WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/89 
7 November 2011 
 (11-5693) 
Committee on Agriculture Original:   English 
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 17 November 2011
1 
 
 
 The present document compiles questions receive d by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
3 November 2011 as specified in WTO/AIR/3844.  
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
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/89 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 3  
A.  OBSTRUCTION OF MARKET ACCESS  ............................................................................................ 3  
B.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ............................................................ 3  
1.  Questions by Canada ........................................................................................................... ..... 3 
2.  Questions by the United States ................................................................................................  3 
C.  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C) ................................................................. 3  
1.  Questions by the European Union ........................................................................................... 3  
2.  Questions by New Zealand ...................................................................................................... . 4 
D.  CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  ......................................................................... 4  
E.  BRAZIL 'S SUPPORT TO RICE UNDER "PEP" .................................................................................. 4  
F.  CHINA 'S COTTON RESERVES PURCHASING SYSTEM  ..................................................................... 5  
G.  ECUADOR 'S IMPORT LICENSING OF CERTAIN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  ................. 5  
H.  EGYPT 'S IMPORT BAN ON COTTON ............................................................................................... 6  
I.  THAILAND 'S RICE PROCUREMENT POLICIES  ................................................................................ 6  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 6  
A.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) .......................... 6  
1.  Canada   G/ AG/N/CAN/ 85 ....................................................................................................... 6 
B.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) .................................................................. 7  
1.  Canada   G/ AG/N/CAN/ 86 ....................................................................................................... 7 
2.  China   G/AG/N/CHN/21 ......................................................................................................... . 8 
3.  India   G/AG/N/IND/7 .......................................................................................................... ... 13 
4.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/167 ....................................................................................................... 13 
5.  Jordan   G/AG /N/JOR/14 ....................................................................................................... 13 
6.  Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/43 ....................................................................................................... 1 5 
7.  Nepal   G/AG/N/NPL/2 .......................................................................................................... . 15 
8.  Oman   G/AG/N/OMN/8 ......................................................................................................... 1 5 
9.  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia   G/AG/N/SAU/6 ......................................................................... 16  
C.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ........................................ 16  
1.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/168 and G/AG/N/JPN/168/Corr.1 ..................................................... 16  
2.  Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/44 ....................................................................................................... 1 6 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 17  
  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. OBSTRUCTION OF MARKET ACCESS  
1. Argentina will deliver a statement on the obs truction of market access through regulations 
without scientific or technical justification in a manner which is inconsiste nt with WTO Agreements. 
B. COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
1. Questions by Canada 
2. Canada appreciates the updates that Costa Rica  has provided at past meetings of the 
Committee regarding this issue.  However, Canada  reiterates the grave concerns expressed about 
Costa Rica's continuing violations of Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  What concrete 
steps has Costa Rica taken since the last meeti ng of the Committee to rapidly bring itself into 
compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture? 
2. Questions by the United States 
3. The United States and a number of other Member s have raised Costa Rica's notified total 
Aggregate Measurement of Support breaking its commitment at a growing rate at a number of 
meetings of the Committee on Agriculture.  The Unit ed States strongly urges Costa Rica to bring its 
domestic rice support back within Costa Rica's WTO commitment leve l.  Provide details on concrete 
actions Costa Rica has taken since the last me eting to comply with its AMS commitment. 
C. SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C)  
1. Questions by the European Union 
4. In reply to a question from New Zealand at  the regular meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture on 29 September 2011 concerning a deci sion announced by the Swiss government on 
31 August 2011 to implement a compulsory levy of  Sw F 0.01/kg of marketed milk, Switzerland 
confirmed that:  
"On 31 August, the Federal Council ruled on this request and announced that the two 
following IP Lait measures were applicable to non-members:  firstly, the essential 
elements of a standard contract for the purchase of milk at the first and second levels; 
and secondly, a contribution of one centim e per kilogram of milk marketed, to 
support relief measures on the milk-fat market .  This extension of the measures to 
non-members will be applicable until 30 April 2013." 
5. In its reply Switzerland also indicated that : 
"IP Lait should collect an estimated total of Sw F 34 million per year of which only 
Sw F 1.7 million will come from non-members to export butter in order to relieve the 
Swiss market." 
6. Could Switzerland explain its presumed compliance with its WTO commitments, where it, by 
virtue of government action on 31  August 2011, allocates Sw F 34 million for the export of butter, 
while it has no provisions for subsidized exports of bu tter in its schedule?  The EU recalls that Article 
9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture states th at government action does not necessarily imply a G/AG/W/89 
Page 4  
 
  charge on the public account, but includes payments that are financed from the proceeds of a levy 
imposed on the agricultural product concerned. 
2. Questions by New Zealand 
7. From Switzerland's response to New Zeala nd's question under Article 18.6 at the 63
rd session 
of the Committee on Agriculture, New Zealand noted  that on 31 August 2011 the Federal Council 
made mandatory a levy of one centime per kilogram  of milk sold commercially to finance measures 
that support the export of butter.  The levy is coll ected by IP Lait, and it is estimated that around 
Sw F 34 million per year will be collected thr ough this levy.  New Zealand also noted that 
Switzerland said there is no public money and no public administration involved with collecting or 
distributing the money. 
8. Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture states that:  
"payments on the export of an agricultural product that are financed by virtue of 
government action, whether or not a char ge on the public account is involved, 
including payments that are financed from  the proceeds of a levy imposed on the 
agricultural product concerned or on an agricultural product from which the 
exported product is derived." 
9. Could Switzerland explain how it considers th at enacting legislation which enables a 
compulsory levy on milk on all milk producers a nd processors to provide funds for a measure to 
support butter export does not require notificati on against Swiss export subsidy commitments 
consistent with its WTO obligations?  While the proposed payments are not a charge on the public 
account, the anticipated revenue of Sw F 34 million per annum will result in financing payments on 
the export of an agricultural product. 
D. CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  
10. Question by New Zealand:  Given that th e Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown 
corporation, calculates the pooling returns and shar ing of promotion costs related to the Ice Cream 
Promotion Initiative on behalf of the Dairy Farmer s of Canada (DFC), the Canadian government 
clearly plays a role in administering this programme.  Given that the Canadian government has a clear role in this programme, New Zealand invites Cana da to reconsider the response it provided at the 
Committee on Agriculture on 29 September 2011 to New Zealand's question about this programme. 
11. In particular New Zealand seeks details on: 
(a) the total value of the pooling returns; and  
(b) a breakdown of the promotion costs since the initiative was launched. 
E. B
RAZIL 'S SUPPORT TO RICE UNDER "PEP" 
12. Questions by the United States:  The United Stat es appreciates Brazil's replies to its questions 
at the September 2011 Committee on Agriculture.  According to both press reports and data from 
Brazil's CONAB website as well as from trade data , Brazil appears to have supported about one 
million tonnes of rice in calendar year 201 1 with the PEP programme , and exported about 
875,000 tonnes of rice in the same period. 
13. The United States also notes that data from Brazil's CONAB website show much higher usage 
of PEP for rice in 2006 and 2007:  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (a) Clarify the differences found on the website vis-à-vis the response to the September 
questions; 
(b) Also, as requested in September, provide a breakdown for rice of activity by tonnage 
of the PEP, specifically, what tonnage moved to domestic markets and what tonnage 
moved to overseas markets under the programme. 
F. CHINA 'S COTTON RESERVES PURCHASING SYSTEM  
14. Questions by the United States:  Press reports indicate that China initiated a cotton reserves 
purchasing system to promote domestic production.  The reports cite that the programme provides a 
support price of Y 19,800 per tonne (US$1.412 per pound at the current exchange rate) for baled 
cotton lint type 328 and that the programme is operating from 1 September 2011 to 31 March 2012 in 
13 provinces (Tianjin, Hebei, Shanxi, Jiangsu, An hui, Jiangxi, Shandong, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, 
Shaanxi, Gansu and Xinjiang): 
(a) Provide a description of how the system functions; 
(b) Under what category of support does China plan to notify this purchasing system? 
G. ECUADOR 'S IMPORT LICENSING OF CERTAIN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
15. Questions by the United States: 
(a) Can Ecuador confirm the existence and en forcement of an official governmental 
memorandum2 which effectively limits the impor tation of certain agricultural and 
food products in favour of similar produc t produced domestically in Ecuador? 
(b) The United States has questions regardi ng Ecuador's Ministerial Decree No. 172, 
dated 27 April 2011:  
(i) Article 1 of the Decree states: "To regulate the exceptional granting of 
licences and permits for the importation of  milk and its by-products by the 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries."   Define what 
is meant by the term of " exceptional " in this context and what the specific 
criteria are for making such a determination. 
(ii) Article 2 of the Decree notes that "Exceptionally, the Under-Secretariat of 
Technical Services of this Ministry may grant licences and permits to import 
these products, following a technical ass essment report issued  by the Under-
Secretariat of Livestock Development at MAGAP.  The Under-Secretariat of 
Livestock Development to issue the tec hnical report must set import quotas 
for milk and its derivatives."  Explain the specific information that is 
contained in the referenced "technical assessment report"  and the process 
that is employed in establishing the referenced import quotas.  Regarding the 
latter point, how are these established a nd maintained in manner that is 
consistent with Ecuador's WTO obligations? 
(iii) Article 3 of the Decree states that "For the exceptional granting of permits or 
import licences it must be consid ered the appropriateness and technical 
feasibility, as well as the legal and social appropriateness of the import, in 
                                                      
2 No. MAGAP-SFG-2011-1757-M, 19 October 2011. G/AG/W/89 
Page 6  
 
  order to effectively ensure food soverei gnty and that they do not generate 
distortions in the domestic produc tion market, commercialization and 
consumption of milk and its by-products."  With respect to the granting of 
import licences, elaborate on what is meant specifically by each of the terms 
emphasized above and explain how the application of these criteria is enforced in a manner consistent with Ecuador's WTO obligations. 
H. E
GYPT 'S IMPORT BAN ON COTTON  
16. Questions by the United States:  The United Stat es takes note of Egypt's recent action to ban 
cotton imports for the 2011 season until the local crop is sold.3  The United States has serious 
concerns about this ban and has the following questions: 
(a) What will be the end date of the ban? 
(b) How is the ban consistent w ith Egypt's WTO commitments? 
I. THAILAND 'S RICE PROCUREMENT POLICIES  
17. Questions by the United States:  The United States appreciates Thailand's replies to its 
questions at the September 2011 Committee on Agriculture.  The United States continues to be 
concerned about the transparency and operation of Thai rice stock policies.  The average export 
prices, while masking any variability in seasonal or  quality differences in rice prices, may still have 
been lower than the prices at which the rice was pr ocured.  Similarly, the government sale prices to 
rice millers or exporters could ha ve been below the export prices.   Selling government stocks at 
market prices may not be relevant if the ma rket price is below the procurement price: 
(a) Can Thailand provide information on the prices at which rice was procured for 
government stocks? 
(b) The United States has also seen market repor ts that the Thai government sells stocks 
to exporters contingent on export and re mains concerned about those reports.  Are 
these press reports accurate?  Please comment on them. 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
1. Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/85 
(a) Questions by Australia 
18. The figure for in-quota imports for the fluid milk tariff quota of 64,500 tonnes (product 
weight basis) remains "non-applicab le" in the notification.  The related footnote 3 states that the 
General Import Permit regulates "importation for pe rsonal use, any resident of Canada may import 
fluid milk."  However, the terms and conditions in the Part V of Canada's schedule indicate that the 
quantity was established on the basis of annual cr oss-border purchases imported by consumers.  It 
does not appear to limit the use of the tariff quota to only private consumers.  Can Canada explain 
why this tariff quota then is confined to personal usage? 
                                                      
3 2011 Ministeria l Decree No. 1864.  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (b) Questions by the European Union  
19. Could Canada explain the re asons behind lower tariff quota fill compared to earlier 
notifications (G/AG/N/CAN/83, G/AG/N/CAN/79, G/AG/N/CAN/77, G/AG/N/CAN/75) for the 
following products:  beef and veal , powdered buttermilk and margarine? 
B. DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/86 
(a) Questions by the European Union  
20. With reference to questions raised by the United States at the March 2011 meeting4 on 
Canada's CAIS programme: 
(a) Could Canada explain the distinction be tween the CIDC and CISC components?  
(b) Do farmers register separately for each of  the two components in order to have 
coverage or does a single registration provi de the coverage under both components?  
(c) Is it the income loss that triggers whatever component is activated?  
(d) Does the existence of the CISC component have a knock-on effect on the 
participation in the CIDC component of CAIS? 
21. In G/AG/N/CAN/64, Canada states that its CAIS programme operates on a whole-farm 
margin basis. The margin is, in this notification, defined "as the difference between total eligible sales 
and other revenues minus expenses directly related to production (e.g., commodity purchases, seed, 
fertilizer, pesticides and veterinary expenses)".   How does Canada match this definition with the 
reference income in paragraph 7 (a) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, i.e.:  "the gross 
income or the equivalent in net income term s (excluding payments from the same or similar 
schemes)"? 
22. What are "CAIS enhancements" (page 20)? 
23. In the starred footnote on page 19, Canada st ates that the "Advance Payments Programme" 
will in future be notified as non-product specific AMS. 
(a) Can Canada confirm that in the calcu lation of the support no product specific 
parameters such as prices are used?  
(b) Under which considerations has Canada so far notified this support as product 
specific? 
(b) Questions by Japan 
24. Could Canada explain in detail the Agri-In surance scheme and the difference from its 
predecessor programme (Production Insurance)? 
25. Could Canada explain in detail the Cost of Production Payment (COP)? 
                                                      
4 Paragraphs 28 and 31 of G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 refer. G/AG/W/89 
Page 8  
 
  (c) Questions by the United States  
(i) Green Box (supporting Table DS:1) 
26. Provide information on the following progra mmes, including a brief description and the 
criteria for payments: 
(a) Canadian Farm Family Options Programme; 
(b) Cost of Production Payment (COP) and COP enhancements;  
(c) AgriInvest Kickstart. 
27. Provide additional information on Agri-Insu rance and how it differs from the prior 
programme?  Explain how the premia are cost-sha red between federal and provincial government?  
Do producers pay some share of the premia?  If so, how much? 
(ii) Amber Box 
28. The United States is concerned that future revi sions to the statistics for net farm receipts 
might increase the ratio of non-product-specific AMS to the value of production beyond the de minimis  level.  Provide information on the steps Canada takes to revise its domestic support 
notifications when considerable changes occur in its underlying statistics.   
29. Explain the rationale for including payments such as the Net Income Stabilization Account 
(NISA), Crop Insurance, Provincial stabilization pr ogrammes, and other programmes as part of the 
value of production (as reflected in  net farm receipts).  If one subt racts these payments from net farm 
receipts, one obtains a lower value of production, an d in 2007, the value of production appears to drop 
sufficiently as a result to surpass the de minimis  level of 5 per cent. 
30. Under the 2001 Federal-Provincial Agreement fo r Chicken, minimum prices for live chicken 
were established, as well as quantities of production corresponding to quota allocations, to limit 
chicken production by province.  Explain why ac tivity under that agreement was not notified as 
support to chicken producers. 
2. China   G/AG/N/CHN/21 
(a) Questions by Australia 
(i) Green Box (Supporting Table DS:1) 
31. Under General services, there has been a 350 per cent increase over the period 2005-2008 in 
Green Box spending on the other General services cat egory.  Could China explain the reason for this 
significant increase? 
32. Under Public stockholding for food security purposes, there has b een a Y 13,000 million 
increase in the past during the period 2005-2008.  Australia understands that certain amounts of food 
stocks are swapped annually.  Can China confirm the amount of the turnover, and whether the sales 
and purchases were made at current market prices, in accordance with Annex 2, paragraph 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 9 
 
 
  33. Under Payments for natural disaster relief, there was a significant increase in payments.  Can 
China confirm that these payments complied with the requirements contained in Annex 2, paragraph 8 
(a)-(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
34. Under Regional assistance programmes, the payments have increased significantly in the 
period 2005-2008.  Can China confirm how these paymen ts were consistent with the requirements of 
Annex 2, paragraph 13? 
(ii) Amber Box 
35. In Supporting Table DS:5, under the Minimu m Procurement Price Scheme, the applied 
administered price for wheat remained constant  at 1,490 Y/tonne between 2006-2008.  However, the 
section entitled " Agriculture – price controls and marketing"  of the last TPR5 indicates that the 
Government raised the procurement price for wheat twice in 2008.  Can China explain the difference? 
36. In Supporting Table DS:9, under non-product specific AMS, China has reported a significant 
increase (by a factor of more than 35 per cent) in input price subsidies which are described as 
primarily "price subsidies" over the reporting peri od 2005-2008.  Can China explain the nature of 
these price subsidies and which inputs were contained in this item? 
(b) Questions by Brazil  
(i) Green Box (Supporting Table DS:1) 
37. Brazil notes a significant increase of direct paym ents to farmers under the heading Decoupled 
income support: 
(a) Could China provide detailed information on the structure of this measure, explaining 
how it is consistent with paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(b) What kind of criteria is used for such payments?  
38. Could China provide further information explaini ng the increase in the Payments for relief 
from natural disasters, Environmental programme s and other General services between 2005 and 
2008? 
(ii) Amber Box 
39. In relation to Supporting Table DS:9, Brazil notes with concern a sharp increase in input 
subsidies, which are highly distortive, reaching Y 78,863.54 million in 2008.  Could China elaborate 
on the reasons for such an increase in input subsidies from 2005 to 2008? 
(c) Questions by Canada  
(i) Green Box (Supporting Table DS:1) 
40. The amounts entered as Decoupled income support have increased consistently and 
considerably since their introduction in 2004.  How much of the increase between 2004 and 2008 results from increases in " the land owned by the qualified farmers "
6, which perhaps might be read as 
"contracted land", and how much from increases in the rate of payment per mu of contracted land? 
                                                      
5 WT/TPR/S/30. 
6 G/AG/N/CHN/18 refers. G/AG/W/89 
Page 10  
 
  41. The amounts entered as "Payments for relief from natural disasters" have increased 
consistently and considerably since 2002.  The name  and description of the measure are the same as in 
China's base period, with the addition of the el ement "financial assistance to their post-disaster 
livings".  What mechanisms do es China apply to ensure that these increasingly large payments 
continue to meet all the criteria of paragra ph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(ii) Amber Box 
42. In relation to Supporting Table DS:7, a new s ubsidy for breeding productive sows is reported 
in 2007 and 2008 (Y 2.4 billion and Y 5.2 billion, resp ectively).  Would China be able to indicate a 
source for further information on how this  rapidly growing subsidy is provided? 
43. In Supporting Table DS:9, "input subsidies", which have increased from Y 1.6 billion in 2004 
to Y 78.7 billion in 2008, are explained to be "pri ce subsidies for means of production".  In reply to 
some Members' questions in the meeting of 23 September 2010, China clarified that the means of 
production are mainly agricultural machines, fe rtilizers, agricultural diesel oil and feeds:
7  
(a) Could China provide a breakdown of the am ount of subsidies provided for each of 
these inputs in the years 2005 to 2008?  
(b) Have subsidies been introduced for an y additional inputs during this period, 
compared to 2004? 
(d) Questions by the European Union 
(i) Green Box (Supporting Table DS:1) 
44. The EU appreciates the effort that China has made to accelerate its delayed notifications on 
domestic support. The EU notes that there is an al most doubling of Green Box expenditure from just 
over Y 300 billion in 2005 to almost Y 600 billion in 2008.  Could China explain the increase in the following categories:  "other General services", "Payments for relief from natural disasters" and 
"Regional assistance programmes"? 
45. With reference to China's reply during the review of its Table DS:2 notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/18 related to "Direct payments to farmers"
8, can China provide information on the area 
of land covered by the programme and the total agricultural area? 
46. Could China explain whether the increase in de coupled income support (direct payments to 
farmers) over the period 2005-2008, and in particular the steep increase over 2007-2008, is due to an 
increase of the number of eligible farmers, the ar ea covered by these direct payments, a combination 
of the two, or was it the per hectare payment which increased?  How is the direct payment per hectare 
calculated? 
47. With reference to an earlier question of the EU,9 China replied that farmers are eligible for the 
support on the basis of "Opinions of the CCCPC and the State Council Concerning Some Policies on 
Promoting the Increase of Farmers' Income"  and also that " Farmers shall have contracted land to 
qualify for the support while the base period for determin ing acreage for the contracted land is set at 
the time when the land contract was signed":  
                                                      
7 Paragraph 40 of G/AG/W/78 refers. 
8 Paragraph 66 of G/AG/W/78 refers. 
9 Paragraph 66 of G/AG/W/78 refers.  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (a) Could China elaborate in further detail on how the "Opinions…"  establishing farmers' 
eligibility reflect the clearly-defined cr iteria required under paragraph 6(a) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
(b) How does "the base period for determining acreage  for the contracted land is set at 
the time when the land contract was signed"  meet the requirement of a defined and 
fixed base period in the sense of paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture? 
(c) How, and to what extent, do new farmers enter the system? 
(d) How, and to what extent, does new land ente r into the system?  Can land contracts be 
renewed? 
(ii) Amber Box 
48. The EU does not find reference to the Protective Price System in the notified period 2005-
2008.  Has the system been abandoned or was it not operated? 
49. Are the external reference prices used under the Minimum Procurement Price Scheme the 
same as those used for the Protective Price System? 
50. The EU notes variations of the level of elig ible production for wheat and rice over the notified 
period 2005-2008 in Supp orting Table DS:5.  What are the reasons for these variations? 
51. The EU notes the differentiation between na tional and sub-national support in Supporting 
Table DS:1.  Does such a differentiation also exist for the Amber Box, notably in Supporting 
Table DS:7 for "improved crop strains and seeds" and for the "input subsidies" in Supporting 
Table DS:9? 
52. The EU notes that no support for income insurance programmes was notified:  
(a) Can China confirm? Does China operate any such insurance programmes and can it 
elaborate on how these programmes are funded? 
(b) If not to producers, is public funding pr ovided to the operators of insurance 
programmes? 
(e) Questions by Japan 
(i) Green Box (Supporting Table DS:1) 
53. Could China explain the reason why Green B ox payments increased significantly from the 
year 2005 to 2008 without the presentation of Table DS:2 notifications? 
54. Is there any difference in the criteria for the d ecoupled direct payment by region?  If so, what 
are the minimum national criteria that are applied to all the regions, and how are criteria adjusted for 
each region? 
(ii) Amber Box  
55. What data does China use as "eligible production"  when calculating the market price support, 
i.e. the actual amount of purchased crops or the total amount of domestic production?  If the actual G/AG/W/89 
Page 12  
 
  amount of purchased crops is used, could China explain why the total amount of domestic production 
is not used? 
56. In Supporting Table DS:7, Ch ina calculates product specific AMS of wheat and rice by 
adding the negative market price support figure to the di rect payment.  Japan is of the view that the 
market price support figure, when negative, should be  treated as "zero" in the calculation of AMS.  
How does China justify its treatment of negative market price support figures? 
57. Could China explain in detail how the "subsidy for reserve cost" to cotton works?  If the 
government purchases cotton or supports farmer's storage of cotton in this programme, explain the 
reason why China does not classify this support as market price support. 
(f) Questions by the United States 
(i) Green Box (Supporting Table DS:1) 
58. Under Public stockholding for food security purposes: 
(a) Could China provide information on the "predetermined targets related solely to food 
security"  for each of the products listed; 
(b) The United States understands that Chinese government entities make purchases at 
support prices for various commodities, includi ng sugar cane, sugar beets, soybeans, 
corn, rapeseed, cotton, and pork.  Are these purchases part of the public stockholding 
scheme?  Or are outlays reported elsewhere?  
59. Under Decoupled income support: 
(a) Provide further information on the payments;   
(b) What products are eligible and what are th e criteria for the payments?  Do criteria 
vary by province? 
(c) What accounts for the large increase between 2005 and 2008? 
60. Under Payments for relief from natural disasters: 
(a) These payments have increased dramatic ally between 2005 and 2008.  Provide 
additional information on the specific pr ogrammes and the criteria by which the 
payments were made. 
(b) Are any of these outlays new or modified programmes, for which a Table DS:2 
notification should be submitted? 
61. Under Payments for environmental programmes: 
(a) These payments have increased dramatic ally between 2005 and 2008.  Provide 
additional information on the specific pr ogrammes and the criteria by which the 
payments were made; 
(b) Are any of these outlays new or modified programmes, for which a Table DS:2 
notification should be submitted?  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (ii) Amber Box 
62. The United States asks China to confirm that th e applied administered price and the fixed 
external reference price for rice in Supporting Tabl es DS:5 are on a comparable basis (either both 
rough, or both milled). 
63. Explain how eligible production in Supporti ng Tables DS:5 is defined and measured.  
64. Provide further details about how the subsid y for breeding productive sows (notified in 
Supporting Table DS:7 for 2007 and 2008) is implemented. 
65. The United States understands that China bega n implementing an insurance scheme in 2007, 
including a sow insurance scheme.   Are these programmes notified? 
66. Given the significant increase in the level of outlays for input subsidies, provide a breakdown 
and further information on the input subsidies notified in Supporting Tables DS:9. 
67. The United States requests that China provide a total value of agricultural production for 
2005-2008 to enable an evaluation of the leve ls of non-product specific AMS in Supporting 
Tables DS:9. 
3. India   G/AG/N/IND/7  
68. Question by Japan:  Japan appreciates India's an swers in the last meeting.  Japan understands 
that the government purchases rice, wheat and coarse grain for its buffer stock at the minimum 
support price and not at the current market pric e.  Could India explain why it classifies this 
programme not as market price support but as Public stockholding for food security purposes under Annex 2, paragraph 3? 
4. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/167 
69. Questions by the United States:  The Un ited States appreciates the responses by the 
Government of Japan to questions regarding Supporting Table DS:1, Environmental payments, 
"Payments for conversion from rice production": 
(a) Provide the scientific "environmental bene fits" of the "Payments for conversion from 
rice production" programme as stated in Japan's response to our question in 
September.  For instance, has Japan conducted studies on how this programme prevents floods and soil er osion; cultivates water resources; and preserves the natural 
environment as stated in Japan's response? 
(b) If the intention of the "Payments for conversion from rice production" programme is 
environmental conservation, has Japan studied  alternative ways to achieve the desired 
impact on the environment? 
5. Jordan   G/AG/N/JOR/14 
(a) Questions by Canada 
70. In Supporting Table DS:4, could Jordan conf irm whether the values of production shown in 
the footnotes are indeed, as stated, in millions of Jordanian dinars? G/AG/W/89 
Page 14  
 
  71. In Supporting Table DS:7, Jordan reports a significant amount of support for livestock in the 
form "Government feed sales".  Could Jordan cl arify what this amount represents and how it is 
calculated? 
(b) Questions by the European Union 
72. On page 3, the description of the measure incl udes expenditure for "trial export shipments to 
gauge foreign market acceptability of Jordanian pr oducts".  While the EU notes that the monetary 
value during the year 2008 was zero, the EU wonders  whether the measure is still in place.  If so, 
could Jordan confirm that the measure, when impl emented, excludes expenditure allowing sellers to 
reduce their selling price or conferring a direct economic benefit to purchasers? 
73. Equally on page 3, Jordan notifies an amount  of JD 141 million for domestic food aid.  Can 
Jordan confirm that the food purchases are made at cu rrent market prices and applied in a manner that 
allows equal eligibility for both imported and domestic production? 
74. The EU observes changes of the applied admini stered prices for wheat and barley from one 
year to another.  The EU would like to seek more  clarification as to what constitutes an applied 
administered price, and what reasons influence these changes. 
75. The EU also notes that the eligible production for the calculation of market price support for 
wheat and barley reveals considerable differences fro m one year to another.  In the reply Jordan 
provided to a question from the United States as cont ained in Annex 3 to the report from the meeting 
of 10 March 2010, Jordan confirms that "Such eligible production figures represent the quantities 
purchased by the Government, but do no t equal the total quantity of production ."10  In order to better 
understand the notifications by Jordan, the EU woul d like to ask for a further explanation of how 
these quantities are determined. 
76. Jordan notifies considerable ch anges in the use of AMS support.  Please find figures in the 
table below.  Could Jordan inform the Committee on how it succeeds in containing this high volatility 
in relation to respecting its AMS commitment? 
 
 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Total AMS 
commitment level 
(JD) 1,363 1,334 1,334 1,334 
Use of AMS ( %) 0 45 97 0  
Sources:  G/AG/N/JOR/10; G/AG/N/JOR/11; G/AG/N/JOR/14. 
 
                                                      
10 Paragraph 2 of Annex 3 of G/AG/R/58 refers.  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 15 
 
 
  6. Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/43 
(a) Question by Australia 
77. In 2005 and onward, the Republic of Korea ch anges its support measures of support for rice, 
significantly decreasing its Current Total AMS.  Ca n the Republic of Korea provide details on what 
the transition in support levels has done  in terms of overall production levels? 
(b) Questions by Canada   
78. In Supporting Table DS:6, Canada understands  that policies supporting rice producers were 
changed in 2004 and later years.  The major variat ions in the level and kind of support reported in 
several supporting tables in G/AG/N/KOR/43 may be related to these changes: 
(a) Could Korea elaborate on what major policy changes were undertaken in 2004 and 
later years, and how they explain the varia tions in reported support in 2005 to 2008?  
(b) Are similar changes under consideration for other products, such as barley? 
(c) Question by the United States  
79. What is the definition of "eligible production" for barley, corn, and soybeans used in 
Supporting Tables DS:5? 
7. Nepal   G/AG/N/NPL/2 
80. Questions by the European Union:  The EU is pleased to note that Nepal notified its domestic 
support for 2005, 2007 and 2009: 
(a) While recognizing that the periodicity for LDCs for notification can be once every 
two years, the EU would appreciate these biannual notifications to contain two 
reporting periods.  Would Nepal therefore notify the reporting years 2006 and 2008 at 
a later stage? 
(b) Could Nepal elaborate on the content of the "Special agriculture production 
programme (for remote areas)" notified in Supporting Table DS:1, "(l) Other"?  Does 
this support concern payment to producers?  What are the implications of the use of 
the notion "production" in the title of th e programme?  Is the support based on or 
related to type and volume of production? 
(c) Concerning Domestic Food Aid (Supporting Table DS:1, (b));  what is meant with 
"Current transfer "? 
(d) On pages 4, 6 and 8 of Nepal's notifica tion the EU notes mention of product-specific 
measures in the context of "subsidies gene rally available to agriculture".  Could 
Nepal explain how the "general availability"  of the subsidies relates to the breakdown 
as contained in the notification? 
8. Oman   G/AG/N/OMN/8 
81. Question by Canada:  In Supporting Table DS:1, under the heading Infrastructure, Oman 
reports a "subsidy for the introduction of m odern irrigation systems in the farms …": G/AG/W/89 
Page 16  
 
  (a) In light of the criteria for General servi ces (paragraph 2, Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture), policies under this heading shall not involve direct payments to producers.  Could Oman elaborate on the nature of the subsidy and how it meets this 
criterion?  
(b) Sub-paragraph (g) of the same paragraph 2 also stipulates that the expenditure shall 
exclude the subsidized provision of on-farm  facilities.  Could Oman explain how 
introducing irrigation "in the farms" complies with the on-farm exclusion? 
9. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia   G/AG/N/SAU/6 
82. Questions by the European Union:  
(a) In 2006 (G/AG/N/SAU/2), AMS support for poultry accounted for 5.45 per cent of 
Current Total AMS and as such was qualified as de minimis .  It kept increasing over 
time and in the 2009 notification AMS for poultry is estimated at 33.56 per cent of 
Current Total AMS.  Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia explain what policy measures and/or other circumstances have influenced this dramatic increase? 
(b) The Table DS:1 notification for 2009 rev eals an important drop in AMS support for 
livestock to 8.4 per cent of AMS ( de minimis ).  Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
explain what policy measures and/or othe r circumstances have influenced this 
significant drop from the level of AMS notified in 2008 of 42 per cent of Current 
Total AMS (G/AG/N/SAU/4)? 
(c) What are the reasons behind the important decrease of wheat production eligible for 
market price support? 
C. N
EW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) 
1. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/168 and G/AG/N/JPN/168/Corr.1 
83. Question by European Union:  The EU appreci ates the replies Japan provided at the last 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in Septembe r 2011 in relation to this notification.  The EU 
would like to ask a follow-up question. In its re ply provided to a question from the EU, Japan 
explained that " rice production is not included in the base production for the decoupled payment ".  
Could Japan inform whether a farmer who is elig ible for the decoupled payment and who currently 
plants rice will still receive the decoupled support?  
2. Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/44 
(a) Question by Canada  
84. An eligibility condition for the "Fixed Payment Scheme for Paddy Fields" is to maintain the 
original function of the farmland.  In a case wher e the original function of the farmland was to 
produce a crop, the requirement to maintain that function seems to contradict the statement that 
production is not required to receive the payments.  Having to maintain that function also seems to 
contravene sub-paragraph 6(e) of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Could Korea explain?  G/AG/W/89 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (b) Questions by the United States 
(i) Public Rice Stockholding Programme 
85. Please provide more information on the food security programme for which rice stocks are 
accumulated and sold.  For example:  
(a) Are the sales targeted at low income consumer s?  If not, who is eligible to purchase 
the rice?   
(b) Are the purchase and sales targets mandated on an annual basis, or are purchases and 
sales dependent on the level of prices? 
(c) Are barley and soybeans also purchased unde r the same programme as rice for food 
security purposes? 
(d) The United States also understands that the National Agricultural Cooperative 
Federation, on behalf of the government , purchases additional quantities of milled 
rice, at levels much larger than the government purchases.  How are these purchases 
carried out and accounted for in Korea's notifications?  
(ii) Fixed Payment Scheme for Paddy Fields 
86. Can producers plant any crop on the paddy fields, including rice?  If no crop is planted, what 
are the requirements with respect to maintaining the land?  Is there any limit on the amount of 
payment? 
87. The notification indicates that production is not required to receive the payment: 
(a) Does the Rice Income Compensation Act or  other governing Korean legislation 
require cultivation of the land as a condition for receiving this payment?  If so, what 
are the crops which must be cultivated  in order to receive the payment? 
(b) What has been the production of these crops over the past three years? 
(iii) Direct Payment Scheme for Landscape Conservation 
88. Can the ornamental crops grown on the area be sold commercially, or are they strictly for 
landscape purposes? 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
89. Australia notes that Canada's last domestic support notifica tion was for the period 2006 and 
2007.  Can Canada please provide advice on when it intends to submit its overdue notifications? 
 
__________