page  104, paragraph 24) 
from the Secretariat, China introduced a pilot in surance scheme in 2007 wh erein central and local 
governments subsidize insurance premiums. 
(a) Can China please indicate where it has reported this scheme in its Table DS:1 
notifications and indicate the am ounts reported under this programme? 
(b) If the scheme has not been reported, can China please explain why this is the case? 
74. According to China's recent Trade Policy Re view (WT/TPR/S/264, page 105, paragraph 25) 
from the Secretariat, "The Comprehensive Subsidy on Agricultural Inputs" was established in 2006 to 
compensate grain producers for increases in the pr ice of inputs.  The report indicates that the 
authorities consider these inputs as direct payments  because they are not contingent on the use of 
inputs but on the basis of taxable arable land. 
(a) Where does China notify this support in its Table DS:1 notifications? 
(b) Could China explain which grain producers are currently eligible for such payments?  
(c) Could China explain the significant increase from 2006 to 2010 (reported in the 
Secretariat report) and provide payment amounts by grain product? 
5. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CRI/40) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Scheduled commitment level 
(i) Question by Australia 
75. Costa Rica's Current Total AMS for 2011 is over six and a half (6.5) times more than its level 
of AMS commitment and is entirely due to its price support for rice (see Annex 1).  Costa Rica has indicated that a process had commenced to review the current suite of policies.  Could Costa Rica 
provide an update on its policy deliberation processes and when it in tends to bring its AMS spending 
back into line with its commitments? 
(ii) Question by Canada 
76. Canada notes Costa Rica's continued violation of Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
by providing support in excess of its commitment level.  Supporting Table DS:5 reports a slight decline in the applied administered price for rice.   However, the eligible production has increased 
from the previous year.  At the March 2012 me eting of the Committee on Agriculture, Costa Rica G/AG/W/95 
Page 18  
 
  reported that the process to bring itself into co mpliance with the Agreement was delayed due to a 
domestic process.  Could Costa Rica provide an up date on this process and indicate what concrete 
steps it is taking to bring itself in to compliance with its commitment? 
(iii) Question by Japan 
77. Japan appreciates the effort by Costa Rica in reducing the applied administered price of rice 
in 2011.  However, the Current Total AMS still substantially exceeds its commitment level (about 
6.5 times as big as the commitment level).  Could Costa Rica explain any progress in its rice policy reform since the last regular session this March,  as well as the future prospect of the reform? 
6. Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General service s:  marketing and promotion services 
(i) Questions by the United States 
78. In G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1, the Dominican Republic notified the Rice production and 
marketing programme in Supporting Table DS:1 as General services support for marketing and 
promotion services.  The United States understands that the Government of the Dominican Republic 
(GoDR) provides significant support to the rice se ctor through a variety of programmes that do not 
appear to fall under paragraph 2(f) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The United States 
understands the GoDR predetermines the purchase price of harvested rice, which has historically been 
well above world prices for rice.  In addition, the United States understands that the rice sector receives two forms of Government subsidies co llectively known as the "p ignoración" programme.  
The first pays millers a storage fee for warehousi ng the season's harvest throughout the year.  The 
second subsidizes interest rates on money loaned to millers for their operating expenses, which, in 
turn, includes millers' payments to rice producers. 
(a) Please provide an explanation of how the Rice production and marketing programme 
operates and how in whole or in part this  programme as notified meets the criteria of 
paragraph 2(f) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) Please confirm whether the Dominican Repub lic includes the price support scheme 
and "pignoración" programme in the notified Rice production and marketing 
programme. 
(c) Also, please provide further information regarding the Dominican Republic's rice 
price support scheme and "pignoración" programme. 
7. European Union (G/AG/N/EU/7) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Question by the United States 
79. The United States wishes to acknowledge the European Union's additional notations in 
Supporting Table DS:1.  The additional column 5 "Comments" provides a simple and potentially 
useful reference to the legislativ e basis for the measures.  The provision of such detailed name or 
legislative references in Members' notifications is very much welcomed and can assist Members seeking a deeper understanding of the measures.  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 19 
 
 
  (b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  infrastructural services 
(i) Question by Australia 
80. Expenditure on infrastructural services has in creased from EUR 1,238.1 million in 2007/2008 
to EUR 1,794.1 million in 2008/2009.  Could the European Union provide further information on 
reasons for the increase in support?  Can the European  Union confirm that this increase in consistent 
with Annex 2, paragraph 2 of th e Agreement on Agriculture i.e. th e European Union has excluded the 
subsidised provision of on-farm facilities other than for the reticulation of generally available public 
utilities? 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  other 
(i) Question by the United States 
81. The United States notes under "Other farm ser vices (viii)" and amongst the Member States' 
measures the European Union notifies "farm relief".  Please explain in more detail what "farm relief" is and in which Member States th is type of support is given. 
(d) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
(i) Question by Japan 
82. Could the European Union kindly explain the r eason for the reduction in "j) Environmental 
Programmes"? 
(e) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under regional assistance programmes 
(i) Question by Japan 
83. Could the European Union kindly explain the reason for the reduction in "k) Regional 
Assistance Programmes"? 
(f) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  other 
(i) Question by Japan 
84. Could the European Union kindly explain wh y "Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS)" is 
classified as "l) Other" in Supporting Table DS:1, instead of as "d) Decoupled Income Support"?  The amount of SAPS in 2008 was more than twice of that in 2005.  It was reported that SAPS, including 
national top-ups, has been gradually introduced, from 55 per cent of the full rate in 2005 to 
80 per cent in 2008:  that would make the payment in 2008 about 1.45 times that in 2005.  Could the European Union kindly explain the reason for the in crease of more than 200 per cent, as well as the 
contents of the payment in detail (including its distribution to member States)? 
(ii) Question by the United States 
85. The United States notes that under "Other," the Single Area Payment Scheme increased 
significantly compared to the previous year.  Please explain the reasoning or provide additional 
background for this large increase in support. G/AG/W/95 
Page 20  
 
  (g) Article 6.5 (Blue Box) – Payments based on fixed areas or yields 
(i) Question by Japan 
86. With regard to the payment accompanied by the reform of the fruit and vegetables sector, 
could the European Union kindly explain the reason why the Blue Box payment (Transitional fruit and vegetable payment) was introduced, instead of  integrating that support immediately into the 
decoupled direct payment (the Single Payment Sc heme)?  Also, could the European Union please 
explain the relationship between the Transitional pa yment and Single Farm Payment, including a) the 
payment per unit area for both payments, b) the leve l of set-aside required to be eligible for the 
transition payment, c) differences in the ope ration above, if any, among Member countries? 
(h) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Questions by the United States 
87. In Supporting Table DS:4 the European Union provides in column 5 the Production Value of 
the agricultural product, a best practice endorsed  by the Committee.  The United States notes, 
however, that for several products the value of producti on is "n.a." (not available).  It appears that the 
European Union has simply defined that if no va lue of production is available for an individual 
product, that the total value of the AMS+EMS is in cluded without question.  Please confirm that this 
is the practice.  
88. Please describe in more detail the following programmes: 
(a) "Green-harvesting and non-harvesting"; 
(b) "Harvest insurance", including how and if th is relates to insurance subsidies; and 
(c) "Other", including what programmes this consists of. 
(i) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Questions by Australia 
89. Market price support (MPS) levels have dropped dr amatically over the past five years due to 
the reclassification of certain prod ucts, in particular fruit and vegeta bles.  At the June 2011 Committee 
on Agriculture meeting in a response to a ques tion from the United States, the European Union 
described its previous notification method (price support instrument in which the entry prices only 
served as a proxy for the applied administered price support).  Can the European Union provide details on what other elements of the price support instrument there were and how the relationship has 
changed with the introduction of the new programm es which would warrant a change in reporting on 
the MPS? 
90. The quantity of eligible production for a number of commodities (common wheat, durum 
wheat, barley, maize, sorghum, butter) has increased from 2007/2008 to 2008/2009.  Could the 
European Union provide information on how it calcu lates eligible production and the reasons for the 
recent increases?  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (j) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 
(i) Question by Canada 
91. Could the EU please provide outlay data for the individual fruit and vegetable crops for which 
producers enjoy support under "green harvesting and non-harvesting"?  Furthermore, what is the 
meaning of the measure providing "horizontal" support? 
(k) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Negative support amounts 
(i) Question by the United States 
92. In Supporting Table DS:4 for "Potatoes for processing into starch" the European Union 
appears to add the negative EMS valued at EU R -258.6 million to the positive AMS valued at 
EUR 152.3 million.  This results in a combined AMS+EMS value of zero.  Please provide the 
rationale for the negative value of EMS in this potato processing support scheme. 
8. India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
93. The European Union wishes to thank India for replies to questions provided at previous 
meetings and to follow up with some questions: 
(a) What does the expenditure notified under "Buffer stock operations (food grain)" 
consist of? 
(b) With reference to India's reply (G/AG/ W88, paragraphs 22 and 23 refer) at the 
meeting of 29-30 September 2011, does the expenditure notified under "Buffer stock 
operations (food grain)" also include the cost or  part of the cost of procuring food, or 
is this rather included in India's AMS calculation? 
(c) In relation to India's reply of the Committee on Agriculture 29-30 September 2011 
(G/AG/W88, paragraphs 22 refers), could India provide some quarterly data on the 
"stocks to be maintained as per buffer norms "?  This would help Members to get an 
idea of the magnitude of the "predetermin ed targets" required under paragraph 3 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(d) Do those "predetermined targets" figure in any legislation?  If yes, where precisely? 
(e) In its reply during the Committee on Agricu lture meeting of 29-30 September 2011 
(G/AG/W88, paragraph 23 refers) India refe rs to a "wide gap, [between MSP and 
Central Issue Prices] in turn resulting in an increase in the subsidy amount in recent 
years".  Is India in a position to provide some further information on the development 
of the MSP in "recent years", i.e. after 2003/2004, pending the respective Table DS:1 notifications (see also for reference the TPR India of September 2011, WT/TPR/S/249, paragraph 38, p. 135)? G/AG/W/95 
Page 22  
 
  (b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
94. In relation to India's reply to Canada at the March 2012 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture (G/AG/W/94, paragraph 58 refers): 
(a) India's reply does not provide information necessary to assess compliance with 
criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2.  Pl ease provide detailed information on how the 
payments under "crop insurance scheme" comply with criteria (a) to (e) of paragraph 8. 
(b) The reply India provided seems to indicate that the insurance covers for losses of 
yield.  Please confirm if this understanding is correct. 
(c) What mechanisms in the scheme ensure that " Payments shall compensate for not 
more than the total cost of replacing such  losses and shall not require or specify the 
type or quantity of future production "? 
(c) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Negative support amounts 
(i) Question by the European Union 
95. Does India's reply to question 34 at the Committee on Agriculture of 29-30 September 2011 
imply that regardless of the practice of notifyi ng negative AMS (generated by MPS calculations) 
India would in any case not off-set positive AMS with negative AMS? 
9. Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30) 
(a) Transparency issues 
(i) Question by Australia 
96. Indonesia's domestic support notification is missing a Table DS:1.  Can Indonesia please 
amend its notification to  include this table? 
(ii) Question by Canada 
97. Canada is unable to find Indonesia's notification (Table DS:1) for the years 2001, 2002 
and 2003.  When will Indonesia submit notifications for these years? 
(iii) Questions by the United States 
98. The United States notes that Indonesia has not pr ovided a Table DS:1 for the years concerned 
in its most recent notification G/AG/N/IDN/30 as re quired.  The United States requests Indonesia to 
include Table DS:1 as a corrigendum to G/AG/N/IDN/30. 
99. When does Indonesia plan to notify domestic support for 2001 to 2003?  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 23 
 
 
  (b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Question by Australia 
100. Australia notes that under Supporting Table DS:1, for the "Public stockholding for food 
security purposes" the description of the measure no tes this is for "price stabilization purposes".  Can 
Indonesia please describe the manner in which this programme is used to "stabilise prices" and how 
this is in accordance with the objectives establishe d in paragraph 1 and pr ocurement requirements 
established under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(ii) Questions by Canada 
101. In Supporting Table DS:1 "b) Public stoc kholding for food security purposes", Indonesia 
notes that support was provided for "reserve stoc k for emergency and price stabilization purposes": 
(a) Could Indonesia please clarify how "price stabilization purposes" contributes to food 
security? 
(b) Could Indonesia please provide information on how the prices were determined for 
the purchase of the reserve stocks? 
(iii) Questions by the United States 
102. The United States notes that Indonesia maintain s "reserve stock for emergency and price 
stabilization purposes" and that it ranged significantl y in monetary value during the years notified. 
(a) Please explain how the reserve stock programme operates and what products are 
covered. 
(b) Please identify how the price stabilization component of the stock programme meets 
the requirements of Annex 2 paragraph 3 of  the Agreement on Agriculture, including 
specifically "stocks shall correspond to predet ermined targets related solely to food 
security" and "food purchases by the Governme nt shall be made at current market 
prices and sales from the food security stocks sh all be made at no less than the current 
domestic market price". 
(c) Please provide references to documents wher e Indonesia's measure can be located for 
further understanding. 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Domestic food aid 
(i) Question by Australia 
103. There has been a significant rise in Domestic Food Aid payments over the period 2004-2008.  
Can Indonesia please provide further details on th e RASKIN programme and how this operates 
bearing in mind the criteria established in paragra ph 1 and paragraph 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture? G/AG/W/95 
Page 24  
 
  (d) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatm ent/Development Programmes) – Input subsidies 
available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
(i) Question by Australia 
104. Australia notes the increasing trend on input  subsidies over the period 2004-2008.  Can 
Indonesia please provide further details on these programmes to improve inputs, including inputs 
covered and the overall number of fa rmers eligible under these programmes? 
(ii) Questions by Canada 
105. In Supporting Table DS:2, Indonesia reports increasing use of domestic support measures 
classified under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (Development programmes).  Support 
levels increased from Rp 2.2 thousand billion in 20 04 to Rp 8.3 thousand billion in 2007 and then 
more than doubled to Rp 19 thousand billion in 2008. 
(a) Could Indonesia please explain what factors have contributed to these increasing 
support levels, and in particular the large increase from 2007 to 2008?  
(b) Does Indonesia expect support levels to continue to increase at a significant rate? 
(iii) Questions by the United States 
106. The Farming Input Assistance Programme, I ndonesia's Government support for inputs to 
agriculture, is unclear in the notification. 
(a) Is this a loan interest subsidy some times referred to as Food Security Credit 
("Kredit Ketahanan Pangan")? 
(b) What were the funds paid to fertilizer  manufacturers under the fertilizer subsidy 
scheme that supported the Highest Retail Price (HET) programme? 
(c) What were the subsidies paid to help farmers purchase or obtain seed, specifically, 
the Direct Superior Seed Aid (BLBU) programme, which provides free hybrid and certified seeds to farmers? 
(d) How does Indonesia define low-income or resource-poor producers? 
(e) Classification of measures 
(i) Questions by the United States 
107. The United States understands that Indonesia has a Government purchase price 
("Harga Pembelian Pemerintah") (HPP) for rice that is set each year and used to control the market 
price of rice.  As the United States understands the programme, the HPP operates as minimum price 
support programme and should be no tified in Supporting Table DS:5. 
(a) Please explain how the HPP is accounted for in Indonesia's notification. 
(b) Please confirm that beyond the rice price noted above, Indonesia's agricultural 
policies provide no other administered agri cultural price.  Specifically, please provide 
this confirmation for two separate periods:  a) the periods in this notification (2004-2008) and b) the yet-to-be notified periods 2001-2003.  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 25 
 
 
  (c) If Indonesia considers this part of its "reserve stock for emergency and price 
stabilization purposes," then please explain how this meets the requirements of paragraph 3 footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
10. Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/37) 
(a) Transparency issues 
(i) Question by the European Union 
108. Could Morocco please confirm that in the years covered by the notification no market price 
support existed for any product? 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Domestic food aid 
(i) Question by the European Union 
109. Domestic food aid more than doubled from 2003 to 2007.  Could Morocco please explain 
how this programme works, which products  are covered and who can benefit from it? 
(c) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatm ent/Development Programmes) – Input subsidies 
available to low income or resource poor producers 
(i) Question by Canada 
110. In Supporting Table DS:2, Morocco reports in creasing levels of support to low-income or 
resource-poor fruit farmers in the form of price s ubsidies for selected seeds and seedlings.  Could 
Morocco please explain how it distinguishes betwee n low-income or resource-poor fruit farmers and 
other fruit farmers in the administration of this support measure? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
111. Could Morocco please explain how "low income or  resource-poor producers" are defined, in 
particular for the fruit-farming sector? 
(d) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Question by the European Union 
112. Could Morocco please explain how the storage subsidy for cereals notified in Supporting 
Table DS:7 works? 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
113. The recent notifications are very much appreci ated.  Unfortunately, very little is currently 
understood about the operation of the two progr ammes notified in Supporting Table DS:7. 
(a) Please provide additional details regarding the storage subsidies for cereals and the 
production subsidies for sunflowers. 
(b) Please include how Morocco implements these programmes. 
(c) It would be helpful if Morocco could in dicate the value of production for these two 
commodities (cereals and sunflowers) in each of the respectively notified years. G/AG/W/95 
Page 26  
 
  11. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Scheduled commitment level 
(i) Questions by Australia 
114. Norway's AMS support (see Table DS:1) is again on the rise (10,232 NKr in 2012 compared 
with 9,648.5 NKr in 2009).  Norway breached is  AMS commitments in 2008 and made subsequent 
changes to its support to beef, removing the target  price.  Australia understands there have been 
deliberate policy decisions to increase target prices fo r a number of products including milk, pork, and 
sheep and eggs.6  What other reforms are envisaged to ensu re that overall AMS levels are maintained 
at a level to ensure that it does not  risk another breach of commitments? 
(b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
115. The European Union understands that market pr ice support for beef as notified in Supporting 
Table DS:5 does not exist anymore since 1 July 2009.  Is the understanding of the European Union correct that since then the new support for b eef has been created and notified in Supporting 
Table DS:8? 
116. Could Norway please explain the functioning of the price support for beef, poultry and 
potatoes notified in Supporting Table DS:8? 
12. Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  pest and disease control 
(i) Question by the European Union 
117. Why did spending on "pest and disease control" increase significantly in 2009 and 2010 
compared to earlier years? 
(b) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatm ent/Development Programmes) – Input subsidies 
available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
(i) Question by the European Union 
118. Could Paraguay please provide details on the measure "food security support for family 
farming" notified under "investment subsidies genera lly available to agriculture"?  What type of 
support was provided under this measure?  The Eu ropean Union understands this measure was no 
longer applied in 2010. 
                                                      
6 See "Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Eval uation 2011: OECD Countries and Emerging 
Economies" http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3746,en_2649_37401_48625184_1_1_1_37401,00.html .  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 27 
 
 
  13. Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/7) 
(a) Transparency issues 
(i) Question by the European Union 
119. For the sake of transparency, th e European Union would request Saudi Arabia to consider 
including values of production used for the de minimis  calculation in Supporting Table DS:4. 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
120. In relation to footnote 2 in Table DS:1, the understanding of the European Union is that the 
stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes are acquired and released at administered prices.  
Could Saudi Arabia please confirm that the differe nce between the acquisition price and the external 
reference price is accounted for in AMS in Supporting Table DS:5? 
121. Which grains are eligible for public stockhol ding notified under paragr aph 3 of Annex 2? 
E. NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) 
1. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/91 and G/AG/N/CAN/91/Corr.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Questions by Australia 
122. Cull Breeding Swine Programme:  The objective of  this programme is to restructure the 
industry " by assisting producers to exit the industry or to permanently downsize their operations " 
which is consistent with paragr aph 10 of Annex 2 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture.  However, the 
key components of the programme refers to " emptying at least one barn and to not restock for a 
three-year period ".  How is this latter point consistent w ith the objective of having producers exit the 
industry if there is a possibility that they might r estock after benefiting from the payments under this 
programme.  What has been the result of this programme (noting that it commenced in 2007) in terms of overall swine numbers? 
123. Hog Farm Transition Programme:  Can Canada please explain how this program meets the 
requirements of paragraph 1(b) of  Annex 2 of the Agreement of Agriculture?  How is a national 
auction or tendering system that allows producer s to propose the minimum amount of assistance they 
are willing to accept to cease future production not in effect price support to producers? 
(ii) Questions by the European Union 
124. In the Canadian notification, several measures are notified as compliant with more than one 
paragraph of Annex 2.  How does Canada notify sp ending under these measures in Table DS:1?  Are 
amounts divided between different paragraphs? 
125. In relation to the measure "Support for National Organisations (and Business Development)", 
could Canada please explain what the specific sect ors in transition referred to under (iv) are? 
126. In relation to the measure "I ncome Disaster Component of AgriStability Programme", does 
Canada include public support in the calculation of the producer's margin? G/AG/W/95 
Page 28  
 
  127. In relation to the measure "Income Disaster Component of AgriStability Programme" notified 
under paragraph 7 of Annex 2, how does Canada define and treat "payments from the same or similar 
scheme" in the margin calculation? 
2. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/39) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
(i) Question by Canada 
128. Regarding the organic production progr amme for small and medium producers 
("Reconocimiento de Benefi cios Ambientales para la producción Orgánica (RBAO) para los micro, 
pequeños y medianos productores orgánicos") could Costa Rica please explain how it ensures 
compliance with paragraph 12 of Annex 2?  Specifi cally, what methods are used to ensure that the 
amount of payment is no greater than a producer's loss of income involved in complying with the programme? 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents:  decoupled income support 
(i) Question by the European Union 
129. In relation to the measure "Programa de subs idio temporal por desempleo para pequeños 
productores agropecuarios afectados por la emerge ncia nacional", could Costa Rica please indicate 
"the defined and fixed base period" as re quired by paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2? 
3. European Union (G/AG/N/EU/8) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  stru ctural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids 
(i) Questions by Canada 
130. Under the new measure "Reform of the Comm on Market Organisation in the wine sector" 
support may be granted in exchange for grubbing-up of  vines.  This support is notified under Annex 2, 
paragraph 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture a nd is reported in the European Union's recent 
Table DS:2 notification.  The Table DS:2 notifica tion does not provide sufficient details to show how 
the "grubbing up of vines" measure meets the criter ia of Annex 2, paragraph 11.  Please provide, in 
detail, how the measure is implemented: 
(a) What are the clearly defined criteria for receiving these payments? 
(b) What are the objectively demonstrated structural disadvantages that define a 
producer's eligibility for such payments? 
(c) How are the payments calculated? Are th ey related to the type or volume of 
production? 
(d) What is the overall policy objective of the measure? 
(e) Please explain in detail how the "grubbing up" scheme meets each and every criteria 
outlined in Annex 2, paragraph 11.  G/AG/W/95 
 Page 29 
 
 
  (b) Transparency issues 
(i) Question by the United States 
131. The United States notes that the European Union's Table DS:2 covers measures back to 2008.  
Please explain why the notification was not submitted prior to this time. 
F. EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) 
1. European Union (G/AG/N/EU/6) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitmen ts (Article 9.1) – Transparency issues 
(i) Questions by Australia 
132. Can the European Union confirm that its repor ting of sugar "subsided exports" in Supporting 
Table ES:1 is calculated on the basis of  licenses issues rather than physical exports?  If so, is this only 
the case for sugar or is this for all produc ts which have export subsidy commitments? 
133. Australia notes that according to the European Union's sugar balance sheet7 physical exports 
for the same period (2009/2010) reached 2,115 (' 000 tonnes) – which is higher than the European 
Union's annual export subsidies commitment of 1,374.4 ('000 tonnes).  It would appear that the European Union's procedure of issuing licenses towa rds the end of the marketing year can result in 
variations in physical exports which do not ma tch licenses issued and a lumpiness in trade which 
affects other sugar exporters.  Can the European Union confirm when licenses were issued for the 
2,115 ('000 tonnes) of physical exports in 2009/2010? 
(ii) Question by the United States 
134. The United States is aware that the European Union has undertaken in recent years rather 
significant reforms in the sugar market and that certain supply and demand issues have also been 
faced.  Please explain footnote 11 in Table ES:1 with respect to export subsidies for sugar. 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
(i) Question s by Australia 
1. Egypt – Outstanding notifications on domestic support and export subsidies 
135. Egypt has not submitted Export Subsidy or Dom estic Support notifications to the Committee 
on Agriculture since 1999.  Can Egypt indicate when  these overdue notifications will be submitted to 
the Committee on Agriculture? 
2. Indonesia – Outstanding notifications on domestic support 
136. Indonesia's domestic support notifications fo r the years 2001 to 2003 have not been made 
available to Members although Australia notes the no tification covering the period 2004 to 2008 were 
submitted in March 2012.  Can Indone sia provide details on when these notifications might be made 
available? 
                                                      
7 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sugar/ balance-sheets/balance-sheet_en.pdf  G/AG/W/95 
Page 30  
 
  3. Turkey – Outstanding notifications on domestic support and export subsidies 
137. According to the latest status of notifica tions document, Turkey has not submitted Export 
Subsidy notifications since 2001 and Domestic Suppor t notifications since 2002.  Can Turkey please 
indicate when the Committee on Agriculture can  expect to receive these notifications? 
_______________   G/AG/W/95 
 Page 31 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
 
Question by Australia (paragraph (i)) 
 
 
Title Year Current Total 
AMS Primary contributing 
Product Final Bound Total 
AMS 
Costa Rica CRI/34/Rev.1  2011 104,485.86 Rice 15,945.00
G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1 2010 109,676.32 Rice 15,945.00
G/AG/N/CRI/30/Rev.1 2009 91,743.86 Rice 15,945.00
G/AG/N/CRI/30/Rev.1 2008 62,477.56 Rice 15,945.00
 
 
__________