G/AG/W/ 221 
 
17 June 2022  
(22-4745) Page: 1/28 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 27 -28 JUNE 20221 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of noon 
on 15 June 2022 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/58.  
 
_______________  
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 5 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTAT ION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ . 5 
1.1   China's agricultural inputs subsidies (SIM 740)  ................................ ..............................  5 
1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 101043) ................................ ................................ ... 5 
1.2   Egypt's import requirement  (SIM 741)  ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
1.2.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 101003)  ................................ .......................  5 
1.3   Italy's "local content"  requirement  (SIM 742)  ................................ ................................  5 
1.3.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 101017)  ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
1.4   India's other support for rice (SIM 743)  ................................ ................................ ........  5 
1.4.1   Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada, Thailand, Paraguay,  
Japan, Brazil, European Union, Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 101037)  ................................ .................  5 
1.5   India's export restrictions on  wheat (SIM 744)  ................................ ...............................  6 
1.5.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 101019)  ................................ ................................ . 6 
1.5.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101057)  ................................ .............................  6 
1.5.3   Question by United States of America, Canada, Ja pan, Brazil, Paraguay,  
European  Union, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 101032)  ................................ ...........................  6 
1.6   Malaysia's chicken export prohibition (SIM 745) ................................ .............................  7 
1.6.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101059)  ................................ .............................  7 
1.6.2   Question by United States of America, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101060)  ................................ . 7 
1.7   U.S. crop production support  (SIM 746)  ................................ ................................ ........  7 
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 101004)  ................................ .......................  7 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ ..........  8 
1.8   Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.8.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101015)  ................................ .............................  8 
1.8.2   Question by United States of America, United Kingd om, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101030)  .........  8 
1.9   Canada's review of the TRQ system (SIM 536)  ................................ ...............................  8 
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 101016)  ................................ ................................ . 8 
1.10   Canada's special milk class scheme (SIM 26)  ................................ ...............................  8 
1.10.1    Question by New Z ealand (AG -IMS ID 101013)  ................................ .........................  8 
1.11   Canada's dairy policies  (SIM 18)  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
1.11.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 101014)  ................................ .........................  8 
1.12   EU's agricultural policies funded by national resources (SIM 719)  ................................ .... 9 
1.12.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 101031)  ................................ ................................ ... 9 
1.13   EU's deforestation and forest degradation strategy (SIM 558)  ................................ ........  9 
1.13.1    Question by Brazil, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 101033)  ................................ .....................  9 
1.14   India's public stockpiling  (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ ............  9 
1.14.1    Question by United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Canada, European  Union,  
Uruguay, Australia, Thailand, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 101028)  ................................ ..................  9 
1.14.2    Question by United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Uruguay,  
Australia, Thailand, Paraguay, European Union (AG -IMS ID 101038)  ................................ ....... 10 G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.15   India's oilseeds policies (SIM 673)  ................................ ................................ .............  10 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America, Paraguay, Canada, European Union  
(AG-IMS ID 101044)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  10 
1.16   Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions (SIM 724)  ................................ .......................  11 
1.16.1    Question by United States of America, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101058)  ..............................  11 
1.17   Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits  .....................  11 
1.17.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 101061) (SIM 655)  .........................  11 
1.18   Türkiye 's export restrictions on agricultural  products (SIM 729)  ................................ ..... 11 
1.18.1    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101063)  ................................ ..........................  11 
1.18.2    Question by United States of America, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101042)  ..............................  11 
1.19   U.S. Conservation Reserve Program  (SIM 707)  ................................ ...........................  12 
1.19.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 101035)  ................................ ................................ .. 12 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  12 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  ................................ . 12 
2.1.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/72)  ................................ ................................ .............  12 
2.2   Import s under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ..... 13 
2.2.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/149, G/AG/N/CAN/150)  ................................ ...........................  13 
2.2.2   China – G/AG/N/CHN/3, G/AG/N/CHN/5, G/AG/N/CHN/7, G/AG/N/CHN/9,  
G/AG/N/CHN/11, G/AG/N/CHN/14, G/AG/N/CHN/16, G/AG/N/CHN/19, G/AG/N/CHN/22, 
G/AG/N/CHN/25, G/AG/N/CHN/26, G/AG/N/CHN/30, G/AG/N/CHN/39, G/AG/N/CHN/41, 
G/AG/N/CHN/50, G/AG/N/CHN/55, G/AG/N/CHN/56  ................................ .............................  13 
2.2.3   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/82)  ................................ ................................ ..................  14 
2.2.4   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/76)  ................................ ................................ .............  14 
2.2.5   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/13)  ................................ ................................ .................  14 
2.2.6   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/60)  ................................ ................................ ......................  14 
2.2.7   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/121)  ................................ ................................ ....................  15 
2.2.8   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/162)  ................................ .............................  15 
2.3   Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...............................  16 
2.3.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/151)  ................................ ................................ .....................  16 
2.3.2   Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/34)  ................................ ................................ ................  16 
2.3.3   India (G/AG/N/IND/27)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  17 
2.3.4   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/276, G/AG/N/JPN/277)  ................................ ...............................  20 
2.3.5   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/17)  ................................ ................................ ....................  21 
2.3.6   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/19, G/AG/N/NGA/20, G/AG/N/NGA/21)  ................................ ...... 21 
2.3.7   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/61)  ................................ ................................ ......................  22 
2.3.8   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/34)  ................................ ................................ .....................  23 
2.3.9   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/114)  ................................ ................................ ...............  23 
2.3.10    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11)  ................................ ................................ .........  23 
2.3.11    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/157)  ................................ ...........................  24 
2.4   New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ .............  24 
2.4.1   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/9)  ................................ ................................ .............  24 G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.5   Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ..............  25 
2.5.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/148)  ................................ ................................ .....................  25 
2.5.2   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/75)  ................................ ................................ .............  25 
2.5.3   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/270, G/AG/N/JPN/271, G/AG/N/JPN/272)  ................................ ...... 25 
2.5.4   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/161)  ................................ .............................  26 
2.6   Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ ...........................  26 
2.6.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/77)  ................................ ................................ .............  26 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  27 
3.1   Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  27 
4   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  27 
4.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  27 
4.2   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  28 
4.3   United Kingdom  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 28 
 
  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  China's  agricultural inputs subsidies  (SIM 740)  
1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 101043 ) 
Canada notes that on 22 May 2022, the Ministry of Finance announced a Rmb  10 billion 
(USD 1.5 billion) subsidy to farms to subsidize the cost of agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, 
pesticides and fuel for farm machinery.  This subsidy to farmers follows an announcement in March 
of a Rmb 20 billion (US D 3 billion) to also subsidize the cost of agricultural inputs.   
a. Could China elaborate on which farmers or farming entities are eligible for these subsidies and 
what are the eligibility criteria to receive a payment?  
b. Could China provide an update as to how much of the March Rmb 20 billion and May Rmb  10 billion 
has been disbursed to agricult ural producers?  
1.2  Egypt's import requirement  (SIM 741)  
1.2.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 101003 ) 
The European Union would like to express its concerns conc erning the mandatory usage of Letters 
of Credit as unique method of payment for imports into Egypt.  
This requirement has increased the administrative burden and cost of exporting to Egypt, and has 
led to significant delays and import blockages, including f or strategic and/or perishable agricultural 
products (seeds, apples).  
Taking into account Article X (1) of GATT  1994, as well as the Agreement on Trade facilitation Article 
1: Publication and availability of information:  
a. Can Egypt explain the reasons b ehind this restriction of payments methods – economic as well as 
administrative?  
b. Which measures has Egypt taken to ensure that this change will not delay the import of strategic 
and perishable food products?  
1.3  Italy's "local content"  requirement  (SIM 742)  
1.3.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 101017 ) 
Brazil would like to consult the EU and Italy in  relation to the recently -approved "Norme per 
la valorizzazione e la promozione dei prodotti agricoli e  alimentari a chilometro zero e di quelli 
provenienti  da filiera corta".  
To the extent of Brazil 's knowledge, one of the  provisions establishes that at least 30% of market  
areas must be reserved to p roducts "da filiera corta e  a chilometro zero".  
Brazil would appreciate if the EU and Italy could  confirm the existence of such "local content" rules  
and explain how the legislation complies with  GATT Article I II, which prevents discrimination  against 
imported goods during internal sale or  offering for sale.  
1.4  India's other support for rice (SIM 743)  
1.4.1   Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada, Thailand, Paraguay, 
Japan, Brazil, European Union, Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 101037 ) 
The co -sponsors of thi s question take note that India has not provided a written response to AG -IMS 
ID 100007  and stated in response to AG -IMS ID 100079  that India is in the "process of collecting G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 6 - 
 
  informa tion on 'other support ' and will notify in due course. " Therefore, AG -IMS ID 100007  is 
resubmitted with an emphasis on any more detailed explanation of what difficulties India is 
encountering in collecting this information or providing any details at all with regards to what this 
"other support " might include and a timeline for what India consid ers "due course " given the amount 
of time that has already passed:  We would like to repeat the request for information in AG -IMS 
ID 99006 : This is a follow -up on AG -IMS ID 98039 , which  was submitted by multiple 
WTO Members.  In its reply to this question, India has once again stated that it is "in the process of 
collecting information on 'other support' and it will be notified in due course. " Could India please 
provide an update on when this could be expected to be notified?  We reiterate that this information 
is necessary to verify whether India has adhered to paragraph 5 of the Bali Ministerial Decision, 
which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programs other tha n public 
stockholding. We also reiterate our concern that given the lack of any indication of what type of 
other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess whether India is complying with the 
commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stoc kholding for Food Security.  
1.5  India's export restrictions on  wheat  (SIM 744)  
1.5.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 101019 ) 
On 13 May 2022, the Government of India announced export restrictions on wheat, citing the sudden 
spike in global wheat prices and the resulting food s ecurity risks to India.  
 
a.  
i. Does India intend to notify the WTO of this export restriction?  
ii. Can India inform the Committee of how long it intends the restriction to remain in 
place?  
b. As a follow -up question, Australia notes that on 12 May 2022 the Indian Mini stry of 
Commerce and Industry announced it would be deploying trade delegations with the stated 
goal of increasing India 's wheat exports to 10  million tonnes in 2022 -2023 (April -March). 
Given the announcement the following day to introduce wheat export res trictions, can 
India confirm if it is still seeking to achieve this goal?  
c. While deteriorating seasonal conditions may affect production levels, various institutions 
(including the USDA) are forecasting that India is likely to produce almost 
100 million  tonnes of wheat in 2022 -2023 (April -March). While this is below last year 's 
record crop of approximately 108  million tonnes, it is above the average annual volume of 
production achieved during the five years to 2020 of 96  million  tonnes  (FAOSTAT). Can 
India explain why export restrictions are necessary to meet food security targets in a year 
with forecast above -average production, when that has not been the case in previous 
years when production was lower?  
1.5.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101057 ) 
Switzerland has noted that India is prohibiting exports of wheat. Can India give an update on when 
it intends to submit the corresponding notification? Moreover, could  India provide information on the 
measures taken to ensure due consideration to the effects of such an export ban on importing 
Members' food security, in accordance with Article 12(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture?   
1.5.3   Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Paraguay, 
European  Union , United Kingdom  (AG-IMS ID 101032 ) 
On 13 May 2022 India announced Notification No.06/2015 -2020 –an export ban  for wheat, 
implemented via the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry Trade Notice No. 06/2022 -23 (here). 
Global wheat prices spiked by 6 % on the first day of trading on the Chicago Board of Trade wheat 
futures following the Indian announcement.  Actions by governments, such as the imposition of 
export restrictions, can contribute to price volatility or price rises.  These effects can worsen the 
situation already caused by the COVID -19 pandemic and Russia 's invasion of Ukraine.   G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Trade Notice No. 06/2022 -23 states that exports of wheat will be allowed "on the basis of permission 
granted by the Government of India to other countries to meet their food  security needs and based 
on the request of their governments ". It also states that "export of wheat on Humanitarian ground, 
as Aid/Assistance/Government to Government shall be allowed, on case to case basis, with the 
specific approval of competent authori ty."  
Taking note that some of the largest importers of wheat from India, including in the first months 
of 2022, include least developed countries and other low -income developing countries, these 
additional requirements increase the administrative burden a nd inefficiencies in getting wheat to 
where it is most needed.  
a. What criteria will the Government of India use to determine whether to grant this special 
permission?  For example, what criteria must a country meet for provision of wheat to be 
considered humanitarian aid?  Or what criteria must a country meet to demonstrate need 
of wheat to "meet their food security needs "? 
b. Please explain the length of time that the ban will be in place. If the length of time is 
contingent on certain conditions, please explain those conditions, as well as the metrics 
used to measure when those conditions are satisfied.  
c. When will India notify this export restriction to the Committee on Agriculture through the 
required Table ER:1 notification?  
1.6  Malaysia's chicken exp ort prohibition (SIM 745)  
1.6.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101059 ) 
Switzerland has noted that Malaysia is prohibiting exports of chicken. Can Malaysia give an update 
on when it intends to submit the corresponding notification? Moreover, could Malaysia provide 
information on the measures taken to ensure due consideration to the effects of such an export ban 
on importing Members' food security, in  accordance with Article 12(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
1.6.2   Question by United States of America, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101060 ) 
According to a statement by Pr ime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob, Malaysia imposed an export 
restriction on chickens beginning 23 May 2022. No end date for when the ban would be lifted was 
given, other than that it will last "until domestic prices and production stabilize. "  
 
a. Noting para graph 1(a) of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has Malaysia given 
due consideration to the effects of this export restriction on importing Members ' food 
security? If Malaysia has done so already, please provide any analysis of these 
consideratio ns. 
b. Please identify which products and HS codes are affected under this restriction.  
c. Please confirm when these export restrictions will be permanently lifted.  
d. When will Malaysia notify this export restriction to the Committee on Agriculture through 
the req uired Table ER:1 notification?  
1.7  U.S. crop production support  (SIM 746)  
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 101004 ) 
Recently the U.S. Administration requeste d to US Congress for an additional USD 500 million for US 
farmers to increase crop production. The proposal includes USD 100 million for a USD 10 -per-acre 
payment to farmers who plant a soybean crop after a winter wheat crop in 2023. A further USD 400 
million would fund a two -year increase in loan rates for U.S. producers.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 8 - 
 
  a. Can the US confirm that the 100 million payment for soybean and wheat will be notified 
as Amber Box support?  
b. Can the US indicate what will be the budget expenditure effect of the increase  loan rates 
in future year if the world market price decrease from their current very high to to the 
levels in previous years?  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.8  Argentina's export restrictions  (SIM 710)  
1.8.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101015 ) 
Switzerland has noted that Argentina is restricting exports of beef as well as of wheat. We have also 
noted that c ertain questions on this matter from the last CoA (ref. A G-IMS IDs 100001 , 100062  
and 100063 ) remain open.  
Can Argentina give an update on when it intends to submit the corresponding notifications?  
Moreover, could Argentina provide information on the measures taken to en sure due consideration 
to the effects of such export restrictions on importing Members' food security, in accordance with 
Article 12(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture?   
1.8.2   Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101030 ) 
We take note that Argentina has imposed an increasing number of export restrictions affecting 
agricultural products, including beef, wheat, corn, and barley.  For ex ample, in December 2021, the 
Argentinian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries published Resolution 276/2021 and 
Circular 06/2021 – an export quota on maize and wheat; however, the quotas for maize in 2021 -22 
and wheat in 2022 -23 are below aver age export volumes in recent years.  
a. Please confirm when these export restrictions will be permanently lifted.  
b. When will Argentina notify these export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture 
through the required Table ER:1 notification?  
1.9  Canada's review of the TRQ system  (SIM 536)  
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 101016 ) 
At the 100th Committee on Agriculture meeting , in response to question AG -IMS ID 100059 , Canada 
informed the Membership that it would so on be releasing the findings from Phase two of its Review 
of the Allocation and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products. 
Can Canada provide an update of when it plans to finalise and release the conclusions of the re view?   
1.10  Canada's special milk class scheme  (SIM 26)  
1.10.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 101013 ) 
New Zealand has previously raised a question around milk classe s, in particular milk class 4(a). To 
follow up from question AG -IMS ID 100064  - New Zealand  would welcome further information on 
why there is a difference in price paid by processors for the milk class 4(a) protein, for when the 
product is exported onto the global market.  
1.11  Canada's dairy policies  (SIM 18)  
1.11.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 101014 ) 
New Zealand has previously raised a question relating to compensation available for dairy producers 
under Canada 's Dairy Direct Payment Program (DDPP), que stion AG-IMS ID 100107 . New Zealand G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 9 - 
 
  continues to consider the compensation being offered to  dairy farmers disproportionate to any 
market access concessions. How does Canada calculate the impacts of preferential trade agreements 
on Canada 's supply -managed sectors?  
1.12  EU's agricultural policies funded by national resources  (SIM 719)  
1.12.1   Question by Brazi l (AG -IMS ID 101031 ) 
France's Insurance policy. According to information available online, on March  2022 the French 
Parliament approved the reform of the harvest insurance system, with the mobilization of 
EUR 600 million. As per the information Brazil was able to raise, the farmers will be fully liable to 
losses due to weather -related events of up to 20% of their average income over the last five years.  
Losses in the range of 20% and 50% will be covered by private insurers,  who will be required to 
adhere to the new system. The State will be liable for the losses exceeding 50% of the average 
income in the indicated interval. In the light of the above, cou ld the EU and France explain if:  
a. Will this insurance be funded by CAP funds?  
b. Does the European Commission establish criteria for national insurance policies?  
c. Should Brazil expect the expenditures under this program to be notified under the Green 
Box or the  Amber Box? (Please note that both in Supporting Table  DS:1 and in Supporting 
Table DS:9 there is an "insurance subsidies" item).  
1.13  EU's deforestation and forest degradation strategy  (SIM 558)  
1.13.1   Question by Brazil, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 101033 ) 
In its answer to question AG -IMS ID 100071 , the EU has  informed Brazil that is was "gathering 
necessary  information and will reply to Brazil's question as  soon as possible. We will upload the reply 
in the  AGIMS when available."  
 
Brazil would like to consult if the EU is already in a  position to provide the answer.  
 
Furthermore, could the EU explain the specific  criteria used to discriminate Members according to  
risk of producing commodities or products that are not  deforestation -free or not in accordance with 
the legislation of the producer country.  
1.14  India's public stockpiling  (SIM 525)  
1.14.1   Question by United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Canada, European  Union, 
Uruguay, Australia, Thailand, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 101028 ) 
The Members jointly submitting this question continue to express significant concern with India 's 
failure to provide any information regarding its domestic support measures for rice or any indication 
of why the information has not been able to be provided for a number of years.  Therefore, 
AG-IMS ID 100006  is resubmitted:  
 
Again in AG -IMS ID 99005 , which was a follow -up question to AG -IMS ID 98099  which was asked 
by a number of WTO Members, India stated it woul d respond "in due course " with the requested 
information regarding state bonuses provided, in addition to the minimum support price provided 
for both wheat and rice.  The information has been requested repeatedly in this Committee.  The 
United States and oth er Members have provided India with both official state government 
announcements and reports in the media.  Further, India has not explained the reason for the delay 
in providing this information or if this is the relevant support that India has referenced but not 
notified in its recent domestic support notifications as "other support for rice, that is, other than 
public stockholding for food security purposes, will be notified subsequently. " 
 
a. Is India in a position to provide the requested information in AG -IMS IDs 99005 , 98099 , 
97010 , 97012 , 97060 , 95032 , 93271 , 93251 , 92009 ? G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 10 - 
 
  b. If not, please update this Committee on what issues India is experiencing that has 
prevented it from providing this longstanding requested information in a timely manner.  
1.14.2   Question by United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Uruguay, Australia, 
Thailand, Paraguay, European Union (AG -IMS ID 101038 ) 
The co -sponsors of this  question take note that India has not provided a written response to AG -IMS 
ID 100005  and the oral response provided during the 100th Committee on Agriculture failed to 
provide the requested information.  Therefore, AG -IMS ID 100005  is resubmitted:  
In response to AG -IMS ID 99103 , itself a follow up to AG -IMS ID 98103 , we continues to seek 
clarification from India.  
The United States and other WTO Members had requested India's annual quantitative levels of 
current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice stocks since 2010, to which India 
replied that such information was already duly noted in it s domestic support notifications.  
In that same question, the United States and other WTO Members also inquired if India publishes 
summaries of consultative meetings between the Government and the Food Corporation of 
India (FCI), which are held to assess th e availability of wheat and rice for procurement at Minimum 
Support Prices (MSP) in order to meet the food security requirements of citizens, to which India 
replied that such information could also be found in its domestic support notifications.  
Please rec reate the requested information here as it was not obvious where such information could 
be found in India's domestic support notifications.  
1.15  India's oilseeds policies  (SIM 673)  
1.15.1   Question by United States of America, Paraguay, Canada, European Union 
(AG-IMS ID 101044 ) 
The co -sponsors of this question take note that India has not provided a written response to 
AG-IMS ID 100004  and the oral response provided  during the 100th Committee on Agriculture failed 
to provide the requested information.  There fore, AG -IMS ID 100004  is resubmitted:  
The United States refers to AG -IMS ID 97009 , submitted in March 2021 on India 's oilseed policies, 
to which India responded that the scheme was yet to be implemented and the details sought were 
"not available at this stage. " The United States understands that the Union Cabinet of India approved 
a new National Mission Edible Oils - Oil Palm on 18 August 2021 with a budget of Rs. 110.4 bil lion.  
The government 's press release ( https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1746942 ) 
states "Due to heavy dependence on imports for edible oils, it is important to make efforts for 
increasing domestic production of edible oils… " It is understood that India will provide a price 
assurance to oil palm farmers and will substantially increase the assistance of inputs/interventions.  
a. Please provide additional details with regard s to the recently announced price assurance 
scheme for oil palm farmers, including how this measure is implemented and eligibility 
requirements for farmers to receive said price assurance, along with any limitations either 
at the farmer, state, or national  level.  
b. Please provide additional details with regards to increases in assistance of 
inputs/interventions for oil palm.  
c. Please provide a link to the operational guidelines and any laws or implementing measures 
for the price assurance scheme, the input/inte rventions scheme, and any other measures 
introduced in 2021 or 2022 aimed at the edible oils sector.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.16  Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions  (SIM 724)  
1.16.1   Question by United States of America, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101058 ) 
The United States and Japan welcome the news that Indonesia has lifted its ban on crude palm oil, 
refined palm oil, and other related products, which was issued on 27 April 2022 in Decree No.  22 
of 2022 "Temporary Export Ban on Crude Palm Oil, Refined, Bleached and Deodorized Palm Oil, 
Refined, Bleached and Deodorized Palm Olein, and Used Cooking Oil. " In 2021, the United States 
imported 1.4 billion metric ton nes of palm oil from Indonesia and had  substantial interest in the 
effects of this export ban.  
 
When does Indonesia intend to notify the measure to the Committee on Agriculture?   
1.17  Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits  
1.17.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 101061 ) (SIM 655)  
The United States takes note of the following response by the Philippines to AG -IMS ID 98131 : 
"Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) applications, in particular for impo rtation of 
whole chicken from the United States, were rejected because the decision on the application for 
accreditation status of the United States was deferred in  2019.  In effect, there should be no 
additional establishments and meat formats beyond those  that were previously endorsed to the 
Philippines. "  
The United States notes that all U.S. federally inspected poultry slaughter/packing establishments 
in the United States are eligible to export the full range of poultry and poultry products (including 
whole chickens) to the Philippines.   
 
a.  Why are U.S. whole chicken Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance  SPSIC permits 
rejected despite the Philippines accrediting the U.S. system to export poultry to the 
Philippines?  
According to Philippine Department of Agriculture (DA) data, the Philippines imported 
570,455  kilograms of whole chicken from the world in 2020.  Import data for 2021 and the latest for 
2022 are absent of whole chicken figures, according to DA 's website accessed through 
https://www.bai.gov.ph/index.php/importation -data.  
 
b. Please explain the absence of whole chicken import data for 2021 and 2022?  
1.18  Türkiye 's export restrictions on agricultural  products  (SIM 729)  
1.18.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 101063 ) 
Switzerland has noted that Türkiye is restricting exports on a number of agricultural goods. Can 
Türkiye  give an u pdate on when it intends to submit the corresponding notifications? Moreover, 
could Türkiye  provide information on the measures taken to ensure due consideration to the effects 
of such export restrictions on importing Members' food security, in accordance with Article 12(a) of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.18.2   Question by United States of America, Japan (AG -IMS ID 101042 ) 
Japan and the United States understand tha t in January 2022 the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry  (MinAF) was given the authority to restrict exports of 20 different agricultural commodities. 
It has been reported that MinAF began exercising this authority in February 2022 to suspend exports 
of lentils, beans, and olive oil.  In March, the list of products for which exports are suspended was 
extended to include all cooking oil (soy, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, rape, mustard, and 
margarine), beef, sheep, and goat meat.  
 
Further, we are concer ned with Türkiye 's lack of transparency as Türkiye  has not publicly announced 
the export restrictions nor has it notified them to this Committee. Türkiye 's lack of notification has G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 12 - 
 
  caused confusion and disruption of trade in agricultural products during a period of increased global 
concern about food security.   
a. Please provide a copy of or link to both the authorities given to MinAF and the 
regulations/documentation of MinAF implementing these authorities for specific 
commodities.  
We would remind Türkiye  that, as a WTO Member, it agreed to the provisions in paragraph 2(a) of 
Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that allow for quantitative 
restrictions under certain circumstances provided that they be temporary.  It also com mitted to the 
provisions of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agreement (AOA) that when Türkiye  applies export 
prohibitions under paragraph 2(a) of Article XI of GATT, it would give due consideration to the effects 
of such restrictions on importing Members ' food security and notify the Committee on Agriculture 
before implementation of such measures.  We are concerned with Türkiye 's lack of transparency 
because it has not publicly announced the export restrictions nor has it notified the WTO Committee 
on Agricul ture. Türkiye 's lack of notification has caused confusion and disruption of trade in 
agricultural products during a period of increased global concern about food security.   
b. Please provide a list of all agricultural commodities subject to quantitative expor t 
restrictions, including confirmation of the above -mentioned commodities.  
c. Please provide the timeframe for the implementation of the export restrictions, including  
start dates and end dates.  
d. Please  explain the reason Türkiye  is applying restrictions on e xports of certain agricultural 
commodities.  
e. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has Türkiye  given 
due consideration to the effects of its export restrictions on importing Members ' food 
security? If Türkiye  has done so alre ady, please provide any analysis of these 
considerations.  
f. When will Türkiye  notify its export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture through 
the required Table ER:1 notification?  
1.19  U.S. Conservation Reserve Program  (SIM 707)  
1.19.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 101035 ) 
According to information available online, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) will allow 
farmers  who are part of the federal conservation land  contracts to voluntarily terminate their 
contracts and  plant on that land. Additionally, participants  approved for this one -time, voluntary 
termination will  not have to repay rental payments. Brazil understands that expenditures under the 
CRP are  notified i n U.S. Supporting Table DS:1 as  environmental programmes.  In the light of the 
above, could the US confirm the  information above and clarify if it will include the  rental payments 
that are not compensating for  environmental requirements in the sense of AoA Annex 2  (paragraph 
12) in its aggregate measurement of support for the  relevant year.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA:1)  
2.1.1   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/72 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101062 : Question by United States of America - Country -specific allocation  
In the European Union 's Table MA:1 for 2022/2023, TRQ ID EU -Q022 for chicken carcasses, fresh, 
chilled, or frozen, lists the allocation of quotas to supplying countries as "Erga omnes ".  
Please confirm if the United Kingdom is an eligible supplying country in TRQ ID EU -Q022.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/149 , G/AG/N/CAN/1 50) 
AG-IMS ID 101036 : Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Brazil has noticed a decrease in CANQ004 (Beef and Veal) fill rate from 55.9%  (G/AG/N/CAN/149 ) 
to 40.7% ( G/AG/N/CAN/150 ) between 2020 and 2021. Such decreas e seems to indicate a trend of 
reduction of imports under CANQ004, which, in 2014/2015, registered a 90% fill rate 
(G/AG/N/CAN/112 ). 
Could Canada provide data or information on any circumstances that would explain the relatively 
low volume of imports under the aforementioned TRQs?  
AG-IMS ID 101020 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Canada for its submission of MA:2 notifications G/AG/N/CAN/149  
and G/AG/N/CAN/150 . Australia notes that Canada has once again reported nil, or close to nil, f ill 
rates for multiple dairy product tariff -rate quotas.  
Given that Canada has assured Members in the past that that its TRQs are WTO -compliant and free 
from measures which discourage import competition, can Canada provide an explanation for the low 
fill rates of its dairy TRQs? Can Canada explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled 
tariff-rate quotas, as per the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
2.2.2   China – G/AG/N/CHN/3 , G/AG/N/CHN/5 , G/AG/N/CHN/7 , G/AG/N/CHN/9 , 
G/AG/N/CHN/11 , G/AG/N/CHN/14 , G/AG/N/CHN/16 , G/AG/N/CHN/19 , 
G/AG/N/CHN/22 , G/AG/N/CHN/25 , G/AG/N/CHN/26 , G/AG/N/CHN/30 , 
G/AG/N/CHN/39 , G/AG/N/CHN/41 , G/AG/N/CHN/50 , G/AG/N/CHN/55 , 
G/AG/N/CHN/56  
AG-IMS ID 101064 : Question by United States of A merica - Tariff quota fill  
United States thanks China for its Table MA:2 submissions for calendar year 2002 through 2020 
(G/AG/N/CHN/3 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/5 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/7 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/9 ), (G/AG/N /CHN/11 ), 
(G/AG/N/CHN/14 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/16 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/19 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/22 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/25 ), 
(G/AG/N/CHN/26 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/30 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/39 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/41 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/50 ), 
(G/AG/N/CHN/55 ), (G/AG/N/CHN/56 )  
In its Table MA:1 notific ation ( G/AG/ N/CHN/2 ), China notified the  administration of two separate, 
distinct TRQ obligations for rice - a TRQ for short - and medium -grain rice and a separate TRQ for 
long-grain rice.   
However, the United States notes that in several of its Table MA:2 submissions, China has not 
provided separate fill rates for either of these two rice TRQs. Instead, China has provided a single, 
aggregated fill rate for all rice for each calendar year, with the exceptions of 2006 and 2019, when 
China correctly notified a fill rate for short - and m edium -grain rice and a fill rate for long -grain rice 
(G/AG/N/CHN/11 ) and ( G/AG/ N/CHN/55 ).  
a. Please explain China 's plans to notify fill rates for short - and medium -grain rice and for 
long grain rice TRQs in its Table MA:2 notifications for each calendar year from 2002 
through 2005, from 2007 through 2018, and 2020.   
b. Please provide the  quantity of in -quota imports under the TRQ for short and medium grain 
rice for each calendar year from 2002 through 2005, from 2007 through 2018, and 2020.  
c. Please provide the quantity of in -quota imports under the TRQ for long grain rice for each 
calendar  year from 2002 through 2005, from 2007 through 2018, and 2020.   G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 14 - 
 
  d. Please confirm that China will notify the fill rate for each rice TRQ in its Table  MA:2 
notifications for subsequent years.  
2.2.3   El Salvador ( G/AG/N/SLV/82 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101018 : Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We wish to thank El Salvador for submitting notification G/AG/N/SLV/82 , yet note the low fill rate 
for quota SLVQ007 (only 40%). Could El Salvador please indicate the reasons for this low fill rate?  
  
We also note that, as in its previous notifications, El Salvador has failed to notify the fill rate for 
other quotas included in its schedule of commitments. Nor has El  Salvador responded to the query 
in question AG ‑IMS ID 100075 regarding the reason for omitting this information from its 
notifications, and the question is therefore being asked once again.  
2.2.4   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/76 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101045 : Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Considering that quota EU -Q028 ( turkey ) has an erga omnes  part and a country -specific part, could 
the EU provide import volumes (and fill  rates) in a disaggregated manner?  
AG-IMS ID 101085 : Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We wish to thank the EU for submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/76 , yet note the low fill rate for t he 
following quotas for products of interest, in view of our exportable supply: EUQ005, EUQ008, 
EUQ011, EUQ014, EUQ015, EUQ016, EUQ017, EUQ018, EUQ019, EUQ052, EUQ052, EUQ053, 
EUQ057, EUQ066, EUQ067, EUQ071, EUQ098 and EUQ109. Could the EU please indicate:  
 
a. The reasons for the low fill rate of those quotas?  
b. Whether the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical criteria has 
had any impact on them?  
c. For quotas administered by licences (EUQ005, EUQ008 and EUQ071), please indicate 
whether consideration has been given to amending the administration method.  
2.2.5   Kazakhstan ( G/AG/N/KAZ/13 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101065 : Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States thanks K azakhstan for its Table MA:2 submission for calendar year 2020 
(G/AG/N/KAZ/13 ). However, it is concerned by Kazakhstan 's notified fill rate for beef (KAZQ001) of 
1.1% and poultry (KAZQ003) of 46.9 %. 
a. Please explain what factors led to the low fill rates of TRQs for beef and poultry.  
b. Kazakhstan allocates its TRQs based on historical share of imports and allocates a certain 
percentage to new market entrants. Please explain if new market entrants that received 
allocations in 2020 filled their share of the quota.  
2.2.6   Panama ( G/AG/N/PAN/60 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101021 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Panama for submitting its 2021 calendar year MA:2 notification G/AG/N/PAN/60 . 
Australia notes that Panama has again reported nil, or close to nil, fill rates fo r ten TRQs across dairy 
and other agricultural products. We note that multiple TRQs remain underfilled from the 2020 
notification ( G/AG/N/PAN/59 ). Can Panama explain the reasons for the underfill of its quotas? Could 
Panama explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled tariff quotas, as per the Bali 
Decision on TRQ Administration?  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 15 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 101005 : Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Can Panama explain the reasons behin d the 0% fill rate of its "Milk and milk products " quotas 
(PANQ008, PANQ009, PANQ011), its "liquid Milk " and related "other " quota (PANQ004, PANQ005), 
and its "Processed cheese " quota (PANQ013) in their Table MA:2 for the calendar year 2021?  
2.2.7   Thailand ( G/AG/N/THA/121 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101022 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Thailand for submitting its  recent MA:2 notification G/AG/N/THA/12 1. Australia 
notes that Thailand has reported nil, or close to nil, fill rates across multiple TRQs and less than 65% 
fill rate across other TRQs. We note that multiple TRQs remain underfilled from Thailand 's previous 
notification ( G/AG/N/THA/115 ). Can Thailand explain the reasons for the under fill of its quotas? 
Could Thailand explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled tariff quotas, as per the 
Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
AG-IMS ID 101046 : Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand reported on its latest MA:2 notifications, pertaining to calendar 2021, the following fill rates 
for tariff -rate quotas:  
THAQ008 (coffee) - 55.4%;  
THAQ011 (Maize for feedstuff) - 0%; 
THAQ016 (Soya bean oil and its fractions) - 0%; 
THAQ019 (Cane or beet sugar) - 3.4%.  
Brazil would appreciate if Thailand could provide the following information:  
a. data on market circumstances that would explain the low volume of imports under the 
aforemention ed TRQs;  
b. updates on policy developments that would explain the relatively low volume of imports 
under the aforementioned TRQs;  
c. volume of imports taking place outside the TRQ.  
2.2.8   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/162 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101047 : Question by Brazil – transparency issues  
Considering that quota USAQ001 (beef) has an "others" part and four country -specific parts, could 
the US provide import volumes (and fill rates) in a disaggregated manner?  
AG-IMS ID 101026 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the United St ates for submitting its recent MA:2 notification G/AG/N/USA/162 . 
Australia notes that the United States has reported nil, or close to nil, fill rates across multiple  TRQs 
(USAQ009, USAQ023, USAQ036, USAQ046, USAQ049, USAQ050, USAQ051, USAQ052 and 
USAQ054) and less than 65% fill rate across othe r TRQs (USAQ001, USAQ002, USAQ006, USAQ013, 
USAQ018, USAQ019, USAQ021, USAQ022, USAQ024, USAQ026, USAQ035, USAQ041, USAQ047 
and USAQ053). We note that multiple TRQs remain underfilled from the United States ' previous 
notifications ( G/AG/N/USA/153 ). Can the United States explain the reasons for the underfill [below 
65%] of its quotas? Could the United States explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of 
underfilled tariff quotas, as per the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
AG-IMS ID 101048 : Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
According to G/AG/N/USA/162 , none of the US TRQs for cotton (049, 050, 051, 052) has a fill rate 
above 0.5%.  
In the light of the above, could the US provide the following information:  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 16 - 
 
  a. Data on market circ umstances that would explain the low volume of imports under the 
aforementioned TRQs;  
b. Updates on any policy developments, including domestic support policies, that could help 
to explain the relatively low volume of imports under the aforementioned TRQs;  
AG-IMS ID 101079 : Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand notes that the fill rates for dairy and dairy related products vary between 0.6% 
and 80%. Does the United States have any plans to change tariff quota administration with the aim 
of increasing the low fill rates for dairy products in the future?  
2.3  Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.3.1   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/151 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101077 : Question by United Kingdom - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The United Kingdom thanks Canada for their latest DS:1 notification G/AG/N/CAN/151  for Calendar 
Year 2018. The United Kingdom notes  that whilst keeping within its total AMS commitment level, 
Canada's product -specific domestic support for Milk has increased on previous years. Can Canada 
please describe what steps it is taking to ensure this support avoids distortions to trade?  
AG-IMS I D 101002 : Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
According to the notification from Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/151 ), the Supporting Table  DS:9 
Non-Product Specific AMS, Thailand would like to req uest Canada to provide more details on two 
programmes, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and the Agri -Opportunities Program, 
as well as the differences between the two programs.  
AG-IMS ID 101039 : Question by Türkiye  - Non-product -specific AMS  
Türkiye  thanks Canada for submitting its domestic support notification.   
Supporting Table DS:9:  
Canada has been notifying "Advance Payment Program " for STDS:9 table. Türkiye notes that the 
amount of support for this measure type has increased compared to previous years.  
a. What are the eligibility criteria for this payment?  
b. Can Canada explain the reason behind this increase?  
2.3.2   Côte d'Ivoire ( G/AG/N/CIV/34 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101066 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States takes note that Côte d 'Ivoire submitted its domesti c notification for calendar 
year 2021. While timely notifications are essential to this Committee, so too are complete and 
accurate notifications. Côte d 'Ivoire has still not responded to any questions in this committee, 
including AG -IMS ID s 99064 , 98113 , and 98114 , posed by several Members on its domestic support 
notifications particularly with regard to its notification of providing no domestic support.  
 
Further, it is concerning that Côte d 'Ivoire has once again notified no domestic support in its 
Table  DS:1 notifications.  
 
The United States encourages Côte d 'Ivoire to respond to these questions regarding its notifications.   
a. Please confirm whether Côte d 'Ivoire took these concerns expressed by Members into 
account  as it has continued to submit blank Table DS:1 notifications.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 17 - 
 
  b. Does Côte d 'Ivoire consider the measures identified in the aforementioned questions not 
to be domestic support?  If so, please elaborate.  
2.3.3   India ( G/AG/N/IND/27 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101007 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Supporting Table DS:4  
 
India has not included value of production ( VoP) in this table for the products in question. In previous 
meetings sev eral Members have encouraged India to do so. Most other Members do so, as it 
significantly increases transparency, and greatly reduces the workload for those who have to analyse 
the Indian notifications, including developing countries with less resources t han the EU.   
a. Can India explain why it seemingly refuses to include data on VoP in Supporting 
Table  DS:4 despite its own earlier indication that this would be done?  
b. Can India indicate VoP for:  
• Coarse cereal ; 
• Cotton ; 
• Groundnut ; 
• Pulses ; 
• Soyabean yellow ; 
• Sunflower and ; 
• Wheat . 
AG-IMS ID 101010 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Bali Annex  
The EU does not consider that the Annex as presented by India fulfils the requirement as set in the 
Bali Ministerial Decision. In particular, the annex does not include data on all the programmes for 
which India has a PSH programme - Wheat, Coarse Grain an d Pulses. Point 3c of the Bali Ministerial 
clearly states:  
"have provided and continue to provide on an annual basis, …, for each public stockholding 
programme that it maintains for food security purposes; and … "  
Can India please forward an Annex for the  four crops not included in it, i.e. wheat, coarse grain and 
pulses.  
AG-IMS ID 101011 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Bali Annex Trade data  
Can India please indicate the trade data for its trade in rice. The Bali index is not written in a way, 
where it is only covering trade of PSH stocks. The EU is looking forward to India indicating realised 
trade for rice i n 2020 and 2021.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 18 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 101012 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Bali Annex – Balance Sheet  
As in previous years t he statistical annex show s again there is a huge difference in the quantities 
going in and out.   
Mio. T    2016 -17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 
Opening stocks  A 28,81  29,78  30,04  29,39  32.23  
Annual purchase  B 38,11  38,13  44,33  52 60.08  
Total availability  C = a+b 66,92  67,91  74,37  81,39  92.31  
Annual releases  D 33,52  34,2 34,4 33,36  53.81  
Open market sales  E 0,19 0,46 0,85 1,61 2.46 
Total release  F = e+d 33,71  34,66  35,25  34,97  56.27  
Total Availabilities - Total release  G = c-f 33,21  33,25  39,12  46,42  36.04  
End stocks IND/25  H 29,78  30,04  29,39  32,23  29.12  
Discrepancies  I = g-h 3,43 3,21 9,73 14,19  6.92 
a. Can India explain this discrepancy of nearly seven million tonnes that represent a loss of 
$2.6 billion?  
b. In its reply to question AG -IMS ID 98056  India indicated that some of the quantities in 
end stocks was not husked rice. Can India indicate which quantity in the end stocks that 
husked, semi -milled or milled rice for the years 2019 -2020 and 2020 -2021. 
AG-IMS ID 101029 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Bali Annex point d)  
a. Can India please list all the legal Acts which have been used in preparing this notification  
with reference where these acts can be found.  
b. Can India indicate the amounts related to each and every of these Acts.  
AG-IMS ID 101087 : Question by Paraguay , United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
We thank India for submitting notification G/AG/N/IND/27 . We note that the information on the 
current total AMS, public stockholding for food security purposes at market prices and the calculation 
of the product -specific AM S for rice is based on available provisional data, as in India's previous 
notification, G/AG/N/IND/25 . Could India please:  
 
a. Confirm when exactly it will notify the final data. Paraguay is still waiting for this data for 
notification G/AG/N/IND/25 , and, in this respect, India has not yet been able to provide a 
satisfactory response. In this regard, we refer India to question AG -IMS ID 100079 , to 
which it has not yet replied, and the 17 questions referred to in that question, the replies 
to which provide no indi cation of when the final data could be expected.  
b. Specify what constitutes other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for 
food security purposes, that will be notified subsequently, which is mentioned by India in 
a note to Supporting Ta ble DS:5. The same note is found in previous notifications, and we 
therefore reiterate that this information is needed to verify whether India has respected 
paragraph 5 of the Bali Ministerial Decision, which requires that there be no increase of 
Amber Box  support for programmes other than public stockholding.  
c. Explain the reason for the steady increase in its current total AMS between the 
period  2018-2019 and the period 2020 -2021 and what policies or reforms it is 
implementing to return its expenditure leve ls to those authorized under its 
WTO commitments.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 19 - 
 
  d. Explain the reasons justifying the steady increase in open market sales of public stocks 
between  2018 and 2021. We note with particular concern how initial sales of 0.85  million 
tonnes rose to 2.46 million tonnes, thereby increasing threefold. We also recall that India 
is the world's leading exporter of rice, with a trade share of more than 30% of the world 
market, and that we are still awaiting information on monitoring mechanisms to ensure 
that these sales  do not end up in international markets.   
e. When examining the Statistical Appendix on public stockholding, we note that the opening 
balance of stocks at the end of the year does not correspond to the opening balance of 
stocks added to purchases and minus re leases under the programme and open market 
sales. Could India please explain what is happening with the annual difference?  
AG-IMS ID 101078 : Question by United Kingdom - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The United Kingdom thanks India for its recent DS:1 notification G/AG/N/IND/27 . The United 
Kingdom notes  that the description and itemisation of Green Box commitments under "2. General 
Services " is absent. Could India please provide a description of these measures?   
AG-IMS ID 101050 : Question by Brazil - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In India's DS:1 notification regarding the marketing year from 1  October  2020 to 
30 September  2021 (G/AG/N/IND/27 ), India has invoked the peace clause set out in the Bali 
Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, due to domestic support 
provided for rice. India informed the Membership that "other support for rice, that is, other than 
public stockholding for food  security purposes, will be notified subsequently" (Supporting 
Table  DS:5, footnote 3).  
Could India provide further clarification on the issue, especially:  
a. An estimation of expenditures and a description of the kind of support it has granted to 
rice produc ers beyond the PSH programme;  
b. When will this additional support be notified?   
Also in relation to the support policies for rice, more specifically to PSH, Brazil notices that the value 
of purchases and the amount purchased has increased from USD 19.97 bill ion to USD  22.68  billion, 
and from 52 million ton nes to 60.1 million ton nes in a year.  
Furthermore, the value and the amount of rice disposed in the market grew from USD 1.41 billion 
to USD 2.17 billion and form 33.36 million ton nes to 53.81 million ton nes. 
In the light of the above, could India also inform  about:  
c. Policy and statistical developments, including targets and goals set by the Indian 
Government related to the accumulation, holding and disposal of stocks, that would 
explain the evolution of value s and amounts notified under the PSH programs.  
AG-IMS ID 101049 : Question by Brazil - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Brazil notices that, since t he program Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN) has entered 
into force, there has been an increase in the decoupled income support notified by India.  
In its DS:1 notification for 2018 -2019 (G/AG/IND/18), outlays amounted to USD  852 million. 
For 2019-2020 (G/AG/IND/25), they amounted to USD 6.87 billion.  
Finally, for 2020 -2021 (G/AG/IND/27), expenditures reached US D 8.21 billion.  
It is worth noticing that, in its DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/IND/19 ), the cost of the measure was 
indicated as USD 852.70 Million.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Therefore, Brazil would appreci ate if India could provide details on changes of the implementation 
of the PM -KISAN that could explain this large increase in expenditures. For instance, has there been 
any change in the eligibility criteria or in the amount each farmer is entitled to rece ive? 
AG-IMS ID 101006 : Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -income 
or resource -poor producers  
The European Union notes a substantial  increase in notified support under "input subsidies available 
to low -income or resource -poor producers " in Supporting Table DS:2 in Marketing Year 2020/2021 
as compared to Marketing Year 2019/2020. The notified amount increased from 
25,097.52  million  USD in Marketing Year 2019/2020 to 30,923.35 million USD in Marketing 
Year 2020/2021, which corresponds to an increase by 23.2 %.  
a. What are the reasons for this increase in support under "input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers " in Marketing Year 2020/2021?  
b. Could India please provide a breakdown of how much subsidies are provided to each kind 
of input that are covered by the programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 101080 : Question by United Kingdom - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
The United Kingdom thanks India for its recent DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/ IND/27 ) and notes India 
has again stated that 'Other sup port for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently '. 
 
This information allows other Members to assess whether India is complying with the requirements 
of the Bali Ministerial Decision. Please co uld India confirm when this information will be published?   
 
2.3.4   Japan ( G/AG/N/JPN/276 , G/AG/N/JPN/27 7) 
AG-IMS ID 101051 : Question by Brazil - General services: marketing and promotion 
services  
Brazil notices a twenty -fold increase in expe nditures in  "marketing and promotion services" 
(Supporting Table DS:1), from JPY  9.6 billion to JPY 190.6 billion between 2019/2020 to 2020/2021.  
Could Japan  inform if it has introduced a new program to provide support under this measure  type?  
AG-IMS ID 101086 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 
We wish to thank Japan for submitting notification G/AG/N/JPN/277 , yet note a significant increase 
in AMS expen ditures. In particular, we are concerned about the increase in the MPS granted to 
sugar, which rose from 27.6 % to 30.5 % of the VOP and seems to account for most of Japan's higher 
AMS expenditures from 2019 -2020 to 2020 -2021. Could Japan please explain the reasons for this 
increase?  
AG-IMS ID 101040 : Question by Türkiye  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Türkiye  thanks Japan for submitting its domesti c support notification  (G/AG/N/JPN/277 ).  
a. Supporting Table DS:1: Japan has been notifying "Extension and advisory services " under 
the "General Services " measure for ST /DS:1 table. Türkiye  notes that the amount of 
support for this measure type has significantly increased compared to previous years.  
Can Japan explain the reason behind this increase?   
b. Supporting Table DS:1: Japan has been notifying "Marketing and promotion services " 
under the  "General Services " measure for ST /DS:1 table. Türkiye  notes that the amount 
of support for this measure type has increased by more than 20 times compared to 
previous years.   
Can Japan explain the reason behind this increase?  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 21 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 101052 : Question by Brazil - Non-product -specific AMS  
Japan has included in Supporting Table DS:9 (Non -Product -Specific AMS) of G/AG/N/JPN/277  a new 
measure called "Support for production in the next crop season to c ope with the COVID -19 
pandemic", with expenditures of JPY 158.5 billion.  
Could Japan provide further details on the measure, including the type of payments, the eligibility 
criteria and the duration of the measure?  
AG-IMS ID 101001 : Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
With regard to Japan 's notification ( G/AG/N/JPN/277 ) on domestic support for f iscal 
year 2020/2021, Japan had spent 44.7 billion yen as payments for producers (beef and veal) 
affected by the COVID -19 pandemic (Page 6) and 158.5 billion yen as non -product -specific payments 
to support the production in the next crop season to cope wit h the COVID -19 pandemic (Page 8). 
Could Japan provide more information on the criteria for those affected by the COVID -19 pandemic 
and the procedure for applying for support from the government?  
2.3.5   Mauritius ( G/AG/N/MUS/17 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101067 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States thanks Mauritius for its most recent Table DS:1 notification.  
It is noted that Mauritius introduced several new sugar -related domestic support measures 
in 2020/2021, including a "money grant ' notified in Supporting Table DS:6 and "Sugar Service 
Providing Institutions " notified in Supporting Table DS:1. It is also noted that Mauritius ' Trade Policy 
Review ( WT/TPR/S/417 ) states in paragraph 4.30, "Price support via controlled or guaranteed prices 
is provided for various agricultural products.  None of the price support was notified to the 
WTO Committee on Agriculture.  
According to the authorities, price  support will henceforth be notified. " The Report goes on to 
mention support for onions, garlic, potatoes, green tea leaves, and sugar.  
a. Please confirm whether these price supports mentioned in the Secretariat 's Report were 
in place for 2020/21 and when Members may expect Mauritius to begin notifying these 
measures.  
b. Please explain whether "money grant " for sugar is related to the aforementioned price 
support for sugar and if not, how this measure is implemented.  
c. Please provide a description of the measure  "Sugar Service Providing Institutions " as 
required in Supporting Table DS:1 and whether a required Table DS:2 notification will be 
submitted.  
2.3.6   Nigeria ( G/AG/N/NGA/19 , G/AG/N/NGA/ 20, G/AG/N/NGA/ 21) 
AG-IMS ID 101068 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States takes note and appreciates the efforts taken by Nigeria to bring its Table  DS:1 
notifications up to date. It is noted that prior to calendar year 2017, Nigeria notified that it had 
provided no domestic support measu res. 
Nigeria 's most recent notifications indicate the introduction of exempt domestic support measures 
under both Annex 2 and Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Further, these notifications 
indicate Nigeria has provided no non -exempt domestic sup port measures, such as product -specific 
or non -product -specific amber box support.   
a. When will Nigeria provide a Table DS:2 notification for all of its recently introduced 
measures?  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 22 - 
 
  b. Please confirm whether all measures taken to support the agricultural secto r in Nigeria are 
covered by the 2017 Appropriation Act.  
c. For "other input subsidies for resource poor producers ", please describe what inputs are 
subsidized and how Nigeria has defined its eligible "low-income or resource -poor 
producers."  
AG-IMS ID 101069 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States understands the Nigerian Ministry of Agriculture introduced the National Egg 
Production Scheme in 2016 with the aim of increasing egg production.  Please explain if and how this 
measure is notified in Nigeria 's Table DS:1 notification and the implementation period for this 
measure.  
AG-IMS ID 101070 : Question by United States  of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
According to official guidelines published by the Central Bank of Nigeria, Nigeria operates a measure 
entitled Anchor Borrowers ' Program (ABP), which states the aim of the measure is to "boost 
agricu ltural production, create jobs, reduce food import bills. " The United States understands this 
measure was introduced in 2015 and, according to media reports, more than $2 billion has been 
disbursed under the ABP.   
The United States understands the ABP targ ets several commodities, especially cereals, including 
rice, corn, wheat, roots and tuber crops like cassava, potatoes, yam, and ginger.  Other targeted 
crops include tomato, oil palm, and sugarcane.   
According to the Central Bank of Nigeria, it is estimate d that ABP financial resources have reached 
over 4.52 million smallholder farmers cultivating 21 commodities across Nigeria.   
a. Please confirm whether Nigeria has notified this measure.  If not, please explain why.  
b. Please describe how this measure is implemented.  
2.3.7   Panama ( G/AG/N/PAN/61 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101072 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States ' request for more information about Panama 's support provided to rice, milk, and 
maize, outlined in AG -IMS ID 99082  and in reference to G/AG/N/PAN/58 , remains valid for Panama 's 
most recent Table DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/PAN/61 ). As Panama has yet to provide a response to 
AG-IMS ID 99082 , the United States repeats the question:  
The United States understands, based on AG -IMS ID 93196 , that the notified value represents 
payments made for any rice sold during the notified calendar year – whether production is from the 
current agricultural year or a previous agricultural year.  
This is also noted in AG -IMS ID 92062  where the United States understands Panama to state that 
the eligible production figure represented 2018 production as well as production from t he last few 
months of 2017.   
Further, the United States notes that the same measure as for rice is notified for milk and maize in 
Supporting Table DS:6.  
It was the United States' understanding that all outlays made during the given calendar year, for 
rice, milk, and maize regardless of when production occurred was the notified outlay value.  
However, in G/AG/N/PAN/58 , Panama includes a new footnote only for rice in Supporting Table DS:4 
stating, "Amount includes support for previous years. "  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 23 - 
 
  a. Please provide further clarification on what the r eporting year for notified outlays in 
Supporting Table DS:4 and Supporting Table DS:6 represent and whether there is a 
difference for rice versus other commodities.  
b. Please provide further clarification as to what the eligible production listed represents 
specifically.  For example, does the volume notified in G/AG/N/PAN/58  represent all 
production sold during specific months at the end of 2019 and most/all of 2020?  
AG-IMS ID 101088 : Ques tion by Paraguay, United States of America - Scheduled 
commitment level  
We wish to thank Panama for submitting notification G/AG/N/PAN/61 , and while we note a 
progressive reduction in AMS expenditures between 2019 and 2021, Panama appears to be steadily 
exceeding its domestic support entitlemen t limits on rice. Could Panama report what actions are 
being taken to remedy this situation and to go back to honouring its WTO commitments on domestic 
support?  
AG-IMS ID 101071 : Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
The United States remains concerned regarding Panama 's compliance with its domestic support 
commitments, particularly with respect to notified support for rice, which r emained above de minimis 
in calendar year 2021 ( G/AG/N/PAN/61 ).  
 
As Panama has yet to pr ovide an answer to AG -IMS ID 99081 , the United States repeats the 
question:  
 
In Panama 's response to AG -IMS ID 97141 , Panama stated that a commission would review Law 17 
of 2018 in the first half of 2021.  
 
Please provide an update on this review and what the findings were.  
2.3.8   Paraguay ( G/AG/N/PRY/34 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101081 : Question by United Kingdom - Classification of measures  
The United Kingdom thanks Paraguay for its recent DS:1 G/AG/N/PRY/34  notification submission. 
The UK notes that in G/AG/N/ PRY/33  (Calendar Year 2019) a sum of USD 14,841,547 for the 'Project 
to Restore Farming Production Systems (RESIPROAF) ' was categorised under Supporting Table  DS:1 
(Green  Box) as '11. Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids '.  
In notification G/AG/N/ PRY/34  (Calendar Year 2020) a similarly titled 'Resto ration of family farming 
production systems ' with a sum of USD 7,808,387 was categorised under Supporting Table  DS:2 
(Development Programmes) as a measure linked to 'Agricultural input subsidies for low -income or 
resource - poor producers '.  
Could Paraguay clarify whether this is the same programme, and if so, the reason as to why this has 
changed category between notifications?  
2.3.9   Switzerland ( G/AG/N/CHE/114 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101082 : Question by United Kingd om - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
The United Kingdom notes that Switzerland 's product -specific domestic support for Milk and Milk 
Products was 16.66% of the value of production in 2020. Has Switzerland carried out any analysis 
regarding the potential tra de distorting impacts of this support that it is able to share?   
2.3.10   United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/GBR/11 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101053 : Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In what regards measures notified under Supporting Table DS:1 (Measures exempt from the  
reduction commitment - "Green Box"), Brazil would like to invite the UK to inform specifically, if G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 24 - 
 
  possible, in the cases of "decoupled income support" and "direct payments", the amount of 
expenditures under each measure in a discriminated manner.  
Brazil also takes the opportunity to recall that document G/MA/TAR/RS/570 is under objection by 
several Members. In that sense, Brazil points to the importance of the UK not to provide AMS above 
the "de minimis ", relying on an AMS that is still being negotiated.  
AG-IMS ID 101089 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We wish to thank the United Kingdom for submitting notification G/AG/N/GBR/11 . In this regard, we 
have the follo wing observations to make:  
 
a. The United  Kingdom has once again notified an AMS commitment of close to GBP  5 billion 
as a consequence of its exit from the European Union, despite the fact that this right is 
still being questioned by a number of Members. It i s important to note that Members have 
not yet been notified by the EU of the same reduction in its schedule of commitments.  
b. The United Kingdom has notified "support for the conversion to and maintenance of 
organic farming systems for environmental benefits ", could the United Kingdom 
breakdown the environmental benefits of organic farming systems which are considered 
environmental payments?  
AG-IMS ID 101083 : Question by New Zealand - Livestock payments made on a fixed 
number of head  
New Zealand would appreciate if the United Kingdom offered additional information regarding the 
notified Livestock payments made on a fixed number of head  for beef and sheep in suppo rting 
table DS:3.  
What are the requirements to receive these payments?  
What is the purpose of these payments?   
2.3.11   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/157 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101054 : Question by Brazil - General services: infrastructural services  
Brazil would like to thank the US for providing an answer to question AG-IMS ID 100108 .  
However,  Brazil  remains unsure regarding the U.S. decision to notify such expenditure as a measure 
exempt from reduction commitments.   
In Brazil' s view, pa ragraph 2(g) is restrictive to capital work, a term that must be read in the light 
of the examples given in the paragraph itself.   
  
a. Considering that "administrative & operating reimbursements to insurers" and 
"underwriting gains to insurers" are supportin g the Federal Crop Insurance Program, a 
program that is notified as Product -Specific Aggregate Measurement of Support, how does 
the US consider them not to have trade -distorting effects or effects on production?   
b. Could the US confirm that the "institutiona l infrastructure" mentioned in its answer refers 
to the administrative and operating costs and the sharing of underwriting risk owed to 
private companies due to the reinsurance agreement?  If not, could the US provide 
additional explanation of the term?  
2.4  New or modified domestic support measures  (Table DS:2)  
2.4.1   United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/GBR/9 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101055 : Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Brazil appreciates the UK's comprehensive answer to question AG-IMS ID 100051 . G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Brazil also understands the logic behind the UK's decision not to deviate from  the EU notification 
practice when programs have been rolled -over, however Brazil believes that the UK could have 
avoided inconsistencies, such as notifying that one -off non -refundable payments could be classified 
as general services.  
Even though the UK ha s explained that "The FIF does not currently provide subsidised services to 
farmers as outlined in paragraph 2, Annex 2", document G/AG/N/GBR/9  creates uncertainties to 
other Members.  
Having said that, Brazil would like to ask the UK the following additional points regarding items  "b" 
and "c" o f question AG-IMS ID 100051 . 
a. Could the UK explain how does the "score" influences in the pa yment received?  
b. Is the UK presuming that any agricultural producer that invests "in equipment and 
technology for improved sustainable agricultural, horticultural, and forestry productivity" 
is in a state of demonstrable structural disadvantage?  
c. Is the agri cultural producer allowed to declare any farming or husbandry practice as 
environmentally sustainable for the sake of receiving the payments?  
AG-IMS ID 10107 3: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
On page 4 of G/AG/N/GBR/9 , the United Kingdom describes the Farming Investment Fund (FIF).  
The notification states "environmental sustainability " is a scoring criterion for choosing projects 
under the FIF.  As WTO Members tackle the challenge of climate change, we can learn from each 
other 's efforts to promote environmental sustainability.  What kinds of project activities has the 
United Kingdom determined improve environmental sustainability in the context of th e FIF?  
2.5  Export subsidy notifications ( Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
2.5.1   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/148 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101023 : Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks Canada for its export notifi cations. Can Canada please advise the Membership why 
its reporting under ES:2 submission G/AG/N/CAN/148  changed from Marketing -Year (MY) to 
Calendar Year  (CY) reporting for all notified significant products?  
2.5.2   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/75 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101074 : Question by United States of America - Quantity of total exports  
Section III of the European Union 's Table ES:2 notification for 2020/2021 lists the pr oduct 
disaggregation for wheat and wheat flour as "101: 36,495.9 thousand tonnes. "  
It appears there may be an error.  
Please clarify the harmonized tariff code this is referring to and clarify the product disaggregation as 
it relates to the total quantity of wheat and wheat flour, which is only 26,666.9 thousand tonnes.  
2.5.3   Japan ( G/AG/N/JPN/270 , G/AG/N/JPN/271 , G/AG/N/JPN/272 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101024 : Question by Australia - International food aid  
Australia welcomes Japan 's notification under ES:3 for Calendar years 2017 thro ugh to Calendar 
Year 2020 ( G/AG/N/JPN/270 , G/AG/N/JPN/271 , G/AG/N/JPN/272 , G/AG/N/JPN/273 ). Australia fully 
supports the provision of assistance to address humanitarian emergencies and support food security 
in locations that have poor access to sufficient nutrition. With respect to food aid, can Japan advise:  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 26 - 
 
  a. Which members or countries were the recipients of the food aid?  
b. As only aid volumes were reported, is Japan able to advise on the monetised value amount 
of aid for each year?  
2.5.4   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/161 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101025 : Question by Australia - International food aid  
Australia thanks the United States for its ES:3 notification G/AG/N/USA/161  for FY 2020. We note 
that volumes are significantly higher for wheat and rice compared with previous 2019 and 
2018 financial years. (Wheat exports FY 2020 reported at 1,520,400 thousand tonnes compared 
to 756,860 in 2019 and 988,950 in 2018. Rice exports of 148,320 thousand tonnes compared 
with 114,100 in 2019 and 81,940 in 2018). Australia fully supports the provision of assistance to  
address humanitarian emergencies and improve food security in regions that have poor access to 
sufficient nutrition but continues to note that the volumes of physical food aid notified by the United 
States for specific products are significant. Australia requests that the United States provide advice 
on:  
a. Which members or countries received the food aid?  
b. As only aid volumes were reported, is the United States able to advise on the monetised 
value amount of aid for each year?  
c. How the United States ensures t he physical food aid does not cause adverse effects on 
recipient Members ' agricultural industries, nor on their region 's production and commercial 
markets of either like -products or substitute products?  
2.6  Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
2.6.1   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/77 ) 
AG-IMS ID 101027 : Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks the EU for its reporting and transparency on export restriction notifications 
G/AG/N/EU/77  and notes that the EU is a proponent and signatory of  several initiatives that commit 
and encourage countries not to impose export restrictions. Australia stands in solidarity with Ukraine 
and all those affected by Russia 's unilateral, illegal and immoral aggression against the people of 
Ukraine. We note the  safeguards put in place by the EU, including the Hungarian Ministry of 
Agriculture 's first right of refusal to purchase within 30 days at market prices. Australia requests 
further updates as to:  
a. whether this right has been exercised since the notification ; 
b. whether this measure will likely be extended and for how long;  
c. whether any other EU member States are likely to follow suit; and whether there are any 
intentions to expand the list  beyond cereals?  
AG-IMS ID 101075 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States thanks the European Union for the transparency provided in G/AG/N/EU/77  on its 
export restriction in Hungary. The restrictions were notified to end on 15 May 2022.  Please confirm 
the restrictions listed in G/AG/N/EU/77  are no longer in effect.  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 27 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 101090 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues  
The EU is a Member committed to transparency, the proponent and signatory of various initiatives 
that commit to and promote refraining from imposing unnecessary restrictions on imports and, in 
the event that restrictions are imposed, they should be notified in advance. We note that Paraguay 
is a co -signatory of at least two of these initiatives with the EU and other Members, and that is why 
we wish to express our concern that this measure was notified almost one month after its adoption. 
Could the EU please explain:  
 
a. Why the notification was delayed and what precautions are being taken in order to comply 
with the early notification commitments?  
b. Whether there are plans to extend the measure?  
c. Whether any other EU member State is considering implementing similar measures?  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Canada  
AG-IMS ID 101076 : Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Canada last submitted a Table NF:1 notification covering calendar 
year 2017 ( G/AG/N/CAN/130 ) in 2019. Please provide an update on the steps being taken by Canada 
to submit its overdue notifications in this area.   
4  EXPORT  COMPETITION  
4.1  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 101008 : Question by European Union  
Notification G/STR/N/19/AUS circulated on 2 May 2021  
Australia has provided the following information in section III.A:  
"In March 2021, the NSW Government commenced a review and consultation into rice vesting in 
NSW to determine whether the vesting arrangements are delivering a net benefit to the NSW 
communit y, and to inform whether vesting should continue beyond the current rice -vesting 
proclamation expiry date of  30 June 2022. " 
Could Australia provide a reply whether vesting will continue beyond the current rice vesting 
proclamation expiry date of 30 June 20 22 since this information was not included in the relevant 
section of the questionnaire?  
How does Australia ensure that a possible prolongation of the NSW Rice Marketing Board does not 
contradict the Nairobi Ministerial Decision provisions related to minim izing trade distorting effects of 
STEs and their impacts on displacing or impeding the exports of another Member?  
Could Australia explain how the three objectives as stated in the section II.A, namely:  
The objectives of the Rice Marketing Board NSW include : 
(1) to encourage the development of a competitive domestic market for rice;  
(2) to ensure the best possible returns from NSW -grown rice sold outside Australia, based on the 
quality differentials or attributes of Australian -grown rice;  
(3) to liaise with and represent the interests of all NSW rice growers in relation to the Board's 
functions and objects,   
Can be achieved through a monopolistic market structure forces?  G/AG/W/ 221 
 
- 28 - 
 
  4.2  India  
AG-IMS ID 101009 : Question by European Union  
No replies to the Questionnaire circulated on 3 December 2021.  
Can India indicate the quantity of sugar, skimmed milk and rice exported during the 
2020/21  marketing year (total and with subsidies) and the total amount spent on subsidy for these 
exports (by both national and provincial authorities?  
The internal support of India for sugar and its sugar export subsidies have been ruled illegal at the 
first step of ruling at WTO (WTO Panel ru ling on India 's measures concerning sugar and sugarcane 
in the disputes brought by Australia, Brazil and Guatemala).  
Could India explain why no replies were provided to the Export subsidies part of the Questionnaire 
for sugar and sugarcane, given the WTO P anel ruling on these measures?  
4.3  United Kingdom  
AG-IMS ID 101056 : Question by Brazil  
Brazil would like to consult UK on the "Slaughter  Incentive Payment Schem e (SIPS)".  
According to information from the UK 's Government  website  
(https://www.gov.uk/guidance/slaughter -incentive -payment -scheme -sips), SIPS is a financial 
subsidy for pig slaughterers to work extra shifts, increasing the  amount of animals slaughtered. The 
processed swine  meat should be destined for export or kept in private  storage, in which case it would 
benefit from aid under  another program - Private Storage Aid (PSA ). 
Therefore, payments under SIPS seems to be contingent  upon exports. However, in 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.16/Add.1 , there is no information regarding the issue.  In the light of the above, 
could the UK:  
a. Confirm on whether it has provided an export  subsidy;  
b. Inform how much it has paid under SIPS in its export subsidy component.  
c. Provide a full and detailed answer to the export  subsidy section of the EC questionnaire.  
 
__________