RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
12 March 2010 
 (10-1327) 
Committee on Agriculture Original:   English 
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the Committee on Agriculture meeting on 10 March 2010
1 
 
Revision  
  
1. The present revision compiles questions received by  the Secretariat by the deadline referred to 
in WTO/AIR/3509 dated 12 February  2010, and includes the additional question posed by Brazil to 
the European Union, received by the Secretariat on 26 February 2010 and cont ained in paragraph 41. 
_______________ 
 
 
I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. Q
UESTION BY AUSTRALIA :  EU-252 AND EU-27  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENT LEVELS  
2. In its responses to questions from Australia at the 19 November 2009 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the EU stated that wh ile its EC-15 CXL Schedule has not yet been 
certified, it intends to continue to apply the EC- 15 CXL Schedule to the EU-25 and the EU-27.  On 
the other hand, the EU also stated that from July 2006 it has been applying annual commitment levels 
resulting from the netting out of export subsidy co mmitments of the countries which acceded in 2004, 
with respect to Part IV of its Schedule. 
3. Australia notes that the EU's response included a reference to tariff rate quota commitments 
negotiated under Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994.  Aust ralia again reiterates that Article XXIV:6 of 
GATT 1994 only relates to the adjustment of tari ff and other concessions in Parts I and III of a 
Member's Schedule - it does not provide a method for negotiating changes in Part IV of the Schedule 
relating to domestic suppor t and export subsidies. 
4. Australia reiterates its concerns that the Eu ropean Commission's decision could establish an 
adverse precedent for rescheduling and offsetting compensation and may introduce a lower level of 
commitment of all schedules.  The EU's approach to providing notifications on the basis of the EU-25 
and EU-27 has meant that it has exceeded its EC-15 scheduled commitments for at least two products:  (1) for wine during the marketing years 2006/07 and 2007/08 (the applied volume commitments are 
notified at 2,996.9 and 2,986.6 thousand hectolitres respectively);  and (2) for sugar during the 
                                                     
 
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. 
2 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  marketing years 2006/07 and 2007/08 (the applied volume commitments are notified at 1,336.9 and 
1,359.6 thousand tonnes respectively).  The EC-1 5 volume commitments for wine and sugar are, 
respectively, 2,304.7 thousand hectolitres and 1,273. 5 thousand tonnes, as set out in Part IV of the 
EC-15 CXL Schedule.  Australia questions the appr opriateness of providing notifications on the basis 
of EU-25 and EU-27 before the multilateral verification process of  the proposed new schedules has 
been completed.  Australia looks forward to fu rther engagement with the EU on this issue. 
B. 
QUESTION BY NEW ZEALAND :  CANADA 'S TRADE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES ON DAIRY 
PRODUCTS  
5. How are the cumulative protection-driven polic ies which Canada is placing on imported dairy 
products, (i.e. including those we asked questions about  at the last meeting of this Committee and the 
issue we have raised several times in the TB T Committee of compositional standards for cheese) 
consistent with Canada's vari ous commitments not to introduce new trade-restrictive measures? 
C. QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES :  THAILAND 'S REQUIREMENT TO EXPORT RICE STOCKS  
6. The United States understands that the Thai government has accumulated large amounts of 
rice stocks, which it is selling through a bidding pr ocess, resulting in rice being sold at lower-than-
market-value prices.  Does the Thai government ha ve any type of requirement to export the rice 
acquired through this process? 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
1. Thailand   G/AG/N/THA/70 
(a) Question by the European Union  
7. The EU notes that the majority of licences issu ed under the arrangements notified lose their 
validity after 31 December 2008.  Are the arrange ments under which currently licences are being 
issued substantially different from the ones notified in G/AG/N/THA/70? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
8. The United States notes that, for several TRQ products, the Department of Foreign Trade 
(DFT) allocates specified TRQ quantities to certain st ate-trading enterprises (STEs).  For example, the 
DFT grants specified allocations of maize for feedstu ff, garlic, palm oil, and coconut oil to the Public 
Warehouse Organization (PWO).   
(a) Would Thailand please describe the process the Thai government uses to issue import 
permits to STEs with specified TRQ allocations?   
(b) Please explain how the Thai government ensur es that this process is transparent.   
(c) What steps does the Thai government take  when the PWO does not fully utilize its 
TRQ allocations?  G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/1/Add.1 and UKR/3 
(a) Question by the European Union  
9. The EU notes the allocation of sugar tariff quota amounts to individual member States of the 
European Union.  Can Ukraine elaborate on whethe r it has considered allocating an aggregate tariff 
quota amount to the European Union of 27 Members? 
B. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/37 
(a) Question by the European Union  
10. The EU notes that, for several TRQs, notified import quantities are significantly above the 
scheduled tariff quota quantities.  Have the quantiti es in excess of the scheduled tariff quota quantities 
been imported at tariff quota conditions? 
2. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/53 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
11. The EU notes that Norway notifies a tariff quota fill of 7,611 tonnes of apples for a tariff 
quota quantity of 8,000 tonnes under tariff item number 0808.10.11.  Norway's Schedule mentions 
three TRQs for headings 0808 10 10 (750 and 250 tonnes) and 0808 10 90 (7,000 tonnes). 
(a) Can Norway provide the tariff quota fill according to the scheduled TRQs? 
(b) If not, what is the reason for merging these quantities in G/AG/N/NOR/53? 
12. The EU is aware that Norway uses an auctioning system for the allocation of tariff quotas. 
(a) Could Norway provide an estimate of the m onetary volume generated by this system? 
(b) Can Norway elaborate on whether the re venues generated through the auctioning 
system are used in a non-trade distorting manner? 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/70 
(a) Questions by the United States  
13. The United States notes that Chinese Taipei  reported on 15 December 2009 that the volume 
of peanuts imported by that date was 5,989.7 to nnes.  However, preliminary customs trade data 
indicates that calendar year 2009 imports of the designated eleven tariff lines covering peanuts totalled only 4,089 tonnes, which is below the cal culated volume-based SSG trigger level.  Could 
Chinese Taipei please explain the discrepancy?  
14. In addition, could Chinese Taipei please expl ain reasons for the variation in peanut 
consumption levels between th e 2005-2007 three-year period? G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  D. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Albania   G/AG/N/ALB/4 
(a) Questions by the United States  
15. In Supporting Table DS:9, Non-Product-Specific AMS , Albania reports support for "Plant 
trees like grape, apples and olives at subsidized ra tes provided to producers".  Please provide details 
about these support programmes and explain why Albania has categorized this support as non-
product-specific support, instead of as product-specific support.   
2. Chile   G/AG/N/CHL/31 
(a) Question by the European Union  
16. Chile notifies "Agricultural Insurance" under pa ragraph 5 of Annex 2.  Why has Chile not 
notified this support under paragra ph 7 or paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of  the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
17. In Supporting Table DS:1 under (g) Infrastructur e Services, Chile reports that approximately 
29 billion pesos was spent on irrigation/drainage projects associated with Law 18.450.  The United States notes that, according to the National Irrigation Commission (CNR) data source, in 
addition to the 29 billion peso payment, there was also an "extraordinary" payment of 11 billion 
pesos.   
(a) Could Chile please explain the terms of the extraordinary payment and clarify if it is 
reflected in the notification? 
(b) Did any other programmes listed in the no tification receive any extraordinary or 
additional payments? 
(c) If so, please provide the amounts and explain the terms.   
18. Also, could Chile please provide additional de tails regarding the meaning of "investment 
incentive" in Supporting Table DS:2? 
3. Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/57 
(a) Questions by Australia
 
19. Can the Czech Republic please identify the products  for which direct payments were received 
under production-limiting programmes for (a) payments b ased on fixed area and yields;  (b) payments 
based on 85 per cent or less of base level of pr oduction;  and (c) livestock payments on a fixed 
number of head? 
20. Can the Czech Republic please provide its total value of agricultural production for calendar 
year 2003? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
21. In Supporting Table DS:1, the Czech Republic  lists "Support for Ecological Agriculture" 
under (j) Environmental Programmes.  Could the Czech Republic/EU please provide more details 
about what is meant by "ecological agriculture" and explain how these programmes meet the "Green 
Box" criteria for clearly defined E nvironmental Programmes under Annex 2?  G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. In Supporting Table DS:9, Non-Product-Specific AMS , the Czech Republic lists "Support to 
vineyards, hop gardens and orchards".  Please provide details about these programmes and explain 
why the Czech Republic/EU has categorized this support as non-product-specific support, instead of as product-specific support. 
4. Ecuador   G/AG/N/ECU/21 
(a) Question by Australia
 
23. Can Ecuador please confirm that, from 2006 to 2009 , it provided no support to agricultural 
producers or for agricultural products, including Green Box support? 
5. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/64 
(a) Question by Canada  
24. The European Union claims a Single Area Payment as Green Box support and as a measure 
type called "Other".  What policy-specific criteria, such as those in paragraphs 5-13 of Annex 2, does 
the European Union claim that this measure meets? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
25. The United States did not have sufficient time to fully review the notification for this 
March meeting and will likely have more questions for the EU at the next meeting in June.  We would 
like to submit the following question for the March meeting:  In Supporting Table DS:1, the EU lists 
"support and protection of organic production by cr eating conditions of fair competition" under 
(j) Environmental Programmes.  Could the EU please provide more details about these programmes 
and explain how they meet Annex 2 "Green Box" criteria? 
6. New Zealand   G/AG/N/NZL/59 
(a) Question by the European Union  
26. For the financial year ending June 2008 Ne w Zealand notified $NZ 26.587 million for "Soil 
conservation".  What are the legislative requirement s for the cost of which this programme provides 
partial (50 per cent – 70 per cent) compensation? 
7. Romania   G/AG/N/ROU/22 
(a) Question by Canada  
27. Canada appreciates the European Union's effort to bring the notifications for its new member 
States more up-to-date.  On Romania, we note that questions were previously raised about the absence 
of data in the calculation of market price support in the 27th and 38th meetings of this Committee.  
Could the European Union please explain the reason fo r the absence of such data in the notifications 
for 2003 to 2006 which ha ve now been submitted? 
(b) Questions by the United States  
28. In Supporting Table DS:1, Romania reports the measures "Price reductions granted to 
producers in order to stimulate the use of hi gh quality seeds" and "Fertilizers granted free to 
agriculture producers".  Please provide additional details about these programmes and explain how 
Romania/EU justifies classifying these progra mmes as "Green Box" support under Annex 2. G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  29. In addition, please explain how the total mark et price support figures in Supporting Table 
DS:5 were calculated. 
E. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. European Union   G/AG/N/EEC/65 
(a) Questions by Australia  
30. Under "Measures financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD)": 
(a) Can the EU please explain why the "Setting up of young farmers" programme is 
notified under paragraph 11 of Annex 2?  
(b) What, if any, are the objectively demonstrable structural disadvantages  being 
addressed by this programme?  
(c) Is this programme different to the "Sup port for young farmers" programme notified 
by the Czech Republic?  
31. Can the EU please identify the structural disa dvantage the "Adding value to agricultural and 
forestry products" programme is designed to address?  
32. Could the EU please elaborate on the "Supporti ng farmers who participate in food quality 
schemes" programme?  What does it entail?  Give n the programme provides support specifically for 
agricultural products intended for hum an consumption, how can it be  said that the programme does 
not relate to a particular type of production?  
33. Can the EU please explain the specific conditions th at farmers have to meet to qualify for the 
"Natura 2000 payments and payments  linked to Directive 2000/60/EC"? 
34. What is the nature of the agri-environmenta l commitments that farmers are required to 
undertake under the "Agri-environment payments"? 
35. How does "Support for non-productive investment s" differ from the "Agri-environment 
payments" and "Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC"?  In particular, 
if the payments under "Natura 2000" and "Agri-envir onment payments" are to cover the extra costs or 
loss of income involved in complying with t hose programmes, what then, does "Support for non-
productive investments" provide compensation for? 
(b) Questions by Brazil  
36. In relation to the EU notification G/AG/N/EEC/65 of 4 February 2010 with respect to new or 
modified domestic support measures exempt from re duction pertaining to the sugar sector, could the 
EU explain how does the February 2010 notification of  its July 2006 reform comply with Art. 18.3 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, according to which new modifications "shall be notified promptly"? 
37. How does the EU expect the 2006 Sugar Reform to impact on the AMS sugar expenditures 
which remain constant in notifications for the marketing years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 at 
around 6 billion Euros?  G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  38. What does the EU consider to be "eligible quan tities" in relation to sugar?  Does it refer only 
to the "A" and "B" production quotas? 
39. Table DS:2 of notification G/AG/N/EEC/65 notifies a new ceiling for decoupled Single 
Payment Scheme (SPS) payments of 28 billion Euros (payments 2007).  SPS payments for 2006-07 
amounted to 30.6 billion Euros according to notification G/AG/N/EEC/64.  Notification 
G/AG/N/EEC/58 indicated that the expenditure ceili ng for the new and modified measures contained 
therein (including SPS, Single Area Payment Sche me (SAPS) and Blue Box measures) would amount 
to 37 billion Euros.  Could the EU indicate what is  the annual ceiling for the SPS prior to its extension 
to the sugar producing sector?  
40. How does the EU envisage the next steps of its Am ber Box reform, in particular in relation to 
wine, fruit and vegetables, and da iry products (SMP and butter)? 
41. Could the EU confirm whether producers that are entitled to the decoupled payments (SPS, 
SAPS) can also receive "coupled" support (Amber and Blue) on top of the former?  Which products 
still continue to receive either or  both AMS and Blue Box support? 
2. Lithuania   G/AG/N/LTU/5 
(a) Questions by the United States  
42. In the Table DS:2 notification, Lithuani a lists the measures "Investment support for 
specialized dairy farms, which meet environmental, quality and other criteria" and "Organic farming".  
Please provide additional details about these programm es and explain how they meet Annex 2 "Green 
Box" criteria. 
3. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/55 
(a) Questions by Australia  
43. Can Norway please advise if participation in the National Environmental Programme is 
compulsory or voluntary for agricultural producers?   
44. What is the basis for the direct payments to producers?  Is it to compensate producers for the 
costs incurred in complying with the programme, e.g. developing and maintaining maps, plans, 
journals, documentation, or are there other grounds for payments under the programme?   
45. Can Norway please elaborate on payments made for the production of environmental goods?   
46. Can Norway please explain the nature of the "payments per hectare" and "payments for 
animal grazing"?  For which animals can farmers receive payments?   
47. Does the Regional Programme also entail direct pa yments to producers?  If so, what is the 
basis for payments? 
(b) Questions by the European Union  
48. The EU thanks Norway for the information provided in notification G/AG/N/NOR/55 on the 
National Environmental Programme.  It is ment ioned that when producers fail to establish a 
comprehensive environmental plan or if the farmer contravenes the requirements of the 
Environmental Plan Regulation, the payments are reduced. G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  (a) Are there other circumstances under which the payments may be reduced? 
(b) Are there quality criteria for the perform ance of farmers in the production of 
environmental goods? 
(c) Is it possible that, in the case of non-complia nce with requirements, a farmer loses all 
of the payments under the scheme? 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA 
(a) Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:  Domestic support, export subsidies, tariff quota fill and 
special safeguard  
49. Australia notes that Venezuela has outstandi ng market access, domestic support and export 
subsidy notifications (Venezuela's last notifica tion was submitted in April 2003).  Could Venezuela 
please explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it intends to submit its outstanding 
notifications?  We would be grateful if Venezu ela could observe "best practice" and provide its 
response in writing.   
(b) China:  Domestic support  
50. Australia notes that China has outstanding do mestic support notifications for the period 
2002-2009.  Could China please explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it intends to 
submit these outstanding notifications?  We would be  grateful if China could observe "best practice" 
and provide its response in writing. 
(c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
51. Australia notes Egypt has outstanding domestic  support and export subsidy notifications for 
the period 1999-2009 (Egypt's last notification wa s submitted in May 1999).  Could Egypt please 
explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it intends to submit these outstanding 
notifications?  We would be grateful if Egypt coul d observe "best practice" and provide its response in 
writing. 
(d) India:  Tariff quota administration, tariff quot a fill, domestic suppor t and export subsidies  
52. 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 of 
Agriculture, Australia has consistently asked India when Members could expect India to comply with 
its notification obligations.  When responding to Australia's question, India has indicated that the process of gathering information in preparation fo r compliance with its notification obligations was 
underway, and as soon as this process was complete d, India would circulate the outstanding 
notifications to Members. 
53. Could India please provide Members with an update on progress of gathering information to 
prepare its WTO agriculture notifications?  Could India please provide an indicative time when it intends to submit these outstanding not ifications?  We would be grateful if India could observe "best 
practice" and provide its response in writing.  G/AG/W/74/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (e) Korea:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
54. Australia notes that Korea has outstanding domes tic support and export subsidy notifications.  
Could Korea please 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. 
(f) Turkey:  Domestic suppor t and export subsidies
 
55. Australia notes that Turkey has outstanding dom estic support and export subsidy notifications 
(Turkey's last notification was submitted in May 2002).  Could Turkey please explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it intends to s ubmit its outstanding notifications?  We would be 
grateful if Turkey could observe "best pr actice" and provide its response in writing. 
__________