WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
29 July 2011 
 (11-3923) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of responses to questions raised during the  
Committee on Agriculture meeting on 31 March 20111 
 
Revision 
 
 
 The present revision reflects the inclusion unde r paragraphs 20-22 of the written responses by 
the Kingdom of Bahrain, submitted on 27 July 2 011, to the questions contained in document 
G/AG/W/81/Rev.1. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ............... 4  
A.  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTA FOR RAW CANE SUGAR BY UKRAINE IN 
2011 .......................................................................................................................... .................. 4  
B.  UNITED STATES ' EXPORT SUBSIDIES ON DAIRY  ......................................................................... 5  
C.  UNITED STATES ' DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME  ..................................................... 6  
D.  COSTA RICA'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS  .................................................................. 6  
E.  THAILAND 'S REQUIREMENTS TO EXPORT RICE STOCKS  ............................................................. 8  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 8  
A.  NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) ................................................................................................... 8  
1.  Canada   G/ AG/N/CAN/ 83 ....................................................................................................... 8 
2.  Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/41 .................................................................................................... 9  
3.  Costa Rica   G/AG/N/CRI/33 ................................................................................................... 9 
4.  European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/67 ....................................................................................... 10  
5.  Guatemala   G/AG/N/GTM/39 ............................................................................................... 10  
6.  India   G/AG/N/IND/5 .......................................................................................................... ... 10 
                                                      
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/83/Rev.2 
Page 2  
 
  7.  Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/56 ..................................................................................................... 11  
B.  N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 11 
1.  Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/30 ................................................................................................. 11  
2.  Bahrain, Kingdom of   G/AG/N/BHR/5 ................................................................................ 12  
3.  Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 ........................................................................................................  13 
4.  Bulgaria   G/AG/N/BGR/16 .................................................................................................... 1 4 
5.  Canada   G/AG /N/CAN/82 ..................................................................................................... 14  
(a)  Classification of programmes .................................................................................................. . 14 
(b)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 15  
(c)  AMS ........................................................................................................................... ............... 15  
6.  China   G/AG/N/CHN/17 ........................................................................................................ 17 
7.  European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/68 ....................................................................................... 17  
(a)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 17  
(b)  Direct Payments under Produc tion-Limiting Programmes ....................................................... 19  
(c)  AMS ........................................................................................................................... ............... 20  
(d)  General ....................................................................................................................... ............... 21  
8.  Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/10 ........................................... 21  
9.  Mexico   G/AG /N/MEX/21 ..................................................................................................... 21  
(a)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 21  
(b)  Measures exempt from reduction commitment:  "Development Programmes" ....................... 22  
(c)  Product-specific AMS .......................................................................................................... ..... 22 
10.  Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/59 ..................................................................................................... 23  
11.  Poland   G/AG/N/POL/67 ....................................................................................................... 24 
12.  Thailand   G/AG/N/THA/72 ................................................................................................... 24  
13.  United States    G/AG/N/USA/77 ........................................................................................... 24  
(a)  AMS ........................................................................................................................... ............... 24  
C.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ......................................................................................................... 26  
1.  European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/69 ....................................................................................... 26  
2.  Mexico   G/AG /N/MEX/22 ..................................................................................................... 27  
D.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES 
ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) ................................................................................................................... 28  
1.  Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/46 ........................................................................................................ ... 28 
2.  Mexico   G/AG /N/MEX/20 ..................................................................................................... 28   G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  E.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 30 
1.  Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/12 ........................................... 30  
(a)  General ....................................................................................................................... ............... 30  
(b)  Factors contributing to the domestic shortage .......................................................................... 30  
(c)  Due consideration of food security concerns ............................................................................ 30  
(d)  Timing of the notification .................................................................................................... ..... 31 
2.  Kyrgyz Republic   G/AG/N/KGZ/3 ....................................................................................... 31  
(a)  Factors contributing to the domestic shortage .......................................................................... 31  
(b)  Due consideration of food security concerns ............................................................................ 32  
(c)  Duration of the export restriction ............................................................................................ .. 32 
3.  Moldova   G/AG/N/MOL/3 .................................................................................................... 32  
4.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.1 ........................................................................................... 33  
(a)  Rationale for the e xport restriction .......................................................................................... . 33 
(b)  Export quota allocation ....................................................................................................... ...... 35 
(c)  Duration of the export restriction ............................................................................................ .. 36 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 36  
A.  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA  ....................................................................................................... 36  
(a)  Canada:  Domestic support ..................................................................................................... .. 36 
(b)  China:  Domestic support ...................................................................................................... .... 36 
(c)  Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies ........................................................................ 37  
(d)  India:  Domestic support and export subsidies ......................................................................... 37  
(e)  Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard ...................................................................... 37  
(f)  Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies ...................................................................... 38  
B.  QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES  ......................................................................................... 38  
(a)  Peru:  Domestic support ....................................................................................................... ..... 38 
 G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. A
DMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTA FOR RAW CANE SUGAR BY UKRAINE IN 2011 
1. Questions by Colombia:  Pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the 
delegation of Colombia would like to put to the delegation of Ukraine a number of concerns 
regarding the administration of its tariff rate quota for raw cane sugar.  
2. According to the Protocol of Accession of the Republic of Ukraine (document 
WT/L/718) and Table 14, as from 1 January 2011 the tariff quota is to be allocated using the "first-come-first-served" (FCFS) method.  Has the new regulation for administering the tariff 
quota been notified to the WTO and, if no t, when will such notification take place?  
In accordance with its WTO commitments, Ukrain e abolished the allocation of the tariff quota 
for raw cane sugar by country from 1 January 2011 and introduced the FCFS allocation 
method.  To that end, the Government of Ukraine adopted Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 204 from 28 February 2011 "On amending the Procedure of allocation of the tariff rate quota for importing raw cane sugar to Ukraine".  Pursuant to WTO notification 
requirements, the Government decision was notif ied in due course and circulated as document 
G/AG/N/UKR/8 of 25 March 2011. 
3. Colombia wishes to thank the Ukrainian Mission to the WTO for the information 
supplied recently to the effect that the Cabinet of  Ministers of Ukraine issued Resolution 204 of 
28 February 2011, which lays down the procedur es for administering the tariff rate quota for 
sugar imported into Ukraine.  According to Resolu tion 204, the tariff quota shall be allocated on 
the basis of licences issued by the State Agen cy on Material Reserve and the Ministry of 
Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine; and the ta riff quota allocation shall be published before 
1 October of the previous year.  With this reg ulation a system of prior licensing would be 
established, to be administered by the State Agen cy on Material Reserve and the Ministry of 
Agrarian Policy and Food, which will allocate impo rts within the tariff quota the previous year.  
In Colombia's view, such a system would co nflict with the FCFS procedure set out in the 
Protocol of Accession by subjecting imports to the obtaining of a prior licence, whereas in this case an automatic licence ought to apply.  
4. Article 2 of Resolution 204 issued by the Government of Ukraine on 28 February 2011 
provides that:  "Importing raw cane sugar to Ukraine within  the tariff rate quota shall be carried 
out based on licences issued by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.  Licences are 
issued on the approval of the State Agency on Material Reserve of Ukraine and the Ministry of 
Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine.  The appr ovals of both Agencies are enclosed by the 
applicants with the applications for obtaining licences."  
5. However, Article 5 abolishes the allocation of  tariff quotas by country and refers to the 
establishment of the FCFS mechanism, stating that:  " as of 1 January 2011 the rest of the annual 
tariff rate quota for raw cane sugar (tariff item number 1701 11) will be allocated by the FCFS 
method according to Section I of the Table 14 "Adm inistering the tariff rate quota" of Ukraine's 
WTO Accession Protocol ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 10 April 2008.  Applications to obtain licences for supplies of good s within the tariff quotas are reviewed in the 
order of their receipt. "  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Pursuant to paragraph 35 of th e Doha Ministerial Declaration2 on the fuller integration of 
small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system, and the agreements reached 
in the context of Ukraine's accession to the WTO, Ukraine has undertaken to allocate to 
Paraguay 260 tonnes of the tariff rate quota annu ally until 1 January 2019.  In this regard, 
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1002 from 12 November 2008, as 
amended by Resolution No. 204 from 28 February  2011, foresees that the information 
regarding tariff quota allocation for the subseque nt year shall be published on the official 
web-site of the Ministry of Economy before 1 October and shall be notified to the WTO. 
Under the provisions of Article 1, paragr aph 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures which are common for both automa tic import licensing under Article 2 and non-
automatic import licensing under Article 3 of th e same Agreement, applicants to obtain a 
licence may approach three administrative bodies.   Considering this, the implementation of 
the procedure of approval from the State Agency on Material Reserve and the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food prior to the issue of the licence, under Article 2 of Resolution No. 204, is not inconsistent with  the provisions of the WTO Agreements, in 
particular with the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and with the FCFS method, it 
has no restrictive effect on trade.  The pro cedure is established exclusively with an 
administrative aim. 
6. In view of the foregoing Colombia would appreciate clarification of this matter, 
particularly the possible incompatibility between the licensing mechanism set forth in Article 2 
and the FCFS procedure established in Article 5 of Resolution 204 of 28 February 2011.  
The tariff rate quota administration pursuant to the FCFS method set forth in Article 4 of 
Resolution No. 204 shall be applied by consideri ng applications in the order of their receipt.  
This is in accordance with Ukraine's procedure of issuing licences, which is fully consistent 
with the provisions of paragraph 5(f) of Artic le 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures, as well as with Ukraine's commitments  regarding the establishment of tariff rate 
quota for importing raw cane sugar from WT O Members and the procedure of its 
administration set out in subparagraph 2.8 and 2.12 of Table 14 "Tariff Rate Quota 
Administration" of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Ukraine to the WTO. 
 
B. U
NITED STATES ' EXPORT SUBSIDIES ON DAIRY  
7. Questions by India:  Has the United States made any subsidized dairy exports during 
2005-2008 under the Dairy Export Incentive Programme?  Have subsidized exports been 
reintroduced in 2009?  Does this include disburseme nt of cash bonus to United States' exporters 
to target destinations? 
The United States refers India to United States' export subsidy notifications for activity under 
the Dairy Export Incentive Programme (DEIP) for 2005 through 2009 as follows:  
G/AG/N/USA/62 for 2005; G/AG/N/USA/64 fo r 2006; and G/AG/N/USA/78 for 2007 and 
2008.  During the period 2005-2008, the United States only subsidized exports of dairy 
products in 2008.  The DEIP was active dur ing 2009, and the last approval under the 
programme was in October 2009.  This activity  will be reported in the United States' 
notification for that year.  The DEIP remains authorized by Congressional legislation but is not currently active.  Under the programme, the United States pays cash to exporters as 
bonuses.  Eligible destinations are included in  commodity Invitations for Offers, which are 
                                                      
2 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 refers. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 6  
 
  available on the website of the Foreign Agricu ltural service of the United States Department 
of Agriculture.
3  
C. UNITED STATES ' DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME  
8. New Zealand would like to take this opport unity 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 consumption.  Since import barriers such as quotas and tariff 
levels limit the growth of dairy imports into the United States' market , the levy unfairly targets 
imports which will not necessarily be able to  benefit from the promotion,  and any increased 
consumption, of dairy products in the market.  Further we anticipate that the levy will create 
additional regulatory and administrative costs for exporters.  New Zealand, along with other 
dairy exporting countries, has conveyed its conc erns 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 meas ure in light of international rules and talking 
to industry about the likely impact of the measure. 
D. COSTA RICA'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS  
9. Questions by the United States:  Costa Rica has transparently provided data to the 
Committee on Agriculture which clearly shows a breaching of its Bound Total AMS commitment.  The breach has occurred in crop years 2007, 2008 and 2009 at an alarmingly 
increased rate.  Costa Rica has repeatedly assured  Members of its efforts to align domestic 
policies to lower domestic support and meet  its WTO commitments.  The United States 
understands that in late 2010 Costa Rica undert ook policy changes to reduce the necessary 
internal prices (albeit likely not sufficiently to re main under its binding).  As of late January the 
United States understands that a court decision blocks the previous price reductions.  If this information is confirmed and not immediately a ddressed, it appears highly likely that Costa 
Rica will yet again be administering agricultural policies in direct conflict with its WTO 
obligations.  What steps is the Government of  Costa Rica taking to fully meet its WTO 
commitment? 
Costa Rica wishes to thank the delegations who have submitted comme nts and questions, and 
have expressed concern at the level of the Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) notified 
by Costa Rica in the last three years.  In the interest of transparency, and in response to the 
question put by the United States, Costa Ri ca wishes to inform the Committee of the 
following: 
At the meeting held in September 2010, Costa Rica informed the Committee how it had come 
to exceed its maximum level of AMS in 2007, 2008 and 2009, namely by applying a price support mechanism for rice which guarantees a minimum purchasing price for national producers.  It is important to bear in mind that ri ce is a staple in the diet of Costa Ricans, with 
level of consumption as high as some 57 kilograms per person per year.  Costa Rica further 
informed the Committee about the establishment of a commission, made up of the Vice-Minister of Foreign Trade, the Vice-Minister of Agriculture and the Vice-Minister of Economy, charged with the responsibility of finding technical solutions to the problem and establishing as soon as possible a regime in suppor t of the rice sector consistent with Costa 
Rica's multilateral obligations.  The commission completed its work, which was submitted at 
the beginning of this year. 
                                                      
3 http://www.fas.usda.gov/excr edits/deip/deip-new.asp.   G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  On 12 January 2011, the Government of Costa Rica announced the new National Rice Policy 
and presented it to the National Rice Corporation (CONARROZ), the National Association of Rice Millers (ANINSA), the Ombudsman of the I nhabitants of Costa Rica and the press.  
Upon completion of these consultations, the Govern ment will have to decide as to the next 
steps for implementing the policy. 
The aim of the National Rice Policy, other th an solving the problem that concerns the 
Committee on Agriculture, is to improve the co mpetitiveness of small and medium producers, 
i.e. those with a production area of less than 50 hectares.  The National Rice Policy is based 
on the following premises: 
- The key to the well-being of Costa Rican rice producers is increased productivity, and 
not price setting, which not only puts up the price to consumers but provides "relief" 
that is artificial and affects the search for, and implementation of, productivity 
improvements; 
- The major producers already have high productivity and enjoy high incomes; 
- There is a layer of vulnerable small and medium producers whose productivity is low 
and who need public support in order to  improve their level of competitiveness; 
- Given the importance of rice in the Costa Ri can diet, consumer prices must be as low 
as possible; 
- The rice policy must be consistent with Co sta Rica's international trade commitments. 
As to compatibility between the National Rice Po licy and its international trade commitments, 
Costa Rica envisages abandoning the price s upport mechanism for rice as an immediate 
remedy to its non-compliance in terms of the level of AMS applied.  In view of the effect that 
the elimination of this price control inst rument may have on small and medium rice 
producers, the National Rice Policy provides three support programmes to be implemented over a three-year period.  The programmes are either adapted to Green Box criteria;  or they observe Costa Rica's monetary limit of US$15.9 million for Amber Box support;  or they are 
below the de minimis  level and so incur no breach of the rules laid down in the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
The first programme represents an investment  of US$10 million and aims to overcome the 
limitations that small and medium rice producers face at farm leve l.  It provides for training in 
good agricultural practices and marketing;  resear ch and technology transfer relating to seeds;  
agricultural extension;  and the acquisition of  agricultural machinery and infrastructure for 
drying and storage.  A key component of this programme is improvement of the organization 
of producers so that they can generate ec onomies of scale and address jointly the limitations 
identified.  The measures envisaged by the programme correspond to Green Box support. 
The second programme seeks to improve cred it conditions for small and medium rice 
producers.  The National Rice Policy provides fo r a credit line of some US$8 million, to be 
made available to the national rice sector  through the Development Banking System. 
The third programme targets training (also Green Box), focussing on the various aspects of 
the agricultural enterprise management;  producti on techniques at farm level, and the handling 
and maintenance of agricultural machinery. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 8  
 
  The implementation of these three programmes and their policy instruments, which are lawful 
in terms of the trade rules set in the WT O Agreements, will allow improvements in the 
capacity and competitiveness of small and medium ri ce producers, as well as an adjustment of 
the level of domestic support afforded by the c ountry, and hence a return to the bound levels. 
At the last meeting of the Committee on Agriculture , Costa Rica stated that as a first step to 
facilitate the implementation of a rice polic y proposal for resolving its breach of the 
maximum AMS level, Costa Rica lowered the producer purchase price by 18 per cent.  As the United States observed in its question, the rice producers challenged this measure in the 
courts;  the matter was settled on Friday 18 Ma rch by a court ruling setting a reduction of 
10 per cent.  Costa Rica is aware that this price reduction does not address the substance of 
the problem.  Accordingly, it has devised a rice policy geared to observance of its WTO 
commitments, ensuring that the AMS will be kept within the maximum set. 
Costa Rica attaches the utmost importance to  fulfilment of its WTO commitments and to 
respect for the principle of transparency as one  of the pillars of this Organization.  The 
National Rice Policy described above is still the s ubject of internal consultations, particularly 
with the rice sector.  Following these consultations , it will be for the Government to decide as 
to its implementation. 
E. T
HAILAND 'S REQUIREMENTS TO EXPORT RICE STOCKS  
10. Thailand undertook to provide responses to the questions posed by the United States, as 
contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of G/AG/W/81/Rev.1, at a later stage.  
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/83 
11. Questions by Australia:   
(a) Australia notes that in-quota imports of wheat and barley in the marketing year 
2008/2009 were significantly below the tariff quota quantity for the period in question.  Can Canada explain the u nderfill of the relevant tariff quotas? 
Canada's tariff quotas for wheat and barley, whic h are administered on a FCFS basis, were 
underfilled in marketing year 2008/2009 due to the competitiveness of the Canadian wheat 
and barley sectors.  The Canadian wheat and barley sectors are characterized by competitive 
prices and domestic market surpluses.  To illust rate this competitive position, Canada was one 
of the world's largest wheat and barley exporters in 2008. 
(b) Could Canada elaborate on why the in-quota imports for fluid milk are 
identified as "N.A." in the marketing year 2008/2009, when the tariff quota quantity for the period in question is  64,500 tonnes?  Australia notes the 
footnoted explanation that imports of fl uid milk by consumers are not counted, 
but would appreciate clarification as to why commercial imports have not 
occurred.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Canada answered similar questions on the admini stration of its fluid milk tariff quota at the 
56th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 24 September 2009.  Canada's reply can be found 
in the summary report of that meeting.4 
As outlined in Table MA:1 notification G/AG /N/CAN/45 from 2 August 2001, Canada's tariff 
quota for fluid milk is administered on a global basis and is subject to  General Import Permit 
No. 1, which regulates the importation of dair y products for personal use.  The General 
Import Permit may be invoked an unlimited number of times. 
2. Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/41 
12. Questions by the European Union:  Could Colombia explain the reasons for the low 
tariff quota fill for animal-, marine- and plant-oils? 
These products fall under the free import regime, a nd therefore it is demand that determines 
whether or not use is made of the tariff quotas opened by Colombia. 
In this connection, it should also be emphasized that over the past several years Colombia has 
been increasing its production of African palm oil, which enables it to supply the domestic 
market and generate surpluses for export.  Thus in 2007-2009, for example, domestic 
production of oils and fats increased from 865,000 to 937,000 tonnes, with an 8 per cent 
growth in total production, of which palm oil accounted for 85 per cent.  In the same period, exports of oils and fats went from 400,000 to 295,000 tonnes, while imports rose from 339,000 to 345,000 tonnes. 
Furthermore, import demand has shifted toward s substitute products, as evidenced by the 
greater volume of imports of vegetable oils, par ticularly soya bean oil and sunflower seed oil, 
and of soya beans used as raw material for the extraction of oil. 
3. Costa Rica   G/AG/N/CRI/33 
13. Questions by Switzerland:  Costa Rica's Ta ble MA:2 notification shows relatively low 
in-quota imports especially for dairy products and cheese.  Could Costa Rica explain the reason 
for this low quantity of in-quota imports?  What is the valid basis for the tariff quota allocation 
mechanism?  Is the respective Table MA:1 notifi cation (G/AG/N/CRI/17, dated 8 March 2007) 
covering years 2003 and 2005 still valid?  Is the alloca tion of licences or access to the tariff quota 
based on past imports (the respective notification  makes reference to "total volume of imports 
of the product covered by the tariff quota by applicant  i during the previous calendar year") 
still applied by Costa Rica?  Does Costa Rica cons ider in the near future a shift towards a more 
simple allocation mechanism due to low tariff quo ta fill rates?  What measures does Costa Rica 
undertake to increase tariff quota fill rates? 
Costa Rica still applies the mechanism notified in G/AG/N/CRI/17, under which 80 per cent 
of the tariff quota is allocated between importe rs that imported the product the previous year, 
and 20 per cent between new applicants.  If the volum e allocated to the historical applicants is 
less than 80 per cent, the shortfall ma y be allocated to new applicants. 
The in-quota tariff for cheese and other dairy pr oducts is between 25 and 35 per cent.  The 
United States is the main supplier of dairy prod ucts to the Costa Rican market.  Under the 
Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) Costa Rica grants the United States a tariff quot a for cheese and other dairy products, with a 
                                                      
4 Paragraph 2 of Section I.B to Annex 1 of G/AG/R/56 refers. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 10  
 
  zero per cent tariff.  DR-CAFTA came into force for Costa Rica on 1 January 2009.  Prior to 
that, most importers had used the WTO tari ff quota for importing dairy products from the 
United States.  However, once DR-CAFTA took e ffect, importers began to use the tariff quota 
established thereunder for imports of these produc ts from the United States, which explains 
the low tariff quota fill rate.  Use of the DR -CAFTA tariff quotas is high, and the allocation 
mechanism as provided in Executive De cree 34912-COMEX is basically the same. 
In Costa Rica's view, the allocation mechanism is not complicated or responsible for the low 
level of imports, which could ra ther be attributed to commercial reasons.  Costa Rica is 
therefore not considering any change in  this mechanism in  the near future. 
4. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/67 
14. Questions by Australia:  Can the European Union elaborate on the significant tariff 
quota underfill in the calendar year 2009 for a num ber of agricultural products, including sweet 
potatoes, oranges, grain sorghum, malt and barle y?  Does this suggest that the tariff quotas are 
no longer necessary? 
There has been lack of interest from trad ers and sufficient supply of the products at 
competitive prices on the internal market. 
15. Questions by Japan:  European Union's Tabl e MA:2 notification reports zero imports 
on several products.  Would the European Union explain why some products (i.e., butter of New 
Zealand origin, cheese for processing of New Ze aland or Australian origin) were not imported 
in the notified year while there had been some imports in previous years?  Besides, would the 
European Union explain why some products (i .e., chemically pure fructose) have not been 
imported at all continuously?  
Butter (of New Zealand origin) and cheese fo r processing (of New Zealand and Australian 
origin) were imported in the notified year but less than in previous years.  As for the 
chemically pure fructose, there h as been no interest from traders. 
5. Guatemala   G/AG/N/GTM/39 
16. Questions by the European Union:  The noti fication for 2007 includes figures for four 
tariff quotas.  What is the tariff quota fill stat us of other tariff quotas listed in Guatemala's 
schedule, but not included in the notification?  Could the notification list all scheduled tariff 
rate quotas for transparency reasons?  
Guatemala's Schedule LXXXVIII contains tariff quota commitments on 22 products.  In 
2007, as notified in document G/AG/N/GTM/39, only four products were subject to tariff 
quotas, i.e. apples, yellow maize, rice and wheat or meslin flour. 
Imports of products not included in notif ication G/AG/N/GTM/39 entered without any 
limitation on quantity and were subject only to payment of customs duty.  The applied duties 
are lower than the bound in- and out-of-quota rat es, thus granting more favourable treatment 
for imports. 
6. India   G/AG/N/IND/5 
17. Questions by the European Union:  Could India explain the reasons for the zero or low 
tariff quota fill for "milk and cream in powder" in the years after 2003/2004?   G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
  As per the information available, during the period 2003/2004 to 2009/2010 the domestic 
price of skimmed milk powder had been generally  lower than the international price (Oceania 
origin) even on FOB basis.  Therefore, it would not have been viable to import at a higher cost from the international markets under th e TRQ mechanism, since the import of milk 
powder under TRQ is entirely based on commercial viability.  
7. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/56 
18. Questions:   
(a) by the European Union:  Could Norway explain the reasons for the low tariff 
quota fill for frozen meat of swine, meat of turkeys, hens' eggs, red and white 
cabbage and elk meat?  Norway uses auctioni ng for the allocation of most tariff 
quotas.  If the European Union's inform ation 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 fo r auctions carried out in 2008 and 
10.00 NOK/kg for auctions carried out 2009.  Could Norway elaborate on the 
reasons leading to these significant price differences? 
(b) by the United States:  The United States notes the low volume of in-quota 
imports for swine.  What are the reasons  for this low volume and has Norway 
considered eliminating or reducing the in-quota tariff rate? 
The auctions ensure fair distribution and an efficient and economical allocation of tariff 
quotas.  Tariff quotas are opened for all importers, they are announced routinely at the same 
time every year, and new actors in the market ar e allowed to participate in the auctions along 
with the already established bidders.  It is left to the actors to place their bids for the various 
tariff quotas.  Demand, and consequently prices, for tariff quotas can vary greatly depending on the current situation on the domestic market.  It is often more attractive to use domestic 
products in the years when there is a large enough supply to satisfy the market. 
Reductions of in-quota tariff rates are being c onsidered as part of the implementation of a 
future agreement under the Doha Development Agenda.  
B. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/30 
19. Questions by the United States:  In Supporting Table DS:1, Annex 2, paragraph 11, 
Argentina notified "Special Fund for Tobacco".  Could Argentina provide further information 
on how this programme functions, and what is entailed in "construction of centres" and 
"processing and storage"?  How are these items related to the restructuring of production 
activities?  
The items in question come under the category "Structural adjustment assistance provided 
through investment aid", and consist of a series of programmes which aim to provide 
assistance in the financial and physical restruct uring of the activities of small disadvantaged 
producers.  None of these programmes are relate d to the level of production or to domestic 
and international prices. 
Some of the programmes implemented during 20 05 and 2006 that are included in the above 
category, and for which the construction of cen tres and storage is mentioned, were designed G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 12  
 
  to provide the necessary infrastructure to bri ng community drying centres into operation.  
Small and disadvantaged producers have thus b een given access to the technology they need 
to improve the quality of the final product, and are able to coordinate the processing and storage of their production in better conditions.  At the same time, the infrastructure of the 
centres is also used for the main production diversification programmes. 
The funds for the construction of the community centres were used specifically for:  (i) the 
construction of the perimeter fencing in all of th e farms;  (ii) the installation of the equipment 
needed to supply energy, lighting and water for all of the drying centres and natural gas in the 
farms located above the tobacco gas pipeline;  (iii) the construction of a house for the person in charge, administration offices, and employ ee toilets on all the farms except the Coronel 
Moldes farm;  (iv) construction of a shed;  (v ) construction, for each farm, of the foundations 
for the drying facilities;  (vii) installation of  drainage for each of the drying centres and 
retaining walls for the Chicoana, El Jardín and el Espinal sites;  and (viii) afforestation of all 
farms. 
2. Bahrain, Kingdom of   G/AG/N/BHR/5 
20. Questions by the European Union:  The Eu ropean Union notes that Bahrain notifies 
support under "investment subsidies generally ava ilable to agriculture" compliant with Article 
6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Howev er one of these measures seems to be rather 
selectively targeted.  The measure is intended for the poultry sector.  Could Bahrain elaborate on the reasoning for including this measu re under special and differential treatment? 
Poultry is one of the preferred dietary items in  Bahrain.  The poultry sector needs continuous 
support in order to cope with the demand fro m a growing local population.  Measures in 
support of the sector are intended to ensure a competitive local production of this important 
item in the Bahraini household budget.   
The poultry sector in Bahrain is characterized by the following: 
- Traditional methods of breeding 
- All inputs, including labour, are imported 
- Managerial skills are very poor 
- High competition from chilled and frozen products 
- Breeders' income is below the average in Bahrain 
The poultry sector represents a minor percenta ge of Bahrain’s agriculture which in 2010 
contributed as a whole to less than 0.3 per cent of Bahrain's GDP. 
21. Questions by the United States:  Please explain the definition of "poultry sector" 
classified under "investment subsidies generall y available to agriculture".  Please provide 
details as to who qualifies for these subsidi es and the requirements for qualification.  
The poultry sector in the Kingdom of Bahrain consists of the following: 
(i) 3 layer farms with a production capacity of 60 million eggs per year; 
(ii) 37 broiler farms with a production capacity of 8.5 million birds per year;  and  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (iii) Delmon Poultry, a shareholding company with a total capital of 3 million 
Bahraini Dinars.  The company was established in 1980 and has three departments:  (a) Hatchery, with a yearly production of 8.5 million day-old chicks and a maximum capacity of 9 million day-old chicks per year;  (b) Feed factory, with a maximum capacity of 50,000 tonnes per year and a 
yearly production of 30,000 tonnes;  (c) Slaughter house, with capacity of 
28,000 birds per day. 
The poultry sector subsidy is provided only to  broiler breeders with a farm production 
capacity of less than 30,000 birds per year.  
22. Please clarify whether Bahrain's input subsidies for crop and animal product inputs are 
generally available to low-inco me or resource-poor producers. 
Confirmed.  Bahrain's input subsidies for crop and animal products inputs are generally 
available to low-income and resource-poor producers.  
3. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 
23. Questions by the United States:   
(a) The United States appreciates Brazil's replies to the questions posed at the 
November 2010 Committee meeting and wishes to follow-up on some of the responses provided by Brazil.  As Brazil suggested, the United States has reviewed the Central Bank of Brazil's website, and notes that in Table II.39 of the Monthly Bulletin, the Central Bank of Brazil reports actual lending rates for 
individuals and corporations.  In its response at the 60
th meeting of the 
Committee, Brazil indicated that it notifies "only the implicit benefit for agricultural producers, and not the benefi ts for the financial institutions".  
Could Brazil clarify why it uses the SELIC rate (plus 2 per cent) as its benchmark rate to calculate certain interest rate subsidies on the basis that it 
"represents the cost of opportunity fo r banks", instead of the lending rates 
reported by the Central Bank of Brazil which would appear to more closely 
approximate commercial rates that a producer would face and represent a more 
accurate measure of the "implicit be nefit for agricultural producers"?  For 
example, in the OECD's 2005 publication "Review of Agricultural Policies in Brazil", the OECD notes that the SELIC rate is the "reference rate for short-
term government securities, and is commonly accepted as an average rate on 
loans between commercial banks", and that the SELIC rate "cannot be 
considered as 'free market interest' rates in a strict sense".  This would appear to indicate that using the SELIC rate as the benchmark rate to calculate certain interest rate subsidies may be an inappropriate benchmark rate to use in 
measuring the "implicit benefit for agricultural producers". 
The SELIC rate (plus 2 per cent) was used as benc hmark rate insofar as to calculate interest 
rate subsidies for certain debt reschedulin g programmes.  The figures notified under debt 
rescheduling programmes are based on a study carried out by Brazilian National Treasury.  
Such study is considered to constitute the best available information regarding subsidy rates in 
these programmes. 
In cases where the government pr ovides credits, directly resor ting to the SELIC rate can be 
considered an adequate benchmark, as the cr edit system ("free market interest") does not 
operate properly in Brazil.  It is to be noted th at Brazil has resorted to the SELIC rate as the G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 14  
 
  benchmark rate to calculate interest rate subs idies since its first notification.  Moreover, 
during the 1990s, the Brazilian economy was confronted  with very high rates of inflation that 
severely disrupted the credit system.  Nowadays, the situation of the Brazilian economy has improved markedly.  Short-term credits market  operations are more functional than in the 
past, but they still fell short from those in develope d countries.  In this regard, with a view to 
improving its upcoming notifications, Brazil w ill evaluate whether other benchmark rates 
such as actual lending rates for individuals and corporations to be sourced from Central Bank 
of Brazil constitute better benchmarks  than SELIC interest rates or not. 
(b) In its response at the 59
th meeting, Brazil referred the United States to the IBGE 
website (Brasileiro de Geografica e Estatist ica) for value of production data.  The 
detailed search of the IBGE website has only been able to identify value of 
production data for certain crops.  No data on livestock could be found.  Can 
Brazil provide a specific link to the IBGE website so that the data could be verified? 
In fact, IBGE does not provide the value of production for livestock, but the production 
figures for the most relevant livestock products.  So far, Brazil has not needed to notify any 
specific AMS for livestock products (consequently , the calculation of the value of production 
for livestock is not required).  In case this b ecomes necessary, Brazil will estimate the value 
of production according to the data from IBGE a nd the price received by producers in relevant 
markets. 
4. Bulgaria   G/AG/N/BGR/16 
24. Question by the United States:  What percentage of producers are eligible to receive the 
non-product specific assistance notified in Supporting Table DS:9?  
All registered agricultural producers are eligible for public support. 
5. Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/82 
(a) Classification of programmes 
25. Questions by Australia:  Could Canada elabor ate on the caveat contained on the cover 
note (" Canada reserves the right to identify certain payme nts as meeting the criteria of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, irrespective of how programmes are classified in this notification ").  
Can Canada explain why it consid ers this caveat to be necessary?  
Some programmes provide payments for a wide variety and number of projects or initiatives 
for the agriculture and agri-food sector and ru ral communities across Canada.  Some of these 
payments meet Annex 2 criteria, but where it may not be administratively feasible to separate the payments at the time of notification, the programme is reported as AMS.  The caveat contained in the cover note is necessary to reserve Canada  the right, in such cases, to identify 
certain payments as meeting the criteria of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
irrespective of how programmes are classi fied in the Table DS:1 notification. 
26. Question by the United States:  How do es Canada categorize its AgriRecovery 
programme?  
Work is underway to prepare notifications fo r the most recent years.  This includes 
determining the appropriate classification of  any support provided under the AgriRecovery 
heading.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (b) Green Box 
(i) Domestic food aid 
27. Question by the United States:  Can Canada confirm that there were no expenditures on 
domestic food aid in 2005?  
As indicated in Canada's Table DS:1 notification for 2005, there were no expenditures on 
domestic food aid for that year. 
(ii) Income insurance and income safety-net programmes 
28. Questions by the United States:  Can Cana da provide more information on the criteria 
by which payments under the CAIS programme are reported in Annex 2 (i.e., the Income Disaster Component) and the payments that are reported as non-product specific in Supporting 
Table DS:9 (i.e., the Stabilization Component).  How does Production Insurance relate to the 
CAIS programme?  
The CAIS-Income Disaster Component (CIDC)  and CAIS-Income Stabilization Component 
(CISC) were two separate components with differe nt eligibility criteria.  For example, CIDC 
payments (reported in Annex 2)  were triggered when a producer 's whole-farm income margin 
in the claim year experienced a decline of more than 30 per cent, while CISC payments 
(reported in Supporting Table DS:9) were triggere d with a decline up to 30 per cent.  The 
percentage of government contribution to the income decline increased  as losses deepened, 
but in no case would the government compensation exceed 70 per cent of the producer's income loss.  Moreover, supply-managed comm odities were eligible under CIDC but were 
excluded from CISC. 
Further information on CIDC can be foun d in Canada's Table DS:2 notification 
G/AG/N/CAN/64. 
Production Insurance (PI) relates to CAIS as follows: (i) PI claim payments and premiums counted as allowable income and expenses in 
calculating the CAIS reference margin  and their current year margin; 
(ii) If participating in PI resulted in a lower CAIS payment due to lower reference margin 
relative to a producer that was not enrolled in PI, producers would be eligible for a 
rebate of up to 100 per cent of the PI  premium through the Production Insurance 
Premium Adjustment (PIPA). 
CAIS would cover negative margins for crop losses without penalties, if a participant 
produced commodities that were covered by PI a nd had been insured.  If the producer had not 
been enrolled in PI, any PI indemnities that the producer could have received would be 
imputed and included as allowable income when  calculating their negative margin payment. 
(c) AMS 
(i) Market Price Support calculations for dairy products 
29. Questions by Japan:  Would Canada explai n why the production sales for further 
processing and animal feed (class 5a, b, c & class 4m) and total exports have been deducted 
from the total production in the calculation of  the price support for butter and skimmed milk G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 16  
 
  powder?  Does this mean that the products of th ese categories do not have target prices and thus 
are not eligible for any market price support? 
In order to obtain production volumes for the calculation of the price support for butter and 
skim milk powder, sales for further processing in  Classes 4(m), 5(a), (b), (c) and total exports 
were subtracted from total production.  These sal es are not subject to the applied administered 
price for butter and skim milk powder and hen ce are not considered to benefit from market 
price support . 
(ii) Value of production 
30. The United States appreciates Canada's revisio ns to its domestic support notifications 
for 1995-2004 and applauds the elimination of the value of direct government payments from 
the value of production. 
(iii) Non-product-specific support 
31. Question by the United States:  Can Canada provide additional information on the 
payments under the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization  (CAIS) enhancements, the 
Canadian Inventory Transition Initiati ve (CITI), and the CITI enhancements? 
CAIS enhancements consist of federal/provincial and provincia l top-up programmes to CAIS.  
The Canada-Ontario General Top-Up Progra mme provided producers with approximately 
20 per cent of the 2003 and 2004 CAIS programme  payments, with total funding capped at 
Can$88 million.  The Alberta Margin Enha ncement pledged an additional support of 
Can$261 million.  The CAIS reference margin  was increased by 15 per cent and by 
25 per cent of fuel and fertilizer costs based on the 2004 programme year.  The Alberta CAIS 
Reference Margin Pilot Project provided suppor t of approximately Can$200 million by using 
the better option of the Olympic average or the previous three-year average to establish the 
reference margin for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 programme years. 
CITI was a one-time transition initiative to sh ift the inventory valuation under the CAIS 
programme to a more accurate method of acc ounting.  The retroactive inventory valuation 
adjustments provided federal payments of  up to Can$900 million to 2003, 2004, and 2005 
CAIS participants.  The new valuation met hod would be more responsive as it used an 
opening and an ending price to determine the ch ange in value of inventory (rather than a 
single ending price).  If a producer's benefit for any of these programme years was increased due to the new method, an additional payment would be issued. 
The CITI enhancement consists of the Ontari o Inventory Transitional Payment (OITP).  OITP 
provided a one-time provincial funding to On tario CAIS 2003, 2004, and 2005 participants 
who qualified for a CITI payment. OITP was based on two-thirds of the CITI payments for a total maximum funding of Can$96 million. 
32. What is the status of the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) programme?  
Statistics Canada  data show payments are still being made by this programme. 
The NISA programme was terminated as of the 2003 stabilization year.  The “wind down” of 
NISA began on 31 March 2004 but participants were given until 31 March 2009 to close their 
accounts.  Statistics Canada  reports producer withdrawals from the NISA accounts, and 
continues to do so during the “wind down” period.   Canada's Table DS:1 notifications have 
reported all payments to producers in the form  of matching government contributions plus 
federal and provincial interests into those NISA programme years.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 17 
 
 
  6. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17 
33. Questions by the United States:  The Unit ed States appreciates China's replies to the 
questions posed at the November 2010 Committee meeting and wishes to follow-up on a response provided by China.  Has the role of th e Central Grain Reserve changed from previous 
years or in the years subsequent to the notification in question? 
The Central Grain Reserve is used by the Ch inese Government in adjusting the national 
overall supply and demand of the grains, as well as in response to tackling major natural 
disasters or other imminent events.  For instance, catastrophic earthquakes in Sichuan 
province and devastating droughts in southw estern China in recent years, the Chinese 
government promptly made use of the Central Grain Reserve to meet the basic needs of 
people living in disaster-ridden areas.  Newly-harvested grains were procured to replenish the reserve afterwards.  Judging by the practice in recent years, the Central Grain Reserve has played a significantly positive role in adjus ting supply and demand of grains, stabilizing the 
market, tackling natural disasters, etc.  Its role remains unchanged.  
7. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/68 
(a) Green Box 
(i) Extension and advisory services 
34. Question by Australia:  Why have paymen ts for extension and advisory services 
increased more than threefold from €304.7 m illion in 2006/2007 to €1,113.6 million in 
2007/2008? 
The increase is partly explained by the accessi on to the European Union of two new member 
States in 2007.  Also, starting with the present notification, this heading includes the new 
"extension and advisory measures" available for the Producer Organizations and Producer 
Groups in the fruit and vegetables sector. 
(ii) Infrastructural services 
35. Question by Australia:  Given that only o ff-farm infrastructural services are exempt 
from reduction commitments, can the European Union expand on what is involved in "development and maintenance of farm infrastr ucture" under infrastructural services (vii) in 
Supporting Table DS:1? 
These are off-farm services related to infrastru cture.  Actions covered under this heading 
"may include energy supply and water manage ment, access to farm land, or land 
consolidation and improvement"  (Article 30 of Regulation 1698/2005).  Indeed, a precision 
will be added to the descripti on in the next notification. 
(iii) Other farm services 
36. Questions by Australia:  Can the European Union provide a breakdown of "Elementary 
services for rural economy and population" und er Other farm services (viii) in Supporting 
Table DS:1?  Why have payments under th is category increased from €39.6 million to 
€198.4 million from 2006/ 2007 to 2007/2008? G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 18  
 
  The major part of spending under this category goes to measures to improve the quality of life 
in the rural areas.  These may include cultu ral and leisure activities, and renewal and 
development of villages. 
As it happens the current notification covers the beginning of a new programming period in 
Rural Development (2007-2013) a nd expenditure typically tends to increase after passage 
from one programming period to another, which is also the case for the budget year 2008 used 
in the notification. 
(iv) Domestic food aid 
37. Question by Australia:  Can the European  Union expand on the meaning of "free 
distribution" under Domestic food aid and expl ain how this satisfies the requirement that 
eligibility to receive food aid be subject to cl early defined criteria related to nutritional 
objectives? 
This concerns free distribution of fruit and ve getables.  An extensive explanation of the 
content of this measure can be found in Table DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EEC/69. 
(v) Decoupled income support 
38. Question by Australia:  Can the European Un ion provide details on its Separate Sugar 
Payment programme (Decoupled income support (d), Supporting Table DS:1)? 
An explanation of the content of this measu re can be found in Table DS:2 notification 
G/AG/N/EEC/65 which concerns the reform of the sugar sector. 
(vi) Relief from natural disasters 
39. Question by Australia:  Can the European Un ion explain why it has included measures 
to prevent natural disasters under payments for relief from natu ral disasters (measure type f)? 
This description should be revised and it will be taken into account in the next notification.  
The measures notified under this heading are ai med at restoring the production potential, and 
not at prevention. 
(vii) Structural adjustment provided through producer retirement programmes 
40. Question by Australia:  Can the European Union explain why Structural adjustment 
assistance provided through producer retiremen t programmes increased by almost 40 per cent 
from €676.3 million in 2006/2007 to €944 million in 2007/2008? 
Firstly, the amount notified in the current notification also includes spending by the two 
member States who acceded to the European Un ion in 2007, which is part of the explanation 
of the increase compared to the previous year.  Secondly, the current notification covers the 
beginning of a new programming period in Ru ral Development (2007-2013) and expenditure 
typically tends to increase after passage from one programming period to  another, which is 
the case for the budget year 2008 used in the notification.    G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 19 
 
 
  (viii) Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids 
41. Question by Australia:  Can the European Union explain why the purchase of animals 
and equipment does not designate the agricultural pr oducts to be produced by recipients, as per 
paragraphs 11(b) and (e) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
The European Union will adapt the text to reflect the current investment paragraph 
(Article 26) of the Rural De velopment Regulation 1698/2005.   
42. Questions by Brazil:  Analyzing the data and information provided by the European 
Union in Supporting Table DS:1, Brazil noted an  increase (from approximately €4.5 billion to 
approximately €7.5 billion) in the support provi ded for the measure type "(i) Structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment  aids" in comparison to the value presented 
the by the European Union in its notification for marketing year 2006/2007.  Could the 
European Union explain in detail the reasons fo r such an increase in the level of support? 
The current notification covers the beginni ng of a new programming period in Rural 
Development (2007-2013) and expenditure typical ly tends to increase after passage from one 
programming period to another, which is the case for the budget year 2008 used in the 
notification. 
(ix) Environmental programmes 
43. Question by Australia:  Can the Europe an Union explain, with reference to 
paragraph 12 of Annex 2, why "support and pr otection of organic production by creating 
conditions of fair competition" should be  included under environmental programmes in 
Supporting Table DS:1? 
Organic farming support compensates for the income forgone and loss incurred for the 
transition to organic farming.  Organic farming is beneficial for the environment and as such 
is notified as environmental payments under A nnex 2, paragraph 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(b) Direct Payments under Production-Limiting Programmes 
44. Question by Australia:  Can the European Un ion provide detail around the addition of 
"per hectare aid for energy crops" and "aid fo r bananas" under Exempt direct payments? 
For the reason why "aid for bananas" is incl uded in Supporting Table DS:3, please refer to 
DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EEC/69 of 24 January 2011. 
As far as "aid for energy crops" is concerned, this is a temporary measure.  The support has in 
the meantime been decoupled unde r the Health Check decisions. 
45. Direct payments to milk producers have dropped from €640.5 million in 2006/2007 to 
only €3.5 million in 2007/2008.  Can the Euro pean Union explain why payments to milk 
producers were so high in 2006/2007? 
Dairy direct payments were decided with th e Agenda 2000 reforms.  They were decoupled 
in the 2003 reforms and are now being phased out.   
46. Questions by Brazil:  Related to the banana compensatory aid scheme, replaced with an 
increased budget allocation which was added to the so-called POSEI arrangements, Brazil notes G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 20  
 
  that there was an increase in Blue Box paym ents (€278.8 million) when compared with the 
product-specific AMS for bananas in previous years.  Could the European Union provide 
clarifications on how the programme was adjusted to fit Blue Box requirements and why there was an increase in the support provided? 
A detailed description of the measure can  be found in Table DS:2 notification 
G/AG/N/EEC/69. 
(c) AMS 
(i) Product-Specific AMS 
47. Question by Australia:  Can the European Un ion explain the large increase in "Market 
withdrawal by Producer Organizations" measures in Supporting Tables DS:6 and DS:7? 
The notification of European Union's support to the fruit and vegetables sector in the 2007/08 
marketing year reflects changes introduced in  the 2007 reform, which warrants a move from a 
notification based on a price gap calculation to a notification of budgetary outlays, to the 
extent that no price support of any type exis ts any longer after the reform.  The only such 
support still existing prior to the 2007 reform was a Community compensation for 
withdrawals that constituted, because of the way in which it was implemented, a survival of 
the previous public withdrawal system.  This ty pe of support has been abolished as a result of 
the reform. 
Subsequently, to the extent that the domestic  support measures in the fruit and vegetables 
sector after the 2007 reform do not meet Green Box criteria, they fall under the non-exempt direct payments and are therefore calculated using budgetary outlays.  The budgetary outlays 
notified related to the value of production of pr oducts in the fruit and vegetables sector result 
in many cases in a de minimis  level of support.   
48. Questions by Canada:  Supporting Table DS :6 now reports "Market withdrawal by 
Producer Organizations" for numerous products p reviously enjoying EMS.  Are the amounts 
now reported the same as the amounts called "E U financial assistance" for operational funds 
notified in Table DS:2 notification G/AG/N /EEC/69?  Have any member States paid out 
additional amounts for what was called "natio nal financial assistance" in G/AG/N/EEC/69? 
The amounts for withdrawals notified in Supporting Table DS:6 include expenditure at both 
European Union and national level on Operati onal Programmes in the fruit and vegetables 
sector.  However, spending on withdrawals is  only a limited percentage of Operational 
Programmes managed by Producer Organizations , which cover many other measures as 
outlined in Table DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EEC/69. 
(ii) Calculation of the Current Total AMS 
49. Questions by Brazil:  According to Supporting Table DS:4, the support provided for 
some products, mainly fruit and vegetables, became de minimis  in marketing year 2007/2008.  
Could the European Union clarify if this is  a result of the reform implemented for such 
programmes or mainly a result of changes in  prices in the relevant marketing years? 
This is a result of the reform.  See also to the response in paragraph 47.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (iii) Product-Specific EMS 
50. Questions by Japan:  Would the European Union explain why price support for 
vegetables and fruit which had been notified in  Supporting Table DS:8 until 2006/2007 was no 
longer notified in the 2007/2008 notification?  Does this mean that the compensation withdrawal 
system has been abolished altogether, or that the entry price as a reference price of the 
compensation withdrawal has been abolished? 
See the response in paragraph 47. 
51. Questions by the United States:  What specific programmes did the European Union 
have in place for which it was calculating EMS?   What was the applied administered price and 
how was it determined? 
The measures for which EMS was calculated in the 2007/08 notification are the ones outlined 
in Supporting Table DS:8.  The applied administered  price, when used, is also specified there.  
For other measures in Supporting Table DS:8, for which calculation of the EMS using an applied administered price and the quantity elig ible is not practicable, budgetary outlays are 
notified. 
(d) General 
52. Questions by the United States:  Does the European Union still maintain the entry-price 
system for fruit and vegetable imports?  If so, how are entry prices determined? 
Fruit and vegetable imports remain subject to  the system of entry prices as bound in the 
market access part of the European  Union's WTO Schedule of commitments. 
8. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/10 
53. Questions by the United States:  What percentage of producers are eligible to receive the 
non-product specific assistance no tified in Supporting Table DS:9? 
All natural and legal persons, w ho had fulfilled the conditions that are integral part of the 
relevant Programme and had submitted an appli cation to the regional offices of the Ministry 
of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, were eligible for the non-product specific 
assistance notified in Supporting Table DS:9.  According to the available data, about 
4.2 per cent of the producers had received non- product specific assistance out of the total 
number of producers who had received domes tic support (product-specific and non-product 
specific).  
9. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/21 
(a) Green Box 
(i) Environmental programmes 
54. Question by the United States:  Please ex plain how the Programme for the Acquisition 
of Water-Use Rights (PADUA) is quali fied under "environmental programmes"? 
The Programme for the Acquisition of Water-U se Rights (PADUA) is an environmental 
conservation programme that seeks to "promote the sustainability of irrigation districts facing water supply problems, primarily as a result of recurrent droughts and the evident decrease in G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 22  
 
  sources of supply, determined in the tec hnical studies conducted by the National Water 
Commission (CAN), by acquiring the concessionary rights granted by the CAN for the exploitation, use or development of water resour ces for agricultural, livestock or forestry use" 
(PADUA Rules of Operation). 
Its specific objectives are to:  (i) promote the recovery of volumes of water for aquifers and 
hydrological basins;  and (ii) support producers in such a way that, in  accordance with joint 
responsibility and commitment criteria, the medium and long-term viability of the 
sustainability of water supply sources for agricultu ral, livestock or forestry use is guaranteed. 
(ii) Regional assistance programmes 
55. Question by the United States:  In the Co untryside Alliance Programme (also known as 
Acquisition of Productive Assets), what are the clearly designated contiguous geographical 
areas that are eligible for such assistance? 
The Acquisition of Productive Assets component  reported under paragra ph 13 of Annex 2 to 
the Agreement on Agriculture concerns only Rural Development. 
The programme's Rules of Operation stipulate that redistribution and equity across 
beneficiaries and regions as specified in the B udget Law is the responsibility of the Ministry 
of Agricultural Development or its equivalent  in each state of the Federation and that 
therefore at least 50 per cent of resources are to be allocated as resources in support of beneficiaries in localities with high and very hi gh marginalization rates, and Tier 1 producers 
possessing few or no productive assets, it being understood that the two classifications may 
overlap in full or in part. 
In this connection, the National Populati on Council (CONAPO) has developed a methodology 
for clear and precise identification of municipalities and geographical areas with high and very high marginalization rates.
5 
(b) Measures exempt from reduction commitment:  "Development Programmes" 
56. Questions by the United States:  In the agricultural diesel programme, are there criteria 
used to distinguish low-income or resource-poor  producers from other producers?  If so, what 
are they? 
The agricultural diesel subsidy programme provides for support and establishes maximum 
amounts per producer.  The support consists of an annual energy quota (volume of diesel 
based on the size and equipment of th e production unit) of 20,000 litres. 
(c) Product-specific AMS 
57. Question by the United States:  What are th e activities related to the certified Federal 
Inspection Type (TIF) slaughter facilities? 
The programme comprises two components:   
(i) Support for TIF infrastructure for swine and bovine animals 
                                                      
5 http://www.conapo.gob.mx/index.php?option=co m_content&view=artic le&id=126&Itemid=194.   G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 23 
 
 
  In February 2008, the Ministry of Agri culture, Livestock, Rural Development, 
Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) authorized the project in support of producers having their livestock slaughtered in TIF facilities, which has given impetus to 
developing the infrastructure of existing TIF facilities and the creation of new facilities.  This support scheme aims to f acilitate access to financial support for TIF 
facilities that need to improve or upgrade thei r infrastructure in order to comply with 
the current agrifood safety regulations applicable to the TIF system, to promote more extensive use of installed capacity in TIF facilities, and to improve access for TIF meat products to domestic and international markets, thus fu rthering the integration of 
livestock producers into food chains th at enhance their competitiveness.  The 
maximum amount of support per project is  Mex$5 million, in proportion to the 
number of producers involved and the priority accorded to the project. 
(ii) Support for TIF slaughtering  
The aim of the programme is to provide fina ncial support for natural or legal persons 
engaged in the production or fa ttening of bovine animals, swine, sheep or goats, so as 
to encourage them to have their animals slaughtered in TIF abattoirs under proper 
sanitary conditions that will guarantee the safety of the products obtained and facilitate marketing of the pr oducts in domestic and intern ational markets, since all 
processing in this type of facility is co nducted under strict Federal surveillance. 
10. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/59 
58. Questions by the European Union:  When  Norway breached its AMS commitment level 
for 2008, the domestic support system for the No rwegian meat sector was modified in order to 
make sure that the commitment level in question would not be violated again.  In response to 
questions raised during the 60
th Committee meeting in November 2010, Norway stated that the 
administered target price for beef was eliminated as of 1 July 2009.  In parallel, a new support 
scheme consisting of budgetary payments for beef  used in processed products was introduced.  
Is it correct that this support is paid to processo rs based on the quantity of Norwegian beef used 
in processed products?  Even though Norway di scontinued its administered target price for 
beef, Norway still retains the possibility for storage of predetermined quantities of beef.6  Could 
Norway elaborate on the functioning of this storage  system?  How are the quantities to be stored 
determined?  Is there any indication in the legi slation about the price level at which this meat 
will be stored?  If yes, how is  this price level determined? 
Support for beef used in processed agricultural  products has existed for several years, but was 
previously not notified separately, as the support was part of the price difference between the 
administered target price and the world market reference price.  This was until 1 July 2009 
notified as Amber Box support in Supporting Ta ble DS:4.  The measure allows for equal 
competition as regards input costs for select ed raw material between Norwegian and 
European Union producers, for processed agricultu ral products subject to reciprocal free trade 
under Protocol 3 to the EEA agreement between Norway and the European Union.  This support is notified as Price support in Supporting Table DS:8 after 1 July 2009. 
The maximum annual quantity allows for stor ing of beef to compensate for seasonal 
variations in a balanced market, but not fo r storing of surplus production.  The support 
consists of compensation for costs related to private storage.  The maximum quantity for 
storing during a calendar year is fixed and has so far not been changed. 
                                                      
6 https://www.slf.dep.no/no/om-slf/service-og-innsyn/horinger/_attachment/7222?_ts=1283ed689d8 . G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 24  
 
  It is stated in the legislation that the prices are current market prices at wholesale level.  The 
price is the operator's current market price for carcasses in the resp ective week when the 
carcasses are stored. 
11. Poland   G/AG/N/POL/67 
59. Questions by the United States:   
(a) Could Poland list the types of expe nditures under "Support for agricultural 
products processing and promotion (SAP ARD)" and "assistance for agricultural 
producer groups"?  Are processing costs paid for with these funds, and/or are 
any expenditures used for unspecified purpo ses that could be used by sellers to 
reduce their selling price? 
The category "Support for agricultural pr oducts processing and promotion" covers 
expenditures relating to improvement of pr ocessing and marketing of food and fishery 
products, which was part of the SAPARD programme.  The support was aimed at the 
modernization of processing plants and their adju stment to the European Union requirements, 
especially sanitary and veterinary standards.  Funds from the programme were not used to 
cover processing costs. 
The category "assistance for agricultural pr oducer groups" covers expenditure for the 
establishment and support of administrative ac tivities of producer groups;  processing costs 
are not reimbursed. 
(b) Could Poland explain why subsidies to producers who use organic methods are 
considered environmental payments? 
The programme was aimed at compensating the extra costs of producers incurred in 
complying with environment-friendly standards of production. 
12. Thailand   G/AG/N/THA/72 
60. Thailand undertook to provide responses to the questions posed by the United States, as 
contained in paragraphs 69 to 74 of G/AG/W/81/Rev.1, at a later stage.  
13. United States    G/AG/N/USA/77 
(a) AMS 
(i) Product-Specific AMS:  Price support for dairy 
61. Questions by India:  Through the 2008 Farm Bill, the United States dairy price support 
programme has undergone a change from Market  Price Support for milk to Dairy Product 
Price Support.  What would be the impact of this change in the United States' Total AMS in the coming years?  In light of changes in the na ture of the programme does the United States 
foresee any difficulty in keeping within  its Bound Total AMS commitment limits? 
It is not possible to forecast either the dairy AMS or a total AMS for future years.  Among 
other things, changes in production or policies w ill affect the AMS in the future.  The United 
States remains committed to keep ing within its AMS limits, regardless of future policy 
changes.    G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 25 
 
 
  62. Questions by India:  As per the domestic support notification for 2008 compared to 
2007, the Total AMS for dairy has fallen.  Further , the market support prices have risen for all 
dairy products;  the gap between the applied ad ministrative price and the external reference 
price has also risen, however, th ere has been a fall in the production eligible to receive the 
support.  In light of the above, could the United States clarify as to whether "eligible 
production" is predetermined for each of the dair y products, and is it incorporated in the Farm 
Act? 
Because of a change in United States' dairy su pport policies in the 2008 Farm Act, the United 
States changed its method to calculate market price support for the dairy sector, as explained 
in its previous answers.  Therefore, the method used prior to 2008, based on an all-milk price 
and all milk production, is not comparable to  the method used in 2008, which is based on 
specific product prices and production.  "Eligible  production" is not pre-determined by the 
2008 Farm Act;  it is simply domestic production fo r the particular year being notified, as 
measured by official production data.  
63. Under the Dairy Product Price Support  Programme, the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC) of the United States provid es support purchase price to its dairy sector.  
How does it work?  Are the commodities purchased by CCC resold to the industry, and if so, at 
what prices?  Is it used for any particular obj ective, e.g., for domestic or foreign food aid 
programmes.  What is the basis of setting minimum prices? 
Minimum purchase prices are set in legislati on under the 2008 Farm Act.  They can be 
adjusted based on CCC inventories.  Th e CCC purchases commodities offered for sale at 
those minimum support prices.  Currently, mark et prices for all three products are above 
support levels.  Commodities acquired by the CCC can be resold into the domestic market at prevailing market prices, but in no case at a pri ce less than 110 per cent of the purchase price.  
Product in CCC inventories can be donated fo r use in domestic feeding and nutrition 
programmes, or can be made available for inte rnational food aid programmes.  For example, 
under other United States' legislative provi sions, products can be donated to non-
governmental organizations for u se in overseas feeding programmes.  
(ii) Non-Product-Specific AMS 
64. Questions by the European Union:  In response to a question asked at the 60
th 
Committee meeting in November 2010, the Unit ed States explained that "State Credit 
Programmes" are no longer notified because the leng th of time since the last new data had been 
collected.  Could the United States clarify wh ether these "State Credit Programmes" are still 
operated?  If so, how will future repor ting of the programmes be ensured? 
Data on state credit programmes formerly notif ied were collected in a series of surveys 
conducted in the late 1980s to 1994.  The survey  was discontinued but the 1994 data was used 
to report State Credit Programmes each year th rough 2007.  Reporting w as discontinued after 
2007 because of the length of time since the last new data were collected.  The credit survey 
from which these data were originally reported was established to track state-level credit 
programmes developed in response to the farm  financial crisis of the 1980s, and it was 
discontinued in 1994 as that crisis resolved.  
65. Questions by India:  In the last Committee meeting the United States informed that for 
Counter Cyclical Programme (CCP) would be expect ed to qualify as a Blue Box programme.  It 
was also informed that as any crop can be grown on the base acres;  payments cannot be 
attributed to a specific product.  In view of this, how would the Blue Box support amounts be 
attributed at a product-specific level after such  limits are established in the DDA modalities? G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 26  
 
  Under the Agreement on Agriculture, counter-c yclical payments are notified as non-product 
specific Amber Box.  The United States' notification is in response to existing provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture.  If those provisions change, the United States' notifications in the future will comply with those provisions.  
C. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/69 
66. Questions by New Zealand:  Would the European Union provide additional detail on the 
sourcing of fruit for the free distribution of  fruit and vegetables to schools, hospitals and 
charitable bodies and the School Fruit Scheme?  Can imported fruit be purchased for these two 
schemes? 
The scheme aims at achieving nutrition and hea lth objectives; therefore products eligible for 
aid should offer a high level of health prot ection and promote healthy eating habits.  
According to Article 103(ga), point 2 of Regul ation 1234/2007 there is no restriction on 
sourcing the fruit for this Scheme from imports. 
67. Questions by the United States:  According to  European Union's notification, support in 
the fruit and vegetable sector is structured through "Producer Organizations", which may set 
up "operational funds", financed in part by th e European Union, to carry out "operational 
programmes".  It is reported that typical elements included in an operational programme are the following:  (a)  purchase of sorting and packing equipment;  (b)  employment of quality 
control staff and marketing staff;  (c)  invest ments in irrigation facilities and greenhouses;  
(d) subsidies to growers for replanting fruit trees;   and (e)  costs of natural pest and disease 
control. 
68. Could the European Union confirm that su ch expenditures are or can be included in 
operational programmes?  The United States notes that the European Union states in this 
notification that certain measures which do not co mply with Green Box criteria will be notified 
as Amber Box support and will not be included in  this notification.  Can the European Union 
confirm that any expenditures noted above that are in part or are completely Amber Box 
expenditures are not included in this notification? 
A detailed description of the measures complying with the Green Box criteria is provided in 
point 2 of Table DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EEC/69.  Non-Green Box measures, except for 
budgetary outlays for withdrawals notified in Su pporting Table DS:6, will intervene in later 
years and will then be included in the Amber or Blue Box payments as relevant. 
69. Could the European Union explain how support for organic production qualifies under 
environmental payments and why such support does not constitute support specific to certain 
producers and production that would directly affect such production levels? 
Organic farming support compensates for the income forgone and loss incurred for the 
transition to organic farming.  Organic farming is beneficial for the environment and as such 
is notified as environmental payments under A nnex 2, paragraph 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 27 
 
 
  2. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/22 
70. Questions by Australia:  Can Mexico el aborate on the "Fund to Support Rural 
Communities Affected by Extreme Climatic Events" programme?  Australia would welcome 
clarification on the minimum thresholds of pr oduction losses for eligibility, and whether the 
compensation or "temporary sources of inco me" are limited to not more than the losses 
incurred from the disaster. 
The programme targets low-income rural pr oducers engaged in agriculture, fishing and 
aquaculture, whose eligible productive assets have  been affected by atypical, relevant, non-
recurring and unpredictable extreme climatic even ts.  It is specifically aimed at supporting 
such producers with a view to reincorporati ng them as soon as possible in the production 
process following the occurrence of climatic events  as defined in Annex 70 to the programme.  
To be able to benefit from the programme, pr oducers need to meet the following additional 
requirements:  to be located in the municipaliti es included in the Climatic Diagnosis issued by 
the National Water Commission (CONAGUA);  to have no form of public or private agricultural, aquaculture or fishing insurance;  and to satisfy the requirements established for 
the sector(s) to which they belong, regardless of the type of support requested, on the basis of 
the criteria outlined in Annex 1. 
As stipulated by the programme's rules of ope ration, in order to access direct support under 
the programme, the state concerned must obtai n a Climatic Diagnosis, issued by CONAGUA, 
corroborating the occurrence of an extreme clim atic event.  The st ate where the extreme 
climatic event occurred is responsible for draw ing up the list of eligible affected producers 
underpinning the Diagnostic Damage Report, on ce the Climatic Diagnosis has been issued, 
and this constitutes the basis for applying for programme support. 
Support under this programme is of a tem porary nature and Federal resources granted 
supplement those provided by the states.  Direct support is provided:   
(a) per hectare for crop producers, per Animal Unit for livestock producers, per vessel for 
fisheries producers, and per hectare and A quaculture Unit for aquaculture producers;  
and  
(b) for subscribing to crop, livestock, aquacu lture or fisheries disaster insurance schemes. 
Further details on the characteristics of support, e.g. amounts of support, state participation, 
etc., are given in Annex 2.  Information on the programme implementation and operation is 
provided in Annex 3. 
71. Questions by Canada:  Mexico's notifi cation describes the new measure "Fund to 
Support Rural Communities Affect ed by Extreme Climatic Ev ents (FAPRACC)".  Could 
Mexico elaborate on how this measure meets each  and every one of the policy specific criteria of 
sub-paragraphs 8(a) to 8(e), Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  This includes the 
calculation of the production loss under sub-paragraph 8(a). 
As regards subparagraph 8(a):  Payments ar e not made until the government authorities 
(CONAGUA) recognize that the damaging event h as occurred.  For the programme's target 
population and rules of operation concerning access to direct support please refer to the response to question 84 above. 
For the definition of extreme climatic events and coverage of the programme please refer to 
Annex 4. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 28  
 
  As regards sub-paragraph 8(b):  Only producer s who provide evidence of the damage incurred 
may be listed as eligible affected producers. 
As regards sub-paragraph 8(c):  Payments are limited to a certain surface area (animals) per 
beneficiary (at a fixed rate), and support does not  therefore exceed the total cost of replacing 
the losses incurred as a result of the extreme climatic event. 
As regards sub-paragraph 8(d):  Payments are granted solely on the basis of current losses 
relating to the event, not in connection with other events. 
As regards sub-paragraph 8(e):  The programme 's target population is producers located in 
municipalities included in the Climatic Diagnosis  issued by CONAGUA who have no form of 
public or private agricultural, aquaculture or fi shing insurance, so that the beneficiaries can 
hardly have access to further payments under insurance against extreme climatic events. 
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/46 
72. Questions by the United States:  The United  States notes that, while within commitment 
levels, Israel's export subsidies for fruit a nd vegetables increased dramatically during recent 
years.  Can Israel provide th e reasons for these increases? 
As noted by the United States, the subsidies pr ovided during the notifying years are well 
below the annual commitment level, both in te rms of budgetary outlays and quantities.  These 
quantities and outlays of export subsidies were  part of a 3-year marketing promotion 
programme for certain fruit and vegetables which is no longer in place.  The limited 
programme was designed to help producers of high quality fruit, in particular summer fruit,  
and vegetables to export their produc ts during the notification period. 
 
Israel has no intention to continue running this or similar programmes in the future. 
2. Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/20 
73. Questions by the European Union:  Mexico no tifies the use of export subsidies that are 
exempted from reduction commitments for developing country Members pursuant to 
Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  A ccording to Article 9.4, such export subsidies 
were exempt from reduction commitments fo r developing country Members during the 
implementation period for those Members.  Si nce the implementation period for developing 
country Members ran between 1995 and 2004, th is exemption was no longer available for the 
years 2005 to 2007.  However, according to its no tification, Mexico continues to notify export 
subsidies of the type Article 9.4 after the end of the implementation period.  What is Mexico's interpretation of "implementation period" in this context? 
Article 1(f) of the Agreement on Agriculture speci fies that "implementation period" means the 
six-year period commencing in the year 1995, except that, for the purposes of Article 13, it 
means the nine-year period commencing in 1995. 
Furthermore, Article 20 stipulates that "[ r]ecognizing that the long-term objective of 
substantial progressive reductions in support and protection resulting in fundamental reform is 
an ongoing process, Members agree that negotiations for continuing the process will be  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 29 
 
 
  initiated one year before the end of the impl ementation period, taking into account … what 
further commitments are necessary to achieve  the above mentioned long-term objectives."7 
Accordingly, Mexico's interpretation is that to  the extent that further reduction commitments 
are undertaken, Members may continue to appl y their commitments in  accordance with the 
provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture.  A r eservation subject to the provisions of Article 
9.4 is also allowed for developing country Members under Article 3.3. 
This interpretation is confirmed in notifications of export subsid ies under Article 9.4, made by 
a number of developing country Members including Mexico, for years subsequent to 2004 and notifications by Members under Article 8 subsequent to year 2000, including the 
European Union.
8  
According to the preamble of the Agreemen t on Agriculture, "special and differential 
treatment for developing countries is an integral  element of the negotiations", and therefore 
commitments by developing country Members ma y not be deeper than those established for 
the rest of the Membership, nor should such Memb ers derive fewer benefits therefrom.  At the 
end of the implementation period, Members have continued to use export subsidies, including 
those listed in paragraphs (d) and (e), in acco rdance with their Schedules of commitments.  If 
developing country Members had to limit their use of the provisions of Article 9.4, this would 
have undermined the fundamental principle of special and differential treatment for such 
countries. 
Furthermore, the above understanding has b een reflected by Members in the Doha 
negotiations and is taken up in paragraph 164 of the Revised Draft Modalities for 
Agriculture9, according to which developing country Members would continue to benefit 
from the provisions of Article 9.4 for five years after the end-date for el imination of all forms 
of export subsidies.  
74. Mexico has implemented export subsidies for wheat during the years 2005 to 2007 and 
for corn during the years 2006 to 2007.  Should Me xico not notify these export subsidies in a 
Table ES:1 along with the relevant commitment levels? 
No, Mexico notified these subsidies as Article 9.1(d) and (e) export subsidies because the 
support meets the relevant criteria.  
75. The export subsidy outlays for wheat no tified by Mexico exceed the scheduled 
commitment levels for the years 2005 to 2007, while  the subsidised quantities of wheat exceed 
Mexico's scheduled quantity commitment for 2005 and 2006.  What are the reasons for 
exceeding commitment levels?  What steps is Mexico taking for future respect of commitment 
levels? 
Article 9.4 establishes no limitations in term s of value or volume on Article 9.1(d) and (e) 
export subsidies granted by developing country  Members, and Mexico therefore considers 
that it has not exceeded its export subsidy reduction commitment levels. 
Looking to the future, Mexico reaffirms its commitment to making prompt headway in the 
Doha Round negotiations in  order to achieve the objective of reducing, with a view to phasing 
out, all forms of export subsidies applied by all Members. 
                                                      
7 Paragraph (d) of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture refers. 
8 G/AG/N/EEC/70 refers. 
9 TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 refers. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 30  
 
  E. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) 
1. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/12 
(a) General 
76. Questions by the European Union:  On 7 March 2011 the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia (FYROM) notified export restrictions  for wheat under Article 12 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  The measures will be applicable from 10 March 2011 for a period of six months.  The European Union reserves th e right to request consultations. 
(b) Factors contributing to the domestic shortage 
77. Question by the European Union:  Could FYROM provide all relevant information 
regarding the existence and causes of the need to prevent a serious shortage on the domestic 
market such as referred to in the notification? 
In order to prevent a critical shortage on the domestic market, at its session held on 8 March 
2011, the FYROM Government adopted a decision to restrict wheat exports as an urgent measure.  The export restriction is a tem porary measure and will apply until 15 September 
2011. 
FYROM is traditionally importing wheat and wheat flower in order to satisfy its own basic 
food needs.  On average, about 40 per cent of  the total domestic consumption needs for wheat 
(i.e., 300,000 tonnes for the production of wheat fl our and bread) is cove red by imports.  The 
annual average wheat import for the period 2007-2010 was around 55,000 tonnes, while the 
average import of wheat flour was 49,600 tonnes.  Imports in 2010 amounted to 
55,700 tonnes of wheat and 46,700 tonnes of wheat flour respectively.  Imports as well as quantities available in 2010 of locally pr oduced wheat from harvest 2009/2010 (about 
230,000 tonnes) were not sufficient to satisfy  the domestic demand for the production of 
wheat flower and bread.  This situation caused imbalance in the wheat market and influenced 
the country's food security. 
To relieve the consequences of the critical lack of essential food products and in order to 
stabilize the wheat market in the country, the Government has decided to intervene through 
the sale of 40,000 tonnes of wheat from the stock reserves. 
The decision to impose an export restriction was adopted with a view to preventing eventual 
wheat exports in the conditions of wheat shortage in the country as well as in the region. 
(c) Due consideration of food security concerns 
78. Question by the European Union:  Could FYROM elaborate on the due consideration 
that it has given to the effects of the export restriction on importing Members' food security?  
Although FYROM is not a wheat exporter, very small quantities of wheat were exported in 
the last few years (197 tonnes in 2010; 78 tonnes in 2009; 55 tonnes in 2008 and 207 tonnes 
in 2007, respectively) mostly to neighbouring countries such as Serbia, Croatia and Albania.  
Therefore the export restriction is not likely to have effect on importing Members' food security.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 31 
 
 
  (d) Timing of the notification 
79. Question by the European Union:  Could FYROM indicate why the time between the 
date of notification and entry in force of the restrictions is so short?  
As stipulated in the notification, the introduction of the export restriction was envisaged for 
10 March 2011, but as the Government decision was published in the Official Gazette on 
24 March 201110, the restriction entered in force on 25 March 2011 so as to allow for more 
time between the date of notification and the date of actual application. 
2. Kyrgyz Republic   G/AG/N/KGZ/3 
(a) Factors contributing to the domestic shortage 
80. Questions by the European Union:  The European Union notes that the Kyrgyz 
Republic explains the export restrictions notified  mentioning "critical shortages of agricultural 
products on the domestic market and low level of income of the population".  The measure is in 
force from 5 November 2010 to 5 May 2011.  The European Union reserves the right to request 
consultations.  Could the Kyrgyz Republic provide all relevant information regarding the existence and causes of the critical shortage on the domestic market such as referred to in the 
notification? 
81. Questions by the United States:  In its Ta ble ER:1 notification, the Kyrgyz Republic 
states that export restrictions in the form of ex port tax for certain agricultural products have 
been introduced due to shortages on the domest ic market and the low level of income of the 
population.  Can the Kyrgyz Republic provide more detailed information about the 
contributing factors to the domestic  shortage and resulting imbalance? 
The decision to impose export duties was taken in order to prevent shortages of hay and feed 
for animals on the domestic market.  Weathe r conditions in the summer of 2010 aggravated 
the situation of hay and fodder for livestock in Kazakhstan and Russia.  Forage harvesting in 
Kazakhstan at the time of the decision covered 66 per cent of the needs.  The Government of 
Kazakhstan decided to subsidize the provision of  forage to agricultural enterprises.  Higher 
price levels in the neighbouring country creat ed conditions for the outflow of feed for 
livestock from the Kyrgyz Republic. 
Increased exports as a result of higher demand in  neighbouring countries lead to lowering of 
domestic supply and, as a consequence, to higher prices.  High cost and shortage of feed will 
lead to cattle number reduction.  The analysis of  statistical data on export / import showed that 
all products, for which export duties had been in troduced, except for the product classified in 
HS Code 230230, were mostly imported to the Ky rgyz Republic in 2008 – 2009 and that is 
indicative of the failure to meet the needs of the country through production.  However, in the 
first half of 2010 exports of “other corn seed (HS code 1005)” amounted to 1,728 tonnes. 
Exports of wheat waste (HS item 230230) exceeded 10 tonnes for the first 6 months of 2010 
while no exports have been recorded for th e same period of 2009.  Moreover, while the 
average declared export value of wheat waste was soms 2,600 per tonne throughout 2009, in the first half of 2010 the average declared value increased to soms 3,600 per tonne (an 
increase of 38.5 per cent). 
                                                      
10 Official Gazette No.37/2011 refers. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 32  
 
  At the time of the decision to impose export taxes, the price monitoring, conducted by 
Ministry staff on a weekly basis, showed increase s in the price of hay in virtually all regions 
of the country.  The increase ranged from 20 to 60 per cent, depending on the region. 
Cattle breeding is one of the leading agricultura l activity in the Kyrgyz Republic, with a share 
of 47.5 per cent in Gross Agricultural Productio n.  Cattle breeding and productivity increasing 
of all types of livestock is of great importa nce for the socio-economic development of the 
Kyrgyz Republic. 
As of 1 January 2010, the cattle population s hows an increase by 9 per cent, from 1,168,000 
to 1,278,100 heads of livestock , as compared to the numbers at 1 January 2008.  Small cattle 
herds have increased by 12 per cent, from 4,682,300 to 5,249,800 heads.  In this regard, the 
need for feed has increased. 
82. Questions by the United States:  For each product (HS Codes 1005, 1213, 1214, 2301, 
2302, 2304, 2306, and 2308) provide the volume of production in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009.  How many tonnes of these products are exp ected to be consumed domestically in 2010 
compared to 2008 and 2009? 
The response to this question will be provide d later as additional time is required for its 
preparation.  
(b) Due consideration of food security concerns 
83. Question by the European Union:  Could the Kyrgyz Republic elaborate on the due 
consideration that it has given to the effects of the export restriction on importing Members' 
food security? 
Given the small volume of exports of these produ cts in previous years, the introduction of 
export duties should not have a negative impa ct on the business activities neither in the 
Kyrgyz Republic, nor to potential importers. 
(c) Duration of the export restriction 
84. Question by the European Union:  Will the measure expire on 5 May 2011 or is there an 
intention to extend its duration? 
85. Question by the United States: Can the Ky rgyz Republic confirm the taxes will expire 
on 5 May 2011? 
A renewal of this measure is not assumed. 
3. Moldova   G/AG/N/MOL/3 
86. Questions by the United States:  In its notification, Moldova states that a temporary 
export ban on wheat and blend of wheat and rye (meslin) is in place until 1 May 2011.  The United States understands that the measure to restrict exports was put in place as of early 
February 2011.  Article 12.1(b) of the Agreem ent on Agriculture requires Members to give 
written notice to the Committee, as far in advan ce as practicable, before instituting an export 
restriction on foodstuffs.  Moldova's notifica tion, submitted on 2 March 2011, does not allow 
enough time for Members with substantial int erest to adequately review and respond as per the 
Agreement.  Can Moldova provide data comparing the volume of production in 2010 to that in  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 33 
 
 
  2008 and 2009, as well as domestic consumption data (tonnes consumed) in 2010 compared to 
2008 and 2009? 
In addition to the details of the measure alre ady included in the notification, the temporary 
export ban does not have any impact on ongoi ng contracts of economic agents where 
payments to exporters have been made in a dvance, as well as on wheat stored on the territory 
of free economic zones. 
Data on wheat production and food grain availa bility in 2009 and 2010 as well as the wheat 
balance as at 1 April 2011 are contained in Annex 5. 
Annual domestic needs of wheat for baking purposes and of wheat for feed are 345,000 
tonnes and 240,000 tonnes, respectively, resultin g in an average monthly consumption of  
29,000 tonnes of food wheat and 21,000 tonnes of feed wheat. 
From 1 August 2010 to 1 April 2011, wheat flour imports amounted to 21,000 tonnes, i.e. the 
equivalent of 29,000 tonnes of wheat.  Monthly imports of wheat flour into Moldova are around 4,000-5,000 tonnes.  Imports from neighbouring countries such as Romania, Ukraine and Russia are expected to be limited due to th eir incapacity to satisfy domestic consumption. 
During the 2010-2011 season, wheat exports from the Republic of Moldova have increased 
rapidly, doubling their volume as compar ed to the 2009-2010 season (140,700 tonnes and 
67,000 tonnes, respectively). 
As of 1 April 2011, food grain availability in cluding from State reserve was 87,000 tonnes, 
with a deficit estimated at 10,000 tonnes.  Given that about  40,000 tonnes of food grain will be allocated to the State reserve, the grain mark et deficit is likely to increase to 50,000 tonnes. 
4. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.1 
(a) Rationale for the export restriction 
(i) Demand and supply situation 
87. Questions by Japan:  Japan welcomes the subm ission of this notification by Ukraine, 
although it regrets that the notification had not been made before the introduction of the export 
restriction.  Ukraine extended the application of the measure until 31 March 2011.  Could Ukraine provide information on the current a nd prospective supply and demand situation for 
the products concerned? 
88. Questions by the United States:  Ukraine states that the licensing and distribution of 
export quotas on wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat is extended until 31 March 2011.  The 
data Ukraine provided to the Co mmittee appears to show that Ukraine holds grain stock in 
wheat, corn, and barley above domestic demand  levels.  Can Ukraine explain the rationale 
behind the extension of the export restrictions , and provide updated information on Ukraine's 
production of wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckw heat for 2011, as well as domestic demand for 
these products?  Specifically, while Ukraine's wh eat production has decreased in market year 
2010-2011, data provided by Ukraine indicates th at with demand remaining stagnant, there still 
remain several million tonnes of excess stocks.   
According to the State Statistical Service, the production of most crops in Ukraine decreased 
significantly in 2010 as compared to 2009:  rye – by 51.3 per cent; buckwheat – by 29.1 per cent; barley – by 28.3 per cent; and wh eat – by 19.4 per cent.  Only 39.2 million G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 34  
 
  tonnes out of the predicted 48 million tonnes were harvested in 2010, of which wheat 
amounted to 16.8 million tonnes, corn – to 11.9 million tonnes, and barley – to 8.5 million tonnes.  To compare, 53.3 million tonnes were  harvested in 2008 and 46 million tonnes in 
2009.  As estimated by the Ministry of Agriculture, the production of crops in 2011 is expected to reach about 42.8 million tonnes.  The current supply of grain can fully satisfy the 
domestic market demand of 26.1 million tonnes. 
The export quota extension for the relevant agricu ltural products was justified by:  (i) the high 
grain prices on the world and domestic markets;  (ii) the lack of grain at state and regional resources;  (iii) the exhaustion of export opportun ities for rye and barley;  and (iv) the deficit 
of buckwheat on the domestic market. 
With ending stocks at 5.5 million tonnes, current marketing year export opportunities for 
grain are 13.6 million tonnes, of which 5.1 million tonnes of wheat, 2.4 million tonnes of barley and 5.9 million tonnes of corn.  It wort h mentioning that the entire forecasted volume 
of rye has been exported for only 3 month in the current marketing year, and that barley export opportunities have been depleted for 80 per cent.  Buckwheat deficit is estimated at 
50,000 to 60,000 tonnes in  2009/2010 season.   
Details on the production and consumption of cer tain agricultural products are contained in 
Table 1 of Annex 6, on th e production/consumption balance of crops and forecasts for 
2011/2012 marketing year – in Table 2 of Annex 6,  and on carry in and ending stocks of crops 
– in Table 3 of Annex 6.  A supply and demand balance for grain for the 2010/2011 marketing 
year by type of agricultural product is given in Annex 7.  
89. In Ukraine's response to questions regarding  the contributing factors to the export 
restrictions, Ukraine notes that offer prices for grain have risen substantially from October to 
June 2010.  Can Ukraine provide the offer price of wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat in 
2011 compared to quarterly data in 2008, 2009, and 2010?  Can Ukraine explain the formula through which the offer price is used to determ ine the need for export restrictions?  Has the 
offer price decreased subsequent to th e placement of export restrictions? 
Average offer prices at the over-the-counter market (franco-elevator, hryvnias per tonne) are 
provided in Table 4 of Annex 6.  
The situation on the world grain market is curre ntly quite difficult.  The forecasted significant 
decrease in ending grain stocks would lead to the exhaustion of spare grain resources.  This would result in higher grain contract value.  At  this time, March contracts quotations of food 
wheat of European origin exceeded US$350 per to nne and US$320 per tonne for feed wheat.  
Soft winter wheat produced in USA is quoted at US$307 per tonne, and hard winter wheat – at US$330 per tonne.  Although domestic prices for crops in Ukraine have increased by 
50 per cent on the average, they remain one of the lowest among those in other grain producers.  As the result of the Government's de cision to introduce an export restriction, the 
domestic prices for crops in Ukraine are on averag e lower by $100 per tonne than the prices in 
the European Union and Russia. 
Average wholesale prices of wheat in Ukraine are US$217 per tonne (Poland - US$324, 
Germany - US$286, Great Britain - US$323, United States - US$312, Russian Federation - US$238) and prices for corn are US$206 per tonne (Poland - US$298, Italy - US$330, Spain - US$346, Russia - US$284, Brazil - US$290, Argentina - US$276).  Thus it should be noted 
that the price increase on the domestic market was caused not only by the deficit of domestic 
resources, but also by the price situation on the world grain market.   G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 35 
 
 
  (b) Export quota allocation 
90. Question by the United States:  Can Ukraine explain why the export quota for wheat is 
only one-third of the export quota allotted for corn, considering that Ukraine's excess wheat 
stocks appears to be higher than corn stocks? 
The export quota for wheat was set at a leve l below the export quota for corn given the 
substantially higher level of dom estic consumption of wheat and not so significant domestic 
consumption of corn.  With such demand on the domestic market, export opportunities for 
wheat are limited. 
91. Questions by the United States:  In response to questions on the export quota allocation 
process, Ukraine notes that the issuing of li cences and allocation of export quotas is 
accomplished in accordance with the recommendati ons of a specially created commission.  Can 
Ukraine provide a detailed explanation of the process through which the commission or the 
relevant agency facilitates the licensing process a nd export quota allocation?  What steps has 
Ukraine taken to provide transparency of pro cessing to applicant companies?  Can Ukraine 
please provide the percentage of applicant companies which have received export quota 
allocations and explain what factors determin e the size of export quota allocated for a 
particular company?  If prior export quantit y is a factor, are there specific export quota 
allocations reserved for newcomers on the market?  Can Ukraine also provide a timeline of the 
licence application process?  For example, what is  the typical waiting period for obtaining the 
certification of available stocks by the Mi nistry of Agrarian Policy and Food? 
According to paragraph 6 of the Procedure for issuing licences for certain agricultural 
products and the allocation of quotas, at its  meetings on 12 Novemb er 2010 and 11 January 
2011, the Commission established by the Minist ry of Economy and charged with the 
consideration of applications for licences a nd allocation of quotas, approved calculations 
regarding quota allocation among subjects of ec onomic activity which applied to licences for 
export of agricultural products.  Quota allo cation was made proportional to the volumes, 
indicated in the conclusions of the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the available volumes of 
grain by subjects and their capacity to export them.  In case of absence to the conclusion of 
the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the available volumes of grain by subjects and their capacity to export them, applications from s ubjects are not accepted by the Ministry of 
Economy. 
With a view to openness and transparency of th e process of considerati on of applications for 
licences for export of agricultural products and the issuance of licences, information regarding 
the terms of application, time and place for holding of the Commission meetings and its 
decision results concerning quota allocation is  published on the official website of the 
Ministry of Economy. 
Quota allocation, in accordance with the Pr ocedure for licence issuance, is made at 
Commission meetings with the presence of the mass media and representatives of the subjects 
of economic activity, on the basis of all a pplications and submitte d documents from the 
subjects.  An appropriate prot ocol is drawn up afterwards. 
The process of consideration of applications is pursuant to the rules of WTO Agreements, 
which are the bases of international trade relati ons, and Article 16 of the Law of Ukraine "On 
foreign economic activity". 
It should also be noted that applications fo r licences together with other documents approved 
by the Order of the Ministry of Economy from 9 September 2009 No. 991 "On Commodities G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 36  
 
  Export Licensing Procedure" were accepted fro m all subjects who submitted applications to 
the Ministry of Economy in the prescribed deadline of 7 calendar days.  All subjects who applied following the above mentioned re quirements received a share of the quota 
proportional to the volumes indicated in their a pplications, according to the principle of 
proportional quota allocation, and regardless of  previously exported grain volumes. 
According to paragraph 4 of the Order of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy from 20 October 
2010 No. 661 "On adoption of the Procedure of  issuing of the conclusions regarding the 
availability of volumes of agricultural products , applied for export and capacity to export 
them", the Commission reviews applications in order of their receipt not less than twice a 
week and then takes a motivated decision to i ssue a conclusion or a refusal.  The conclusion 
or the motivated refusal shall, under paragraph 6 of the Procedure, be issued to the subject on 
the day following the meeting of the Commission.  In December 2010 and January 2011 the Commission of the Ministry of Agrarian  Policy of Ukraine received more than 
200 applications for obtaining the conclusion regarding the available volumes of grain by 
subjects and their capacity to export them, 98 of these received positive conclusions.  
(c) Duration of the export restriction 
92. Question by Japan:  Are more extensions of this measure possible beyond March 2011? 
The Resolution of the Cabinet of Minister s from 6 December 2010 No. 1182 "On amending 
the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers from 4 October 2010 No. 938 and considering the 
resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers from  10 November 2010 No. 1046 invalid" extends the 
term of export restrictions for certain agricultural products until 31 March 2011. 
At present there is no official decision of the Ukrainian Government to extend the term of this 
measure.  Taking into consideration the curre nt unstable situation both on domestic and 
foreign markets, it is important now not to allow an uncontrolled growth in prices of crops that can occur with the abolishment of grain export control, therefore the Government of 
Ukraine examines possible measures of domestic grain market protection.  Whereas the 
increase in crop price influences almost all foods tuffs: as a raw material – influences the price 
of bakery, and as a feed – the production of me at, meat products and eggs.  The Government 
decision will be taken depending on the situation on the domestic and world markets of grain. 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
A. Q
UESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA  
(a) Canada:  Domestic support 
93. Australia notes that Canada's most recent do mestic support notifi cation covers calendar 
year 2005.  Could Canada advise when it will su bmit notifications for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 
and 2009?  
Preparations for Canada's outstanding notificati ons are diligently under way.  Canada hopes to 
submit its notifications to the Secretariat as soon as possible.  However, at this time Canada 
cannot provide an exact time for its submissions. 
(b) China:  Domestic support 
94. Australia notes that domestic support no tifications for the period 2005-2009 are still 
outstanding.  Could China explain the cause for the delay and indicate when it intends to submit  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 37 
 
 
  these outstanding notifications?  Australia woul d be grateful if China could observe "best 
practice" and provide its response in writing. 
China is working on the overdue notifications .  China has notified domestic support for the 
period from 2002 to 2004 and is preparing a submission for years from 2005 onwards.  The notification will be submitted once the necessar y data collection and conversion work are 
completed, taking into account statistical differences and other factors. 
(c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
95. Australia notes Egypt has outstanding domestic support and export subsidy 
notifications for the period 1999-2009 (Egypt's la st notification was submitted in May 1999).  
Could Egypt explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  Australia would be grateful if Egypt could observe "best practice" 
and provide its response in writing. 
As indicated in the previous statements, th ere is an ongoing process involving all Egyptian 
entities concerned to prepare these notifications.  Egypt wishes to reiterate its commitment to 
finalize this process in order to be ab le to notify the Committee on Agriculture. 
However, the attention of the Committee is dr awn to the political developments in Egypt, 
which had implications on this process.  Some aspects of this internal coordination are put on 
hold.  Egypt believes that as soon as the situa tion in Egypt heads towards the stability and 
normalcy, this process will be on-going again, and Egypt will be notifying the Committee as soon as possible. 
(d) India:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
96. Australia welcomes India's recent submission of notifications on tariff quota 
administration and tariff quota fill, the first since June 2002.  Could India provide Members with an update on progress of gathering in formation 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 export subsidies?  Australia would 
be grateful if India could observe "best prac tice" and provide its response in writing. 
As a first step towards bringing its notifica tions up to date, India has recently submitted 
notifications on tariff quota administration and tariff quota fill to the Committee on Agriculture.  The notifications on export subs idies and domestic support are being processed 
with a view to early submission.  India tha nks Australia for its commitment to improving 
compliance with WTO obligations and best prac tice and assures Australia that India shares 
the same objectives. 
(e) Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard 
97. Australia notes that Korea has outstanding domestic support and the special safeguard 
notifications for calendar years 2005-2009.  Could Korea indicate when it intends to submit 
these outstanding notifications?  Australia wo uld be grateful if Korea could observe "best 
practice" and provide its response in writing.  
Korea is making an utmost effort to submit the outstanding notifications on domestic 
support and special safeguard as s oon as possible.  Table DS:1 notification for years from 
2005 to 2008 is being finalized and the inte ntions are to submit Korea's notification on 
special safeguard in the near future as well. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 38  
 
   
(f) Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
98. Australia notes that Turkey has outstandi ng domestic support and export subsidy 
notifications (Turkey's last notification was s ubmitted in May 2002).  Could Turkey explain the 
cause for the long delay and indicate when it in tends to submit its outstanding notifications?  
Australia would be grateful if Turkey could ob serve "best practice" and provide its response in 
writing.  
Turkey is working on its delayed notifica tions.  They will be presented as soon as the 
compilation and verification of a ll required data are completed.  Turkey will comply with all 
of its commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
B. QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES  
(a) Peru:  Domestic support 
99. The United States appreciates Peru's domest ic support notification for 1999 through 
2003 – the first notification in 11 years – and trusts  that more notifications will be forthcoming.  
Peru last notified domestic support for 1995 th rough 1997.  When will Peru notify for 1998?  
Peru is working hard to ensure that the ove rdue notifications for 1998 and for the period from 
2004 to 2010 are submitted as soon as possible.  This work is to be seen against the 
background of the firm commitment of Peru to  meet all notification requirements under the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
The notification from 1998 has been delayed by the fact that the electronic database, available 
on the Economic Transparency website of the Mi nistry of the Economy and Finance of Peru, 
which is used to prepare the notifications, c ontains standardized fi nancial and budgetary 
information dating back to 1999.  The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Economy and Finance have been engaging in inter-sect oral coordination in order to collate the 
information from 1998.  Peru would be happy to  provide any interested delegations with the 
address of the aforementioned website. 
Peru would wish to thank the WTO Secretariat for organizing a National Workshop on the 
Agreement on Agriculture in November 2009.  Th e workshop was crucial for the work carried 
out internally to submit overdue notifications for the period 1999-2003.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 39 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
Mexico – G/AG/N/MEX/22 
 
Requirements established by sectors for the purposes 
of eligibility under the Programme to address extreme climatic events 
  1. Crop producers  
(a) Producers growing annual crops covering up to 20 hectares of rain-fed land. 
(b) Producers growing perennial crops, with perennial fruit-tree, coffee or nopal cactus 
plantations covering up to 5 hectares of rain-fed land. 
2. Livestock producers 
Producers with herds of up to 40 Animal Units (AU) of cattle (bovine) or the equivalent in smaller 
animals, as follows:  1 AU of cattle = 1 horse;  5 sheep;   6 goats;  4 hogs;  100 poultry;  or 5 beehives.  
The Table of Equivalence to cattle published on 2 Ma y 2000 in the Official Journal of the Federation 
will have to be consulted for any animal species not  listed in this paragra ph and for which support is 
being sought.  3. Fisheries producers 
Fisheries producers with a vessel under 10.5 metres in length, listed in the National Fisheries Register, 
possessing a valid fishing permit or concession, regi stered by the Ministry of Communications and 
Transport, with a fresh catch capacity of up to 15 tonnes per year.  4. Aquaculture producers 
Aquaculture producers with an annual production capacity of up to five tonnes of fresh fish or up to 
50,000 items of other species.  The unit of meas urement used for the purposes of support is the 
hectare in the case of extensive or semi-intensive  systems, and the Aquaculture Unit in the case of 
intensive systems or mollusc cultivation, bearing in mind that 1 Aquaculture Unit = 1 cage;  1 pond;  
or 15 basket modules. G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 40  
 
  ANNEX 2 
 
Mexico – G/AG/N/MEX/22 
 
Support characteristics (Amounts of support - Eligible productive assets) 
  
Support component Unit of 
measurement Maximum amount 
of support Unit amount Joint Federal/state 
participation 
A.  Crop farming    50% state / 50% Federal 
I.  Annual crops Mex$/ha Up to 5 ha/producer Mex$900/ha  
II.  Perennial crops Mex$/ha Up to 5 ha/producer Mex$900/ha  
III.  Perennial fruit-tree plantations
(1) and 
coffee and nopal 
cactus crops Mex$/ha Up to 5 ha/producer Up to Mex$5,000/ha  
B.  Livestock farming(2) Animal unit 
(AU) Up to 40 AU 
in the case of 
supplemental feed Mex$450 AU  
Up to 5 AU in the 
event of death  Mex$950/AU   
C.  Fishing Mex$/vessel 1 ve ssel/producer Mex$10,000/vessel  
D.  Aquaculture     
I.  Extensive or semi-
intensive system Mex$/ha Up to 2 ha/producer Mex$8,000/ha  
II.  Intensive system Mex$/Aquaculture 
unit Up to 2 Aquaculture 
units/producer Mex$8,000/Aquacultur
e unit  
III.  Mollusc 
cultivation Mex$/Aquaculture 
unit Up to 2 Aquaculture 
units/producer Mex$1,000/Aquacultur
e unit  
E.  Contracting of crop, 
livestock, aquaculture 
and fisheries disaster 
insurance(3) Per producer Rain-fed crops:  
up to 20 ha for annual 
crops and up to 10 ha 
for other crops. 
Irrigated crops:  
up to 10 ha for any 
form of crop. 
Up to 40 AU, 
with an insured 
amount of 
Mex$450/AU (for 
supplemental feed). 
Up to 1 vessel. 
Up to 2 ha of 
aquaculture or up to 2 
Aquaculture units. 100% of the amount of 
the premium 90% Federal / 10% 
state for municipalities 
with a high or very high 
rate of marginalization. 
75% Federal / 25% 
state for municipalities 
with a medium, low or 
very low rate of 
marginalization. 
 
(1) In the case of perennial fruit-tr ee plantations and coffee and nopal cact us crops, the damage will have 
to be evaluated according to the level of developmen t of the plantation, whic h will require establishing 
and submitting a rehabilitation and/or prevention plan, validated by the delegation, on the basis of which the delegation itself will determine the amount of support to be requested per hectare within the 
established range. 
  In the case of a hail- or frost-indu ced extreme climatic event, a plan to prevent this type of phenomenon 
will have to be submitted;  the beneficiaries w ill therefore receive progra mme support once only and 
will not be eligible for renewed support for the same type of event. 
  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 41 
 
 
  (2) Support amounting to Mex$450/AU is provided for supplemental feed and Mex$950/AU in the event 
of death of the AU. 
 
(3) For the purposes of determining the percentage of state participation under the crop, livestock, 
aquaculture and fisheries disaster insurance component, the basis is classification according to most recent socio-economic marginalization index for th e country's municipalities made available to the 
general public by CONAPO. 
 
 As regards livestock disaster insurance, a sum of Mex$450/AU and up to 40 AU per producer can be 
insured to cover supplemental feed in case of drought, cyclones (in their various forms) and flooding.  Where livestock insurance is cont racted by the Ministry alone and compensation is due, if the state 
concerned requests programme support, this may extend up to 40 AU per producer, subject to the 
50 per cent Federal/50 per cent state joint particip ation provision laid down in the programme's direct 
support procedure. 
 
 In the case of crop disaster insurance, irrigation crop  insurance covering up to 10 hectares of any type 
of crop per producer can be taken out.  Where crop insurance is contracted by the Ministry alone and 
compensation is due, if the states concerned request programme support for irrigated areas, this may 
cover up to 10 hectares per producer, subject to the 50 per cent Federal/50 per cent state joint participation provision laid down in the programme's direct support procedure. 
 
 G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 42  
 
  ANNEX 3 
 
Mexico – G/AG/N/MEX/22 
 
Programme implementation and operation 
 
 1. Request for Climatic Diagnosis by CONAGUA  
 
The state, acting through the relevant incumben t in charge, will have to ask CONAGUA to 
issue the Climatic Diagnosis corroborating the occurrence of the extreme climatic event and 
identifying the municipalities where the event took place. 
2. Submission of Diagnostic Damage Report 
For those municipalities ascertained to have been  struck by the extreme climatic event, the 
state will have to submit a Diagnostic Damage Re port describing the adverse effects justifying 
the provision of support under the programme a nd the resources required to address them, in 
accordance with the current established amounts fo r support.  The Report will also have to 
include the list of affected producers me eting the programme's eligibility criteria. 
3. Request for support and publication by the Minist ry of the Declaration of Extreme Climatic 
Event 
On the basis of the Climatic Diagnosis i ssued by CONAGUA and the Diagnostic Damage 
Report, SAGARPA issues the Declaration of Extreme Climatic Event. 
4. Decision by the programme's decision-making Commission 
The programme's decision-making Commission examines the Diagnostic Damage Report and 
the list of affected producers. 
5. Technical Annexes to the Coordination Agreement  
Pursuant to the Coordination Ag reement between the Ministry and the state concerned, and 
for each event for which the decision-making Commission authorizes programme support, the 
programme unit responsible will draw up a Technical Annex specifying the authorized 
amount and actions to be taken. 
6. Publication of the Declaration of Extreme Climatic Event 
The Ministry will publish the relevant Declarati on of Extreme Climatic Event in the Official 
Journal of the Federation once the Technical Annex has been signed.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 43 
 
 
  ANNEX 4 
 
Mexico – G/AG/N/MEX/22 
  
Definition of extreme climatic events 
 
Extreme climatic events are defined as the adverse effects on productive assets caused by the occurrence, corroborated by the National Wa ter Commission (CONAGUA), of drought, frost, 
hailstorms, snowfalls, torrential rains, major flooding , tornados and cyclones in their various forms - 
all of which are atypical, relevant, non-recurring a nd unpredictable.  An extreme climatic event is 
considered recurrent to the extent that it has occurred five times or more over the preceding ten years.  
An extreme climatic event is considered relevant if  it has a major adverse impact on local territory and 
thus causes serious prejudice to a region's economic activity. 
 
Extreme climatic events covered by the programme 
 
(a) Atypical and unpredictable drought 
 This is a temporary imbalance in natural wa ter supply ensuing from persistent lower-than-
average rainfall, of uncertain duration and severity and occurring in an atypical and 
unpredictable manner. 
 
 As regards animal husbandry, drought jeopardizes the capacity to produce fodder in pastures 
and rangelands and can be determined when av erage rainfall between the months of May and 
November in a water basin is atypical and unpr edictable.  The dry season for this activity is 
December to April of the immediately pr eceding year, when fodder production capacity 
perceptibly begins to decline in pastures and rangelands. 
  As regards crop growing, low rainfall affects short-cycle crops.  In this case, the 
determination of drought will be very closely lin ked to the phenological stage of the crops in 
the water basin area where the abnormal levels of  rainfall occur, and the effects of reduced 
rainfall can therefore occur within a matter of a month. 
 
 In order to determine whether drought is atyp ical and unpredictable, the best quantitative and 
qualitative information available will be used to  calculate the historical averages for the 
phenomenon in the region concerned as well as the respective standard deviations, the 
indicator of unpredictability being any differen ce greater than a standard deviation from the 
average values recorded. 
 
(b) Atypical and unpredictable frost 
 This occurs when an area suffers low temp eratures equal to or below water freezing point, 
causing damage to plants through intracellular fo rmation of ice crystals in plant tissue, 
withering, dehydration of reproductive organs, shrivelling of seeds, or death.  For the 
purposes of these rules, frost occurs when th e effects of low temperatures affect the 
phenological stage of crops, pastures and plantations over a period of time that results in irreversible damage. 
 
(c) Hailstorms 
 This is when hailstones reach a size equal to or greater than 17 mm. in diameter and/or the 
precipitation of ice particles of any diameter produces a horizontal layer of ice equal to or G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 44  
 
  thicker than 30 mm.  Hail is a precipitation of  pellets or lumps of ice produced by water 
droplets from Cumulus nimbus clouds that are driven upwards by storm updrafts until they reach the freezing point layer, where they crys tallize and aggregate to form increasingly large 
particles of ice.  When the updraft is no longer strong enough to support their weight, hailstones fall to the ground. 
 
(d)  Snowfalls, torrential rains, majo r flooding, tornados and cyclones 
 Since these are extreme climatic events that may involve different sectors, including 
aquaculture and fisheries, they are defined accord ing to the Rules of Operation of the Natural 
Disaster Fund (FONDEN) for the current fiscal year. 
  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 45 
 
 
  ANNEX 5 
 
Moldova – G/AG/N/MOL/3 
 
 
Table 1:  Total wheat production in Moldova, 2009-2010 
 
 
 Year 2010 
('000 tonnes) Year 2009 
('000 tonnes) 
Total wheat, of which: 772 774 
Food 240 312 
Feed 472 402 
Seeds 60 60 
 
 
Table 2:  Availability of food grain, 2009-2010 
 
 Year 2010 
 Year 2009 
 
Food grain production ('000 tonnes) 240 312 
In State reserve ('000 tonnes) 60 60 
Total food grain availability ('000 tonnes) 300 372 
Total food grain availability as a % of internal 
demand* 87 107 
* Internal demand:  345,000 tonnes 
 
 
Table 3:  Wheat balance as at 1 April 2011 
 
 Production in 
2010 
('000 tonnes) State 
reserve 
carry-
over 
('000 
tonnes) Consumption, 
1 August 
2010 – 
1 April 2011 
('000 tonnes) 
 Assigned 
to state 
reserve   
('000 
tonnes) Wheat/ 
wheat 
flour 
exports, 
1 
August 
2010 - 
1 April 
2011 
('000 
tonnes) Imports 
of 
wheat 
flour 
('000 
tonnes) Availability 
on 1 April 
2011 
('000 
tonnes) 
 Domestic 
needs 
until the 
next crop 
('000 
tonnes)  Ratio 
availability 
to future 
needs 
(%) 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
7/8*100 
Total 
wheat 772 60 400 70 184/4 21 143 160 89 
Food 240 60 232 0 6/4 21 87 97 89 
Feed 472 0 168 70 178 0 56 63 89 
 G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 46  
 
  ANNEX 6 
 
Ukraine – G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.1 
 
 
Table 1:  Production and consumption of certain agricultural products 
 
 Production  
(thousand tonnes) Domestic demand  
(thousand tonnes) 
2010/2011 
MY 2009/2010 
MY 2008/2009
MY 2010/2011 
MY 2010/2009 
MY 2008/2009 
MY 
All grain 39,227 46,028 53 ,290 26,114 26,468 27,499 
Including:       
Wheat 16,845 20,886 25, 885 11,853 11,950 11,509 
Rye 465 954 1,051 674 891 928 
Barley 8,484 11,833 12,612 6,064 6,020 6,859 
Corn 11,919 10,486 11,447 5,915 5,682 6,353 
Buckwheat 134 189 241 148 235 207 
 
  
Table 2:  Production/consumption balance of crops 
Forecast for 2011/2012 MY 
 
 All grain Wheat Rye Barley Corn Buckwheat 
Production  
(thousand tonnes) 42,750 18,600 550 9,500 12,300 230 
Domestic consumption  
(thousand tonnes) 26,673 11,589 618 6,373 6,329 203 
 
  
Table 3:  Carry in and ending stocks of crops 
 
 2008/2009 MY 2009/2010 MY 2010/2011 MY 
Production  53,290 46,028 39,227 
Stocks for the beginning of period 6,549 7,540 5,977 
Import 130 149 166 
Domestic consumption 27,286 26,468 26,114 
Ending stocks 7,540 5,977 5,484 
 
                                                      
 Expected level for 2010/2011 marketing year.  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
 Page 47 
 
 
  Table 4:  Average offer prices at the over-the-counter market 
(franco-elevator, hryvnias per tonne) 
 
  
 Food wheat Feed rye Feed  corn  Barley Buckwheat 
18 March 2011 2,250 1,850 1,900 1,950 12,000 
January 2011 1,680 1,690 1,610 1,420 8,100 
October 2010  1,630 1,650 1,600 1,350 6,800 
July 2010 1,295 750 1,240 920 5,200 
April 2010  1,330 900 1,310 850 4,000 
January 2010  1,280 880 1,265 780 2,200 
October 2009 1,200 780 1,030 750 2,050 
July 2009 1,150 876 1,070 850 2,010 
April 2009 1,255 800 870 850 2,020 
January 2009 1,180 650 530 850 1,580 
October 2008  1,095 920 840 1,000 1,820 
July 2008  1,280 1,070 1,190 1,330 2,280 
April 2008 1,465 1,200 1,230 1,350 2,380 
January 2008 1,370 1,190 1,080 1,150 2,200 
  
  G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 
Page 48 ANNEX 7 
 
Supply/Demand Balance 
for 2010/2011 Marketing Year 
as at 1 February 2011 
(including grain products, thousand tonnes) 
 
All grain including Wheat 
Rye 
Barley 
Corn 
Oat 
Rice 
Buckwheat 
Millet 
Other corps 
Product supply 45,370 20,565 872 9, 260 12,644 558 2 47 163 132 929 
All domestic market 45,204 20,545 866 9,250 12,624 558 167 143 132 919 
Production 39,227 16,845 465 8,484 11,919 458 148 134 117 657 
Stocks at beginning of period 5,977 3,700 401 766 705 100 19 9 15 262 
Foreign market (import) 166 20 6 10 20 0 80 20 0 10 
Product demand 45,370 20,565 872 9,260 12,644 558 247 163 132 929 
All domestic market 26,114 11,853 674 6,064 5,915 520 218 148 90 632 
including                     
Consumption 6,732 5,358 468 100 147 112 206 116 71 154 
seed 2,799 1,462 76 915 72 72 10 28 5 159 
feed 14,489 4,450 50 4,320 5,040 329 0 2 12 286 
processing to non-foodstuff 1,506 331 73 602 477 0 0 0 0 23 
circulation losses 588 252 7 127 179 7 2 2 2 10 
Foreign market (export) 13,772 5,312 44 2,471 5,829 18 5 0 31 62 
Ending stocks 5,484 3,400 154 725 900 20 24 15 11 235 
additionally:  
Export in July-January 2010-
2011 7,134 2,686 39 2,385 1,940 4 2 0 20 58 
Rational export in February-June 
2010/2011 MY  6,638  2,626  5 86 3,889  14 3 0 11 4 
 
__________