RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
11 January 2011 
 (11-0201) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 18 November 2010
1 
 
Revision  
 
 
 The present revision compiles questions received by  the Secretariat by the deadline referred to 
in WTO/AIR/3653 dated 29 October 2010, and includ es questions posed by New Zealand to Norway, 
received by the Secretariat on 10 January 2011, and contained in paragraph 37. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Table of Contents  
 
I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ...............4  
A. QUESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES ....................................................4  
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............4  
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)...................................................................................................4  
1. Korea   G/AG/N/ KOR/41 ........................................................................................................4  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..4 
B. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO 
MA:5).......................................................................................................................... ................4  
1. Philippines   G/AG/N/PHL/40..................................................................................................4  
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .......4  
(b) Question by the United States.................................................................................................. ...5 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1)......................................................................................................................... .....5 
1. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 ......................................................................................................... .5 
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..5 
2. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17.......................................................................................................... 6 
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..6 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  3.
 Costa Rica  G/AG/N/CRI/24/Rev.1 and CRI/30.....................................................................6  
(a) Questions by India (on G/AG/N/CRI/30) ...................................................................................6  
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..6 
4. Dominican Republic   G/ AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1......................................................................7  
(a) Question by the European Union................................................................................................7  
5. Israel  G/AG/N/ISR/42/Rev.1...................................................................................................7  
(a) Comment by the European Union...............................................................................................7  
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..7 
6. Israel  G/AG /N/ISR/45.......................................................................................................... ....7 
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .......7  
(b) Questions by Canada............................................................................................................ .......7  
(c) Questions by the European Union ..............................................................................................8  
(d) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. ..8 
(e) Questions by Uruguay........................................................................................................... ......8  
7. Namibia  G/AG/N/NAM/18......................................................................................................8  
(a) Questions by the European Union ..............................................................................................8  
8. Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/59........................................................................................................9  
(a) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .......9  
(b) Question by Canada ............................................................................................................. .......9  
(c) Question by the European Union................................................................................................9  
(d) Questions by New Zealand ....................................................................................................... 10 
(e) Questions by United States ..................................................................................................... ..10 
(f) Questions by Uruguay........................................................................................................... ....10  
9. United States  G/AG/N/USA/77 .............................................................................................10  
(a) Questions by Argentina......................................................................................................... ....10  
(b) Questions by  Australia......................................................................................................... .....10  
(c) Questions by  Brazil............................................................................................................ .......11  
(d) Questions by Canada............................................................................................................ .....12  
(e) Questions by India ............................................................................................................. .......12  
(f) Question by Japan.............................................................................................................. .......13  
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2).........................................................................................................13  
1. Ecuador   G/AG/N/ECU/25....................................................................................................13  
(a) Question by the United States.................................................................................................. .13 
2. Honduras   G/AG/N/HND/31 .................................................................................................13  
(a) Question by the European Union..............................................................................................13   G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  3. Namibia   G/AG/N/NAM/19...................................................................................................14  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................14  
(b) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 14 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS 
(TABLES  ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) ....................................................................................................14  
1. Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/42 .......................................................................................................14  
(a) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 14 
2. Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/50 ..............................................................................................14  
(a) Question by the European Union..............................................................................................14  
3. United States   G/AG/N/USA/78 ............................................................................................14  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................14  
F. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1)......................................................................................................................... ...15 
1. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5 ......................................................................................................15  
(a) Questions by the European Union ............................................................................................15  
(b) Questions by  Israel............................................................................................................ ........15  
(c) Questions by Japan ............................................................................................................. ......15  
(d) Questions by the United States ................................................................................................. 16 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QU ESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA....................................16  
(a) China:  Domestic support....................................................................................................... ...16 
(b) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies........................................................................17  
(c) India:  Tariff quota administration, tari ff quota fill, domestic support and export 
subsidies...................................................................................................................... ..............17  
(d) Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard ......................................................................17  
(e) Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies......................................................................17  
 G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. Q
UESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  
1. New Zealand remains concerned about the cu mulative protection-driven measures that 
Canada has implemented in its da iry sector and urges Canada to supply further details about these 
measures, as well as to explain how they are cons istent with Canada's WTO obligations and with 
Canada's commitment not to introduce new trade-re strictive measures.  Measures of concern include: 
(a) modifications to the 4M milk classes' programme, which undercuts the price of 
imported ingredients used in cheese; 
(b) the "100 per cent Canadian milk" ice cream subsidy programme where there is a lack 
of clarity about the degree of involvement of a government agency (the Canadian 
Dairy Commission);  and 
(c) changes to Canadian compositional standard s for cheese, which unjustifiably restrict 
the use of imported ingredients in cheese  (as previously raised in the TBT 
Committee). 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Korea   G/AG/N/ KOR/41 
(a) Questions by the United States  
2. The United States notes that Korea notifies zero or very low fill rates for certain dairy 
products (skim milk powder, whole milk powder, other milk and cream) despite Korean trade 
statistics showing the import of quantities beyond the TRQ level. 
(a) Is the product entering at over-quota tariff rates? 
(b) Why would importers not fill the TRQ quantities? 
B. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Philippines   G/AG/N/PHL/40 
(a) Questions by Australia  
3. For calendar year 2008 it was notified that the price-based SSG was "reinstated" in January 
2007 and for calendar year 2009 it was notified that th e measure was "reinstated" in January 2007 and 
"lifted" in November 2009. 
(a) Can the Philippines clarify whether the price-based SSG was continuously applied 
from January 2007 until November 2009?  If the measure was in place continuously 
for nearly 36 months, can the Philippines explain the basis for applying the measure 
for this period of time?  Should the price- based SSG not be applied on a shipment-by- G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  shipment basis, given that import prices vary for each shipment resulting in a 
variation of any additional duties? 
(b) Can the Philippines provide data on the import prices, trigger prices, volumes, 
number of shipments affected and the add itional duties applied to show that the 
measure was in compliance with Article  5 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(c) Paragraph 7 of Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture specifies that "Members 
undertake, as far as practicable, not to take recourse to the provisions of 
subparagraph 1(b) – the price-based SSG – where the volume of imports of the products concerned are declining".  Can th e Philippines confirm that the volume of 
imports was not declining prior to the invocation of the price-based SSG? 
4. Australia remains concerned that these kinds of  issues need to be adequately addressed as 
they are similar to the concerns that we have in r espect of the possible misuse of a price-based Special 
Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) as is being proposed in the Doha negotiations. 
(b) Question by the United States
 
5. How many tonnes of poultry were subject to the special safeguard duty during each of the 
years reported? 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 
(a) Questions by the United States  
6. In reviewing the Central Bank's website it app ears that the SELIC rate is, in effect, a 
government-set rate, at which financial instrument s are cleared between banks .  However, it does not 
appear that this is a market rate that is norma lly available in commerce to customers of financial 
institutions.  Could Brazil please describe the SELIC ra te, its function, and its connection to market 
rates normally available in commerce? 
7. In its response to the question in paragraph 17 of document G/AG/W/78, Brazil noted that the 
implicit subsidy is estimated for "each programme".  There is only one measure notified, however, as 
"non-product-specific production and marketing credit" .  Could Brazil list each programme that is 
captured under this measure? 
8. Regarding its response to the question in para graph 20(b) of document G/AG/W/78, could 
Brazil list each programme for which the SELIC interest rate is utilized to calculate the interest rate 
subsidy and each programme for which the Referential Interest Rate (TR) is used to calculate the 
interest rate subsidy?  Could Brazil please confirm that the addition of 2 per cent and 11 per cent to 
the SELIC and TR rates respectively, are for each programme so listed? 
9. In its response to the question in paragraph 21 of document G/AG/W/78, Brazil confirmed 
that the debt rescheduling programmes do not incl ude debt forgiveness.  Where are transfers of 
outstanding debt from financial institutions into  the "Active Union Debt (DAU)" of the National 
Treasury notified? 
10. Why are equalization payments not in addition to  the interest rate subsidies, since these 
payments appear to be necessary for the financia l institutions to provide these subsidized rates? G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  2. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17 
(a) Questions by the United States
 
11. Do all farmers who have contracted land receive  direct payments, or must they apply for 
those payments?  Are those payments made to the farmer, or to the collective who actually owns the 
land? 
12. In China's response to questions regarding "pub lic stockholding", China notes that one of the 
purposes of the Central Grain Reserve is to deal with  a "big harvest", and that volumes are determined 
in part based on market supply and de mand, and the price situation.   
(a) What particular role does the Central Grain Reserve have in a "big harvest", and how 
does price affect the volume purchased, particularly when there is a big harvest and 
low prices? 
(b) When the purchase price of grain for the reserve is made by way of direct 
procurement, how are these prices establi shed and communicated to producers?   
(c) China notes that these prices ar e based on the prevailing market prices, but in what 
specific ways are they based on prevailing market prices? (In other words, are they 
the same?  Are market prices part of a pricing formula that determines grain reserve 
prices?, etc.)  Are these prices made public either before or after procurement, and are the amounts procured also made public? 
3. Costa Rica  G/AG/N/CRI/24/Rev.1 and CRI/30 
(a) Questions by India (on G/AG/N/CRI/30)
 
13. Costa Rica's Current Total AMS for agriculture was US$62.5 million in 2008 and 
US$91.7 million in 2009, compared to a maximum co mmitted level of US$15.9 million.  The largest 
increase has been in product-speci fic AMS which has grown nearly three times since 2007 and seven 
times since 2006.  Thus, the violations are increasing in size from 2007 onwards.  Most of the increase 
can be attributed to product-specific support that has been provided for rice through price support.  On comparing with the previous notifications of, say , year 2000, administrative price support has more 
than doubled , though the eligible production h as more or less remained at the same level. 
14. Considering that Costa Rica is a member of the Cairns Group of agricultural exporting 
countries, its exceeding of Bound Total AMS levels  may also have livelihood implications for 
developing countries and NFIDCs in  terms of high import bills.  India would therefore like to join 
other WTO Members who had raised this issue in flagging its concerns.  Costa Rica is requested to adhere strictly to its bound commitment levels in reduction of AMS. 
(a) Could Costa Rica explain why its Total AMS commitment is being exceeded? 
(b) What steps does Costa Rica propose to take to  ensure that its Current Total AMS is 
within commitment levels in future? 
(b) Questions by the United States
 
15. Following up on questions raised in sever al previous meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, could Costa Rica provide an update on  its review of its domestic support programmes 
and what specific steps have b een undertaken to ensure the Bound Total AMS commitment level is  G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  not exceeded?  When can Members expect that Costa Rica will be back under the Bound Total AMS 
commitment level? 
4. Dominican Republic   G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1 
(a) Question by the European Union  
16. The European Union notes that the cover page of the revised notification does not contain a 
short summary on the background of the revision.  Under "best practices", it was agreed that such a 
summary would contribute to the efficiency of th e Review Process.  Will the Dominican Republic in 
future, in the case of corrections or revisions  of notifications, include such a summary? 
5. Israel  G/AG/N/ISR/42/Rev.1 
(a) Comment by the European Union  
17. The European Union notes the explanatory notes on modifications introduced in the 2006 
domestic support notification.  We thank Israel for facilitating a more efficient review in line with 
recommendations under "best practices". 
(b) Questions by the United States  
18. "Environment reform in the dairy farms" is listed under "Payments under environmental 
programmes" for measures exempt from the reduction commitment.  Could Israel provide further 
information as to how the measure meets criteria unde r Annex 2, paragraph 12?  In particular, could 
Israel confirm that these payments are limited to exte rnal costs or loss of income complying with the 
programme? 
19. When does Israel plan to submit its Table DS:2 notification in regards to "Environment 
reform in the dairy farms" programme? 
6. Israel  G/AG/N/ISR/45 
(a) Questions by Australia  
20. Can Israel explain how the "Agriculture by th e Torah (Bible)" programme or research fund 
operates?  
21. We note that there has been a significant incr ease in AMS spending by Israel in recent years 
and that Israel breached its Total AMS commitment level in 2008. 
(a) What has led Israel to breach its Total AMS commitment level? 
(b) Will Israel be implementing measures to en sure that it does not breach its Total AMS 
commitment level in future years?  Can Israel outline what these measures might be? 
22. There has been a large increas e in the administered support price for milk (21 per cent 
increase) and eggs (30 per cent increase) from 2007 to 2008.  Can Israel provide some information on 
the reasons for these increases? 
(b) Questions by Canada  
23. Canada appreciates Israel's commitment to transparency and the information provided in its 
notification.  Canada views with alarm that Israel reports a Current Total AMS in excess of its scheduled commitment level in 2008.  This appear s to violate Article 3.2 of the Agreement on G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  Agriculture which states that "... a Member shall not provide support in fa vour of domestic producers 
in excess of the commitment levels specified in Section I of Part IV of its Schedule". 
(a) What procedures did Israel use before and during 2008 to project its expected 2008 
Current Total AMS? 
(b) What steps did Israel take in 2009 to avoid a recurrence of a violation in that year and 
later years? 
(c) Questions by the European Union
 
24. For the year 2008 the European Union notes th at notified Current Total AMS exceeds the 
bound commitment level.  What steps are taken in or der to bring back a situation of respect of the 
AMS ceiling? 
(d) Questions by the United States  
25. G/AG/N/ISR/45 shows Israel's Current Total AMS increasing 44 per cent between 2007 and 
2008, exceeding Israel's Total AMS commitment level in 2008 by nearly US$13.7 million.  It appears 
that much of the increase was in  support of the egg and dairy industry.  Please clarify if action has 
been taken to comply with Israel's Bound Tota l AMS commitment and explain what measures have 
been or will be taken to reduce the Current Total AMS levels in 2009 and future periods so that Israel 
does not exceed its Bound Total AMS commitment. 
26. "Environment reform in the dairy farms" is listed under "Payments under environmental 
programmes" for measures exempt from the reduction commitment.  Could Israel provide further information as to how the measure meets criteria unde r Annex 2, paragraph 12?  In particular, could 
Israel confirm that these payments are limited to exte rnal costs or loss of income complying with the 
programme? 
27. When does Israel plan to submit its Table DS:2 notification in regards to "Environment 
reform in the dairy farms" programme? 
(e) Questions by Uruguay
 
28. We would welcome detailed clarification from Israel on its recent Current Total AMS 
expenditure, noting that Israel's Table DS:1 notific ation for 2008 shows Current Total AMS above its 
Final Bound Total AMS commitmen t level of US$568.980 million. 
29. This appears to violate Article 3.2 of the Agre ement on Agriculture which states that "... a 
Member shall not provide support in favour of domest ic producers in excess of the commitment levels 
specified in Section I of Part IV of its Schedule" .  What steps has Israel taken to avoid a future 
recurrence of a violation of its Total AMS commitment? 
7. Namibia  G/AG/N/NAM/18 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
30. The European Union notes a significant increase of support in the Green Box for extension 
services during the period 2000/2001 – 2009/2010. 
(a) Could Namibia elaborate on the circumstances for this increase? 
(b) Could Namibia give examples of support measures?  G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  8. Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/59 
(a) Questions by Australia  
31. We note that in 2008 Norway breached its Tota l AMS spending commitment level.  However, 
in 2009 Norway met its Total AMS spending commitment: 
(a) Can Norway explain why it breached its Total AMS spending commitment in 2008? 
(b) Was the decline in domestic support spendi ng, which occurred in 2009, a result of 
amendments to programmes to  ensure that spending met Total AMS commitments or 
did it result from other developments?  Can Norway outline the reasons for the 
decline in Current Total AMS spending in 2009? 
(c)  In the explanation to why Norway exceed ed its Total AMS commitment, it stated 
that "the AMS for rye, oilseeds and goat milk was not taken into account as the 
Current AMS for these three products was incl uded in the notifications as a result of 
the Trade Policies Review of Norway in October 2008".  Can Norway explain the relevance of this?  
(d) What action is Norway taking to ensure that the annual Current Total AMS levels 
will be in compliance with the Total AMS commitment levels from 2009 onwards? 
32. Are there any specific conditions that Norwegia n farmers must fulfil in order to receive 
support for environmental programmes?  What is  the basis for payments under the "National 
environmental programme"? 
33. Can Norway explain its "Vacation and Replace ment Scheme"?   Under which section of 
Annex 2 is this programme notified?  
34. Can Norway expand on its explanation of why, as at 1 July 2009, the target price for beef is 
no longer in place? 
(b) Question by Canada
 
35. Canada appreciates Norway's commitment to tran sparency and the information provided in its 
notification: 
(a) Canada views with alarm that Norway repor ts a Current Total AMS in excess of its 
scheduled commitment level in 2008.  In a footnote to the 2008 Table DS:1, Norway 
states that "action has been taken in order to ensure that annual AMS levels will be in 
compliance with the commitment levels from 2009 onwards", presumably referring to 
the price support reported as EMS in Supporting Table DS:8 for 2009.   
(b) Could Norway explain how the price support measures introduced for beef in 2009 
operate, specifically by contrasting them against the price support measure for beef 
("target price") reported in 2008? 
(c) Question by the European Union  
36. The European Union notes that, for the y ear 2008, Norway exceeded its Total AMS 
commitment.  On page 2 of the notification, we note  the statement in footnote 1 that "action has been 
taken in order to ensure that the annual AMS le vels will be in compliance with the commitment G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
  levels".  The European Union is very much interest ed in the content of this action.  Could Norway 
elaborate on the type of measures taken, notably in relation to price gap support? 
(d) Questions by New Zealand
   
37. New Zealand notes that Norway has notified Current Total AMS of NOK11,550 million in 
2008.  This notified amount is in excess of Norw ay's Final Bound Total AMS commitment level of 
NOK11,449 million.  Could Norway please explain why its AMS commitment appears to have been 
exceeded?  What steps are being taken to ensure  that Current Total AMS is within commitment 
levels for future years? 
(e) Questions by United States  
38. G/AG/N/NOR/59 shows that the Current Total AMS exceeded Norway's commitment level in 
2008 by US$106 million.  It appears that much of th e increase was in support of wheat, rye, and beef 
producers.  Please explain what caused high AMS leve ls and describe the specific steps Norway has 
undertaken, or is taking, to ensure that its B ound Total AMS commitment will not be exceeded in the 
future? 
(f) Questions by Uruguay  
39. We would welcome detailed clarification from Norway on its recent Current Total AMS 
expenditure, noting that Norway's Table DS:1 notif ications for 2008 show Current Total AMS above 
its Final Bound Total AMS commitment level of NOK 11,449 million. This appears to violate Article 
3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture which states that "... a Member shall not provide support in favour of domestic producers in excess of the commitme nt levels specified in Section I of Part IV of 
its Schedule".   
40. What steps has Norway taken to avoid a future  recurrence of a violation of its Total AMS 
commitment? 
9. United States  G/AG/N/USA/77 
(a) Questions by Argentina
 
41. Could the United States indicate the source a nd the corresponding year for the external 
reference price under Supporting Table DS:5 used for butter, non-fat dry milk and cheddar cheese? 
42. Could the United States specify the provision that authorizes "livestock indemnity 
payments"? 
43. Could the United States explain why it considers the outlays set out in Supporting Table DS:9 
as non-product-specific, when they clearly do not benefit all agricultural products (e.g. crop and 
revenue insurance, countercyclical payments ( CCPs), etc.)?  Could the United States provide 
information about the products eligible for subs idies under Supporting Table DS:9 and the production 
value of each of them in the year notified?  
(b) Questions by Australia  
44. Could the United States elaborate on what is meant by "technology transfer" under the 
heading "Extension Activities"?  G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  45. The "Rural Energy for American Program" d escription states that it involves "grants to 
farmers, ranchers and small rural businesses to purchase renewable energy systems".  Does this not 
involve direct transfers to producers? 
46. Could the United States specifically identify what so rt of expenditure is involved in the "State 
programs for agriculture"? 
47. Regarding "Tobacco quota buyout" under decoupled  income support, could the United States 
explain how "payments are funded through assessm ents on tobacco product manufacturers and 
importers"?  
48. Part of the criteria for assistance under paragraph 11, Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture requires "objectively id entifiable structural disadvantages".  Regarding "Farm Service 
Agency/Farm Credit Programs", could the United States elaborate on how the inability to obtain 
credit is a structural disadvantage? 
49. What losses, if any, do producers participati ng in the "Conservation Reserve Program" suffer? 
50. What sort of farming activities (e.g. cropping, livestock) occurred on the Wetlands in question 
prior to their incorporation in the "Wetland Reserve Program"? 
51. What are the "livestock production" practi ces referred to in "Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program"? 
52. Could the United States explain why it has not notified "State Credit Programs" as it has 
previously done?  Have the state credit programmes expired? 
53. Australia notes that the United States has no tified US$2,925.440 million in market price 
support for its dairy sector for marketing year 2008 .  This compares to the US$5,011.058 million 
notified for marketing year 2007 and US$4,882. 010 million notified for marketing year 2006. 
(a) Could the United States inform the Committee why the notified amount has fallen by 
some US$2,085.618 million and whether this reflects any reduction in the level of 
market price support provided to the US dairy sector? 
(b) Could the United States explain the precise manner in which it calculated the external 
reference prices it is using for butter,  non-fat dry milk and cheddar cheese? 
(c) Questions by Brazil  
54. Brazil notes that, despite record high world prices for agricultural commodities in 2008, 
cotton continues to benefit from high levels of pr oduct-specific AMS subsidies (US$1.1 billion).  On 
top of this amount, the United States has also used CCPs specifically for cotton.  The Appellate Body 
ruled in United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  that a proportion of CCPs constitute support 
granted to a specific commodity:  cotton.  However,  the United States has consistently classified all 
CCP payments as non-product-specific AMS.  Explaini ng this classification to the European Union in 
the November 2007 Committee on Agriculture, the Un ited States stated that:  "Countercyclical 
Payments (CCPs) are reported as non-product specific because payments are based on fixed historical 
area and yields (i.e., production), not current producti on.  Recipients are not required to produce any 
product to receive payments.  Recipients include producers of fruits and vegetables (whether because 
of historical production, double-cropping, or the av ailability of non-base-acres). Because any eligible 
crop can be grown on the base acres, payments cannot be ascribed to a specific product." G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  (a) A conservative estimate of CCP budgetary outlays for cotton would be in the order of 
at least US$1.0 billion out of its total notif ied value of US$1.2 billion.  Adding the 
product-specific AMS, the subsidized  support for cotton would be around 
US$2.1 billion.  Could the United States confirm whether the estimate for CCP budgetary outlay for producers holding cotton contracts is correct?  If not, what was 
the amount destined to producers holding cotton contracts? 
(b) Could the United States explain why it h as classified all CCP payments as non-
product-specific AMS and how this classificati on is consistent with Article 1 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture which specifi es that non-product-specific support is 
"support provided in favour of agricultural produ cers in general", particularly in light 
of the fact that there are distinct ta rget prices for the different programme 
commodities? 
55. An innovation in the 2008 Farm Bill was th e introduction of the Average Crop Revenue 
Election (ACRE) programme.  
(a) Could the United States indicate the reasons why there has been no notification under 
that programme in G/AG/N/USA/77? 
(b) Could the United States share its initial as sessment of the ACRE programme, the 
participation rate of farmers and the commodities most affected by it?  
56. Could the United States indicate how the classification of direct payments as decoupled 
income support under Annex 2, paragraph 6, of th e Agreement on Agriculture is consistent with the 
Appellate Body's findings in the United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton  case? 
57. The United States notified US$756 million for its M ilk Income Loss Contract Program in the 
product-specific AMS.  Could the United States give  more details on how this programme works and 
how the payment rates are defined? 
(d) Questions by Canada
 
58. Regarding the calculation of market price s upport for butter, non-fat dry milk and cheddar 
cheese in Supporting Table DS:5, are the external reference prices for calendar years or for dairy 
years?  Could the United States indicate the exact  sources where Members can see the data used for 
the external reference prices and for the eligible production? 
59. We understand that the number of program mes in Supporting Table DS:9 providing 
subsidized insurance has been increasing.  Coul d the United States elaborate on whether "Crop and 
revenue insurance" includes the Livestock Gross Marg in and the Livestock Risk Protection programs?  
If so, what are the applicable "crop years" in this Supporting Table?  
(e) Questions by India  
60. Could the United States provide detailed clarifica tion on the reasons why, despite the fact that 
the total domestic support of the United States has rema ined in the range of US$80-85 billion, there is 
a noticeable shift in support from the Amber Box to Green Box.  Within the Green Box, the increase 
is mainly due to support under Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), where support has 
increased three times from 2002 to 2007. 
61. As per the OECD report "Agriculture Policies in OECD Countries, 2010", the United States is 
the largest supporter of "Conservation Reserve Program " where farmers engage in long-term contracts  G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  to conserve land outside of agriculture production.   Outlays have increased by nearly US$250-300 
million in the past three years.  As such outlays including those of EQIP are covered under Green Box 
support programmes and have the potential to be out put-restricting by keeping world prices for basic 
grains higher, how does the United States view the se programmes in the current scenario of rising 
world food prices?  With higher  food prices, can we expect any lowering of support under these 
categories in future notifications? 
62. Under the Farm Act 2008, it seems that direct payments are not totally decoupled from the 
current production and prices.  As and when the hist orical planting and yields data are updated, it has 
impact on the current production through wealth and risk effect.  Could the United States elaborate on 
this and also whether the United States has updated the historical planting and yield data related to 
decoupled income after the establishment of the WTO? 
63. Could the United States provide the detailed methodology to estimate the total value of 
agricultural production as well as produc t-specific values of production? 
64. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 introduced CCPs to the array of income 
support programs for agriculture commodities in the United States.  CCPs are available for specified 
crops when market prices are below levels set out  in the legislation.  These payments are trade-
distorting as they have an impact on the decision-making of the farming community to cultivate a particular crop.  Is there any plan for box-shif ting (from one box to another) of CCPs under the Doha 
Development Round?  
65. The CCPs are based on historical production and the difference between a target price and the 
current prices.  These payments are product-specific e. g. rice, cotton etc.  However, in the domestic 
support notification, CCP payments are treated as  non-product-specific payments rather than as 
product-specific payments.  Can the United States explain this? 
(f) Question by Japan
 
66. Would the United States explain the background to the change in policy measures from "MPS 
to milk" to "MPS to processed dairy products"? 
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. Ecuador   G/AG/N/ECU/25 
(a) Question by the United States  
67. Please provide details as to how the "Socio Siembra" programme meets the criteria for "New 
or Modified Domestic Support Measures exempt from Reduction"? 
2. Honduras   G/AG/N/HND/31 
(a) Question by the European Union  
68. The European Union notes that Honduras notifies four new measures as investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture compliant with  Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
However, the four measures seem to be rather sel ectively targeted.  The measures are intended for an 
irrigation project in specific geographical regions, f ood security of a specified number of families, the 
establishment of a palm oil refinery, and for sup porting cattle breeding.  Could Honduras elaborate on 
the reasoning for including these measures under Special and Differential treatment? G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 14  
 
  3. Namibia   G/AG/N/NAM/19 
(a) Questions by the European Union
 
69. Namibia establishes a national grain reserve.  How does Namibia procure the grain?  Are the 
purchases made at current market prices?  Is the financing of this programme from public funding? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
70. Namibia notifies the measure "Livestock Marketing Scheme" as an investment subsidy 
generally available to agriculture.  The scheme s upports transportation and quarantine costs, which 
may meet exemptions under different parts of th e Agreement on Agriculture.  Could Namibia explain 
how this measure qualifies as an investment s ubsidy exempt from reduction under Article 6.2? 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES  ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/42 
(a) Questions by the United States  
71. Can Korea explain how "cost reduction meas ures" applied for fruit and vegetables? 
72. The United States notes that Korea notified a dditional products (grain and processed food for 
2007 and 2008 and traditional liquor in 2008) than f ound in previous export subsidy notifications.  
Can Korea provide additional detail on the subsidi es as well as identify the specific products including 
the HS tariff code? 
2. Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/50 
(a) Question by the European Union  
73. The European Union notes that Switzerland did not notify support for some primary goods 
that nevertheless are included in the listed incorpor ated products (egg, flour, oils and sugar).  The 
European Union recalls its position that, in accordan ce with Article 11, no subsidies are payable for 
these incorporated products in the absence of payments for corresponding primary goods.  Has 
Switzerland considered following the EU's reading of Article 11? 
3. United States   G/AG/N/USA/78 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
74. The United States indicate in footnote 2 to Table ES:1 (for both 2007 and 2008) that WTO 
dispute settlement proceedings determined that a certain export credit guarantee programme (GSM-
102) conferred an export subsidy.  In the footnote th e reader is referred to an internet web page for 
information about the use of the export credit guara ntee programme in question during the relevant 
time periods.  Could the United States consider a more transparent account of the GSM-102 activity; 
including a consideration on how the values repres ented at the web site should count against the 
export subsidy commitments of the United States. 
75. When will the United States provide Ta ble ES:3 tables for the period from 1997?  G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  F. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) 
1. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
76. The European Union notes the notified recourse to temporary export restrictions on cereals 
(wheat and blend of wheat and rye (meslin), spe lt, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat) in accordance 
with Article XI:2(a) of GATT 1994 and Article 12.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The European 
Union recognizes the right of any WTO Member to take such measures, provided that that Member can convincingly demonstrate that these restrictions are necessary to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs.  However, at the same ti me the European Union is  aware that Ukraine and 
Russia have recently signed a memorandum on exports of 2 million tonnes of Ukrainian coarse grain 
to Russia.  
77. Against this background, the European Union av ails itself of the right as a WTO Member to 
request consultations with Ukraine on this issue,  noting the preparedness of Ukraine to do so, 
mentioned under point 3 of G/AG/N/UKR/5.  Anticipating such consultations: 
(a) Could Ukraine forward all relevant inform ation regarding the existence and causes of 
the critical shortage of agricultural product s invoked in Ukraine's notification to the 
WTO? 
(b) Could Ukraine elaborate on the due consideration it has given to the effects of the 
export restriction on importing Members' food security? 
(c) Could Ukraine indicate why it was not practicable to give notice in writing of the 
export restrictions to the Committee on Agri culture in advance of the institution of 
such restrictions? 
(b) Questions by Israel
 
78. Israel intends to raise general concerns regard ing Ukraine's notification of export restrictions.2 
(c) Questions by Japan  
79. Would Ukraine explain:  
(a) How have the volumes of these quotas been determined?  Are there any objective 
criteria (e.g. with regard to the production,  the volume of exports, the stock level 
and/or the domestic market price) to de termine "a significant imbalance in the 
domestic market", to which "critical shor tages of foodstuffs" prescribed in Article 
XI:2(a) of GATT 1994 can be applied?  
(b) Is there any possibility that the duration of application of the measure will be 
extended beyond 31 December 2010?  If so, by when will it be decided?  
(c) How is the export quota allocated to expor ters or importing countries?  Is it 
proportional to the historical trade volume?  Is there any other rule for fair allocation? 
                                                      
2 These concerns were expressed during the Committ ee meeting on 18 November and are reflected in 
paragraphs 19-20 of G/AG/R/60. G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
Page 16  
 
  (d) According to the document issued by the Ministry of Economy on 1 November
3, it is 
under consideration that exports to countri es which have a free trade agreement with 
Ukraine be exempt from the export quota.  What is the conclusion of the consideration?  If this exemption is en forced, will it not have adverse effects on 
Ukraine's critical food shortage?  
(e) Are the flour and other processed products of grain subject to export quotas?  If not, 
what is the reason for not covering these products? 
(d) Questions by the United States
 
80. Ukraine states that export prohibitions and rest rictions have been introduced to prevent a 
shortage in the domestic market resulting from a poor  2010 harvest and to eliminate an imbalance in 
the domestic grain market. 
(a) Can Ukraine provide more detailed informa tion about the contributing factors to the 
domestic shortage and resulting imbalance? 
(b) How many tonnes of wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat were produced in 
Ukraine in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009, and how many tonnes of these grains 
are expected to be consumed domestically  in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009? 
(c) According to USDA statistics, it appears that Ukraine still produced significantly 
more grain this year than it will consume.  Is Ukraine concerned that the reductions in 
prices to its domestic producers due to these restrictions will lead to lower production 
and further shortages in future years? 
81. On page 2 of the notification, the total quan tities of export quota licences available are listed 
for wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat. 
(a) Can Ukraine provide more information on the process for obtaining an export 
licence? 
(b) What is required to obtain a licence? 
(c) Who may apply for a licence?  We have heard reports from traders that there have 
been problems in obtaining the necessary certificates to apply for a licence.   
82. Can Ukraine confirm that this temporary export ban applies to exports to all countries?  Are 
any countries exempt from the export prohibition and restrictions? 
83. Do the export quotas apply to grain already purch ased and loaded onto ships or in transit? 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA 
(a) China:  Domestic support  
84. Australia welcomes China's recently submitted domestic support notifications for calendar 
years 2002-2004.  Australia notes that domestic support notifications for the period 2005-2009 are 
still outstanding.  Could China explain the cause fo r the delay and indicate when it intends to submit 
these outstanding notifications?  We would be gratef ul if China could observe "best practice" and 
provide its response in writing. 
                                                      
3 http://me.kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=152733&cat_id=32862  G/AG/W/79/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (b) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
85. Australia notes Egypt has outstanding domestic  support and export subsidy notifications for 
the period 1999-2009 (Egypt's last notification was submitted in May 1999).  Could Egypt explain the 
cause for the long delay and indicate when it inte nds to submit these outstanding notifications?  We 
would be grateful if Egypt could observe "best  practice" and provide its response in writing. 
(c) India:  Tariff quota administration, tariff quot a fill, domestic suppor t and export subsidies  
86. Australia notes that India has not submitted a notification to the Committee on Agriculture 
since June 2002.  Australia notes also that since the 52nd Regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Australia has consistently asked India when Members could expect India to comply with 
its notification obligations. 
87. For example, India has still not made a Table MA:1 notification to explain the administration 
of tariff quotas that have been incorporated in its Schedule since 2003 (covering skim milk powder, 
corn, crude sunflower and safflower oil, and refined rape, colza, canola and mustard oil).  This issue 
was raised in 54th Regular meeting of the Committee on Agri culture (refer to G/AG/R/54, paragraphs 
59-61). 
88. Could India please provide Members with an update on progress of gathering information to 
prepare its WTO agriculture notifications?  Could In dia provide an indicative time when it intends to 
submit these outstanding notificati ons?  We would be grateful if I ndia could observe "best practice" 
and provide its response in writing. 
(d) Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard  
89. Australia notes that Korea has outstanding domestic support and special safeguard 
notifications for calendar years 2005-2009.  Coul d Korea indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  We would be grateful if Korea could observe "best practice" and provide 
its response in writing. 
(e) Turkey:  Domestic suppor t and export subsidies  
90. Australia notes that Turkey has outstanding dom estic support and export subsidy notifications 
(Turkey's last notification was submitted in May 2002) .  Could Turkey explain the cause for the long 
delay and indicate when it intends to submit its out standing notifications?  We would be grateful if 
Turkey could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing. 
 
__________