WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/94 
7 May 2012 
 (12-2490) 
Committee on Agriculture Original:   English 
 
 
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
 
Compilation of responses to questions raised during the Committee 
on Agriculture meeting on 21 March 20121 
   The present document compiles the responses recei ved in writing by the Secretariat to the 
questions raised in document G/AG/W/93 as well as follow-up comments made by Members during 
the Review Process. 
  Outstanding responses will be circulated in addenda to this document as soon as they are 
provided by Members.  A comprehensive version of the present compilation will be issued thereafter. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
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/94 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Table of Contents 
 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 6  
A.  OBSTRUCTION OF MARKET ACCESS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  ........................................... 6  
B.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ............................................................ 6  
C.  EGYPT 'S IMPORT BAN ON COTTON  ............................................................................................. 7  
D.  INDIA 'S EXPORT BAN ON COTTON  .............................................................................................. 9  
E.  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C) ............................................................... 10  
F.  CANADA ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  .......................................................................... 10  
G.  BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC PROGRAMMES  .......................................................................................... 12  
H.  CHINA 'S COTTON RESERVES PURCHASING SYSTEM  ................................................................. 12  
I.  ECUADOR 'S IMPORT LICENSING OF CERTAIN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  ............ 13  
J.  INDIA 'S PROGRAMME TO WAIVE AGRICULTURAL DEBTS  ........................................................ 13  
K.  INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  .............................................................................................................................. ... 14 
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .......... 15  
A.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) ........................ 15  
1.  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/174) ....................................................................................................... 15 
2.  Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/35) .................................................................................................. 16  
3.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/63) .................................................................................................... 17  
B.  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) ......................................... 17  
1.  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/45) ................................................................................. 17  
(i)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 17 
(ii)  Trigger calculations .......................................................................................................... ........ 18 
2.  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/92) ..................................................................................... 18  
(i)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 18 
(ii)  Trigger calculations .......................................................................................................... ........ 19 
C.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ................................................................ 19  
1.  Albania (G/AG/N/ALB/6) ....................................................................................................... 19 
(a)  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) ............................................................................ 19  
(b)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 20  
(i)  Direct payments:  payments for relief under natural disasters................................................. 20  
(ii)  Direct payments:  payments under regional assistance programmes ...................................... 20  
2.  Bahrain (G/AG/N/BHR/6) ...................................................................................................... 2 0 
3.  Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/20) .................................................................................................. 20  G/AG/W/94 
Page 4 
 
 
  (i)  Green Box – General services:  other ....................................................................................... 20  
(ii)  Amber Box – De minimis ........................................................................................................ .. 21 
4.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ........................................................................................................  22 
(a)  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) ............................................................................ 22  
(b)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 22  
(i)  General services:  research ................................................................................................... ... 22 
(ii)  Domestic food aid ............................................................................................................. ........ 22 
(c)  Amber Box ..................................................................................................................... ........... 22  
(i)  Other product-specific AMS/EMS ............................................................................................. 22  
(ii)  De minimis .................................................................................................................... ............ 23  
5.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/86) .................................................................................................... 23  
(i)  Amber Box – Other product-specific AMS/EMS ....................................................................... 23  
(ii)  Amber Box – De minimis ........................................................................................................ .. 25 
6.  China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) ....................................................................................................... 2 6 
(a)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 26  
(i)  General services:   other ...................................................................................................... ...... 26 
(ii)  Public stockholding for food security  purposes ........................................................................ 26  
(iii) Direct payments:  decoupled income support ........................................................................... 28  
(iv)  Direct payments:  payments for re lief from natural disasters .................................................. 29  
(v)  Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes .............................................. 30  
(b)  Amber Box ..................................................................................................................... ........... 31  
(i)  Market pri ce support........................................................................................................... ...... 31 
(ii)  Market price support:  e ligible production ............................................................................... 31  
(iii) Other product-specific AMS/EMS ............................................................................................. 31  
(iv)  Non-product-specific AMS ...................................................................................................... .. 32 
(v)  De minimis .................................................................................................................... ............ 33  
7.  Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/48) ................................................................................................. 33  
8.  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) .......................................................................................................... .. 34 
(a)  Green Box – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters .............................. 34  
(b)  Development programmes – Input subsidies ............................................................................ 35  
(c)  Amber Box ..................................................................................................................... ........... 37  
(i)  Constituent data and methodology (AGST) .............................................................................. 37  
(ii)  Market pri ce support........................................................................................................... ...... 38 
(iii) Market price support:  e ligible production ............................................................................... 39  
(iv)  Negative suppor t amounts ...................................................................................................... ... 39 
9.  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/43/Corr.1) ..................................................................... 40   G/AG/W/94 
 Page 5 
 
 
  10.  Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/15) ..................................................................................................... 4 0 
11.  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) .................................................................................................. 40  
12.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/AG/N/VCT/2) .......................................................... 41  
(i)  Green Box – General services:  research ................................................................................. 41  
(ii)  Green Box – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters ............................. 41  
13.  Togo (G/AG/N/TGO/2) ...........................................................................................................  41 
14.  Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/2/Rev.1) .............................................................................................. 41  
D.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) ........................................ 42  
1.  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/33) ................................................................................................ 42  
(i)  Green Box – General services:  marketing and promotion services  ........................................ 42  
(ii)  Development programmes – Investment subsidies  ................................................................... 43  
(iii) Classification of measures  ........................................................................................................ 44  
2.  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/45) ................................................................................................... 45  
(i)  Green Box – Environmental programmes  ................................................................................ 45  
(ii)  Transparency issues (delayed notification)  .............................................................................. 45  
E.  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1-ES:3) .......................................................... 45  
1.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/37) ................................................................................................. 45  
III. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER AGENDA ITEM I.B (ii) ......................................................... 46  
1.  Questions by Switzerland in relation to G/AG/N/CAN/89 .................................................. 46  
Annex 1 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 47  
Annex 2 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 48  
Annex 3 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 49  
Annex 4 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 50  
Annex 5 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 51  
Annex 6 ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 52  
 G/AG/W/94 
Page 6 
 
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. OBSTRUCTION OF MARKET ACCESS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  
1. The Argentine delegation would like to refer b ack to the statement it made under this same 
agenda item at the 64th regular meeting on 17 November 2011.  As delegations may recall, the 
statement expressed concern over the growing use of impor t restrictions in the form of regulations that 
have no scientific or technical justification.  Arge ntina appreciates all the support received at the last 
meeting and concludes that this is a relevant issue worthy of the Committee's attention given its effect 
on market access.  The technical measures in question have a decisive impact on trade flows and are 
responsible for developing countries' integration, or non-integration, as exporters, into international 
trade, which for these countri es is mainly agriculture-based. 
2. Argentina believes that this issue should be a ddressed in a cooperative spirit, its aim being to 
resolve the problem, not simply discuss it.  With th is in mind, Argentina once again urges Members to 
comply with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary  Measures (SPS) and the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), as well as the standards of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, the World Organization for Animal Health, and the International Plant Protection 
Convention. 
3. Lastly, the non-application of the aforementi oned Agreements and standards has a significant 
bearing not only on the present, but  on the future, as the current s ituation would undermine, perhaps 
completely, the outcome of the Doha Round ne gotiations on agricultural market access and the 
duty-free and quota-free access for agricultural products that is granted to least developed countries. 
Follow-up:  The European Union expressed apprecia tion for Argentina's intent to raise the 
Committee's awareness on issues of con cern to it.  As a matter of principle, it was good to hear that 
Argentina was concerned by measures that restr ict imports in a manner inconsistent with 
international obligations.  The European Union sh ared Argentina's view regarding the importance of 
observing the provisions of all WTO agreements.  In  this context, the European Union recalled that 
all Members had the right to apply TBT and SPS meas ures, provided that these were justified under 
the relevant WTO agreements.  Both the European  Union and the United States considered that 
ensuring good regulatory practice through trans parency, inclusiveness and accountability was of 
utmost importance.  The European Union suggested that topics of relevance to the work of specific 
WTO committees be discussed within the concern ed committees in order to enable a useful and 
efficient dialogue between experts.  The European Union was committed to actively participate in the 
work of the SPS and TBT Committees, which it cons idered relevant to discuss  the issues raised by 
Argentina.  Switzerland echoed the European Union remarks. 
B. COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
4. Questions by: 
(a) Canada:  Canada appreciates the updates that Costa Rica has provided at past 
meetings of the Committee regarding this issue.  However, Canada reiterates the 
very serious concerns expressed about Cost a Rica's continuing violations of 
Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agri culture.  What concrete steps has 
Costa Rica taken since the last meeting of the Committee to rapidly bring itself 
into compliance with the Ag reement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (b) United States:  The United States stro ngly urges Costa Rica to reduce its 
domestic rice support to be within its WTO commitment level.  The United 
States and other Members have raised Co sta Rica's breaching of its Aggregate 
Measurement of Support (AMS) commitment on numerous occasions in the 
Committee on Agriculture.  Unfortunately, this breach of international rules has 
not only continued, but has increased.  In early 2011, Costa Rica assured WTO 
Members that steps were being taken to reform its domestic rice policies with 
the goals of (i) complying with its WTO agricultural subsidy limits and (ii) providing targeted technical training and assistance in support of the 
small-scale rice producers.  In response to subsequently requested updates, 
Costa Rica has not provided any encouragi ng information.  The United States 
requests Costa Rica to respond to the following questions: 
- Please provide details on concrete actions that Costa Rica has 
undertaken since the January 2011 proposed rice policy adjustment. 
- Please provide any factual information regarding intended and possible 
unintended consequences of the continued high subsidy rate for rice 
production in Costa Rica. 
- The United States understands that a 2010 judicial ruling in Costa Rica 
mandated a minimum price (i.e., applied administered price) for rice of 
US$602 per tonne.  Please provide details on any developments related to this judicial ruling since it was announced, and its impact on 
Costa Rica's ability to meet its obligations. 
With regard to Costa Rica's domestic support obligations, the process to correct AMS levels 
exceeding the maximum bound level has been dela yed due to a judicial proceeding that set a 
price level of approximately US$600 per tonne, from the beginning of 2011, as a 
precautionary measure.  Costa Rica is not in a position to give this Committee an estimate of 
when it will be able to bring its AMS levels into line with its commitments. 
Follow-up:  The United States queried whether concrete changes had taken place since January 2011 
to address the breach.  Costa Rica  confirmed that some actions had  been taken but that no specific 
timelines could be indicated for the moment.  As  a major rice growing country, Pakistan expressed 
concerns about Costa Rica's increa ses in Current Total AMS.  Paki stan sought clarification on the 
extent to which inflation was behind such increases and asked Costa Rica to share any views it might 
have on the applicability of Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture in  these circumstances.  
Pakistan further asked Costa Rica to supply details on producer prices as well as international prices 
at a later stage in order to enable the Committee to gain a better understanding of the situation at 
hand.  In this regard, Australia, Japan and the Unite d States endorsed the general thrust of Pakistan's 
follow-up comments.  The United States underlined that some of the unintended consequences of 
Costa Rica's policies might be domestic while others might be international. 
C. EGYPT 'S IMPORT BAN ON COTTON  
5. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  the European Union has recently heard that the import ban 
on cotton has been removed.  Could Egypt confirm that information and 
indicate whether such measures are going to be considered again in the future?  G/AG/W/94 
Page 8 
 
 
  In this respect, the European Union reca lls the importance of compliance with 
WTO agreements.2 
(b) United States:  The United States would like to follow-up on the questions asked 
at the November 2011 meeting regarding Egypt's action to ban cotton imports 
for the 2011 season until the local cro p is sold (2011 Ministerial Decree 
No. 1864).  While recognizing the difficult  situation of Egypt's domestic cotton 
market, the Decree appears to have provi ded virtually no benefit to Egypt's 
textile industry because the clause concerning importing for processing and re-export has not appeared feasible to implement.  The United States continues 
to have serious concerns about this ban and has the following questions: 
- What will be the end date of the import ban? - How is the ban consistent with Egypt's WTO commitments? 
On 25 October 2011, the Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade and the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Land Reclamation issued Decree No. 1864/2011 imposing a temporary 
import prohibition on cotton.  This Decree was subsequently amended on 22 November 2011 
by virtue of Decree No. 652/2011 issued by the Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade and 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, setting up exceptions.  Thus, the temporary import prohibition became a temporary restriction. 
The temporary import restriction on cotton mainta ined by Egypt was consistent with its WTO 
commitments, according to Article XI.2(c)(ii) of GATT 1994, which grants Members the right to adopt import restrictions on agricultu ral products that are necessary to remove a 
temporary surplus by making the surplus availa ble to certain groups of domestic consumers 
free of charge or at a price below the current market level.  The following reasons explain the 
grounds for the Egyptian decrees: 
- The decision to impose a temporary import r estriction for cotton was determined for 
the 2011 harvest season, which started in October 2011 and will end at the end of 
April 2012.  Thus, the measure is limited in time. 
- The Egyptian cotton crop doubled from 2.5 million quintals in 2010, to 
4 million quintals in 2011, not to mention the high stock levels remaining from the 
year 2010, which were estimated at 500,000 quintals.  In addition, the demand for 
cotton in the local market fell by more than 60 per cent from the previous season. 
- In order to remove the surplus, the quintal of cotton was sold at L.E. 850, whilst the 
international market value was L.E. 950 per quintal. 
Ministerial Decree No. 652 resulted in the admission of 800,000 quintals of cotton, in 
addition to 500,000 quintals that were im ported before issuing Decree No. 1864, which 
resulted in total imports of 1.3 million quintals  during the current cotton season, compared to 
2 million quintals during the previous cotton season.  Consequently, it is clear that the temporary import restriction did not affect the importation in full. 
In light of the analysis of Ministerial Decre es No. 1864 and No. 652, it appears that they are 
not in violation of Article XI.2(c)(ii) of GATT 1994 that gives Members the right to impose import restrictions under certain conditions th at Egypt has satisfied.  Moreover, as per the 
                                                      
2 The question contained in paragraph 5-6 of G/AG/W/93 was modified by the European Union.    G/AG/W/94 
 Page 9 
 
 
  information Egypt received from Cairo on 20 Ma rch 2012, Decree No. 1864 was cancelled by 
virtue of Decree No. 438 that was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture on 17 March 2012. 
Follow-up:  The European Union and the United St ates welcomed Egypt's confirmation that the ban 
had already been removed.  The United States observed that the effects of the measure could be 
potentially damaging on world markets.  Furthermore,  there were important considerations linked to 
transparency and predictability which were at the core of a rules-based organization such as the 
WTO.  The European Union flagged its intentions  to follow-up on Egypt's specific references to 
Article XI of GATT 1994 at a later stage. 
D. INDIA 'S EXPORT BAN ON COTTON  
6. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  As a result of recent developments, the original questions 
were revised as follows:3 
- Could India clarify the current state-of-play in relation to the ban on 
cotton exports?  Has the ban been removed or suspended? 
- Could India provide information on the reasons behind this ban as well 
as explain its compliance with WTO agreements? 
(b) United States:  The United States notes that India has once again applied an 
export ban on cotton. 
- Please provide details on the application of the ban, including when the 
ban will be lifted. 
- Please describe the trade-related impa ct that the measure will have on 
the global cotton market, particularly in light of the disruption by 
India's previous ban. 
- Given the effects on the global cotton market, what opportunities did 
India provide Members to comment on the ban before it was 
implemented? 
A prohibition on the export of cotton was imposed through Notification 
No. 102 (RE-2010)/2009-14, dated 5 Marc h 2012. Subsequently, Notification 
No. 106 (RE-2010)/ 2009-14 was issued on 12 Ma rch 2012 removing this prohibition.  The 
prohibition is covered by Article XI of GATT 1994. 
Follow-up:  The European Union and the United States welcomed India's confirmation that the ban 
had been removed, reiterating the observations made above concerning the importance of 
transparency, predictability as well as the poten tial impacts of such measures on international 
markets.  The United States also took note of India' s assertion that the prohibition was in line with 
WTO rules. 
 
                                                      
3 The question contained in paragraph 8 of G/AG/W/93 was modified by the European Union.  G/AG/W/94 
Page 10 
 
 
  E. SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C)  
7. Questions by:  
(a) European Union:  Following the replies provided by Switzerland to the questions 
by the European Union and New Zealand at the September and November 2011 
meetings of the Committee, the European  Union still maintains its doubts on the 
compliance of the measure in question with Article 9 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  The compulsory contributio n on milk is collected by a private 
organization but, as Switzerland states in its reply from the November 2011 meeting, "… the Federal Council's decision … subjects non-members to measures 
decided upon by IP Lait".   The European Union considers that this constitutes 
"governmental action, whether or not a char ge on the public account is involved"  
in the sense of Article 9.1(c) of the Ag reement on Agriculture.  The European 
Union considers that the Swiss measure requires notification against export 
subsidy commitments. 
(b) New Zealand:  At the September 2011 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, 
New Zealand expressed concerns about th e Swiss compulsory levy on milk 
production to support 
"relief on the butter market ".  New Zealand understands 
that the Swiss Government will review the levy order prior to its expiry on 
30 April 2013.  Notwithstanding Swit zerland's reply on 17 November 20114, 
New Zealand is of the view that the levy order contravenes Switzerland's WTO commitments and would urge Switzerl and to bring the review forward. 
The measure at issue is a private measure.  Th e federal authorities do not receive any monies 
from this contribution of one centime per kilo of  milk marketed to support relief measures on 
the milk-fat market, nor do they prescribe how it is to be used.  Extension to non-members is 
simply a form of assistance to private regulation to avoid a private measure from being 
undermined by free-riders.  It is applicable until 30 April 2013.  Switzerland considers itself 
to be in full compliance with its WTO obligations. 
Follow-up:  The European Union and New Ze aland considered that Switzerland's present response 
was similar to the one supplied on  previous occasions.  Both Memb ers remained yet to be convinced 
about the conformity of such government interven tion with the provisions of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and were looking forward to continuing discussions on this matter.   
F. CANADA ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  
8. Canadian ice cream producers have benefite d from the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative 
since 2009.  New Zealand understands that this is a subsidy programme which encourages ice 
cream manufacturers to substitute domestic dairy ingredients for imported dairy ingredients by 
offering discounted milk/cream as an input for i ce cream that contains 100 per cent of Canadian 
dairy ingredients.  New Zealand has sought fu rther information about the Ice Cream Promotion 
Initiative at the 57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd and 64th meetings of the Committee on Agriculture.  In 
response, Canada has stated that this is a purely commercial arrangement between Dairy 
Farmers of Canada and ice cream producers.  Ho wever, Canada has also acknowledged that the 
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corp oration, calculates the pooling returns and 
sharing of promotion costs related to the progr amme.  Furthermore, page 9 of the CDC's latest 
Annual Report 2010-2011 states: 
                                                      
4 Paragraph 12 of G/AG/W/92 refers.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 11 
 
 
  "The CDC chairs the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) 
and in this capacity, apprises the committee on matters of interest or concern that 
require resolution and, when necessary, pr oposes various solutions, alternatives or 
recommendations to enhance orderly and efficient marketing with an eye to 
avoiding deficit or surplus milk productio n.  The CDC performs a similar role for 
the Eastern Canadian Milk Pool (P5)  and the Western Milk Pool (WMP)." 
9. To date, Canada has not provided any transparency about this programme, citing 
concerns about a confidentiality agreement betw een the CDC and Canadian dairy producers.  
New Zealand continues to seek furt her details about the nature of  this programme and the role 
of the CDC and provincial marketing boards in  relation to it.  New Zealand considers it 
legitimate to request Canada to provide grea ter transparency around this import replacement 
programme given that both a Crown corporation and provincial marketing boards governed by 
federal and provincial legislation play important roles in its administration and 
decision-making.  Particular questions are: 
(a) What is the function of the Milk Pooling Agreement Supervisory bodies in 
relation to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative? 
As already noted in Canada’s response to the questions posed by New-Zealand at the 
57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd and 64th Committee on Agriculture, the Ice Cream Promotion 
Initiative is a private contractual agreement,  between the Dairy Farmers of Canada, a 
non-governmental organization, and indivi dual ice cream processors.  The CDC has 
no part in determining the terms and conditions of the Ice Cream Promotion 
Initiative.  As the secretariat of the WMP Agreement and the Agreement on the 
Eastern Canadian Milk Pooling, its sole role is to perform the pooling calculations 
each month. 
(b) What is the function of the provincial marketing boards in relation to the Ice 
Cream Promotion Initiative? 
On 20 March 2009, the CMSMC adopted the following motion:  "that marketing 
boards from the ten Canadian provinces agree to create a fund to share the costs 
associated with the administration of the ice cream initiative effective as of 
1 January 2009" . 
(c) What is the total value (Can$) of the pooling returns? 
The CDC is unable to provide the request ed data.  This information is of a 
confidential commercial nature and is pr ovided to the CDC on the understanding by 
the participants that it will not be shared. 
(d) What is a breakdown of the promotion co sts since the initiative was launched? 
The CDC does not receive a breakdown of the promotion initiative costs by ice cream 
manufacturer.  It calculates the pooling retu rns and provincial sharing of promotion 
costs related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative which are included in the CDC’s 
aggregate revenue and cost sharing component of the pools. 
Follow-up:  New Zealand expressed some frustratio n at Canada's response which was the same as 
that supplied on previous occasions, despite efforts by New Zealand to table more specific questions. G/AG/W/94 
Page 12 
 
 
  G. BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC PROGRAMMES  
10. The United States understands that Brazil's Prêmio Equalizador Pago ao Produtor  
(PEPRO), Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto  (PEP), and Prêmio de Risco para Aquisição de 
Produto Agricola oriundo de Contra to Privado de Opação de Venda  (PROP) programmes 
generally provide support to covered products by paying the difference between the minimum 
support price and actual prices for product as determined through public auction.  The United 
States also understands that all production in e ligible States is eligible for sale through the 
public auction, but not all States necessarily participate.  Further, the United States 
understands that the programmes have remai ned essentially unchanged since Brazil's 
notification for 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 (G/AG/N/BRA/26).  Based on many reports regarding 
Brazil's increasing levels of domestic s upport, including through these programmes and 
subsidised credit, the United States is co ncerned about whether Brazil has exceeded the 
de minimis  limit for certain products subsequently to its notification for 2005/2006.  These 
concerns highlight the importance of Members maintaining up-to-date notifications to the 
Committee, which ensures appropriate transpar ency of Members' domestic support levels. 
(a) The United States remains interested in  the more recent years' accounting by 
Brazil and developed this question regardi ng the post-2005/2006 years.  This 
issue may be partially answered via Brazil's recent notification 
(G/AG/N/BRA/27) for three years.  None theless, the United States requests 
Brazil to provide meaningful explanations regarding just notified data, including 
elaborating on details concerning budgetary expenditures for at least these three 
newly-notified years. 
The elaboration of notifications is a comp lex process.  The programmes mentioned in 
this question operate in different ways.  PEPRO is notified as "non-exempt direct 
payments",  while PEP and PROP are notified as "other product specific support" .  
Eligibility differs according to th e structure of the programmes. 
Brazil considers that its most recent domest ic support notification covering marketing 
years 2006 to 2009 clarifies many of the points raised by the United States.  The Brazilian delegation invites the United States to carefully analyse this notification.  In 
case the United States has further questions related to the most recent domestic 
support notification, Brazil will be more than  willing to provide in-depth responses in 
the next meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.   
(b) Please provide data on Brazil's budgetary expenditures on PEPRO, PEP, and 
PROP for 2009/2010, for which the United States understands that data are equally available at this time. 
For 2009/2010 crop year, there are no budgetary expenditures on PROP.  The 
budgetary expenditures on PEPRO a nd PEP are shown in Annex 1. 
H. C
HINA 'S COTTON RESERVES PURCHASING SYSTEM  
11. The United States thanks China for the responses provided during the November 2011 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  The United States has some follow-up questions: 
(a) Please confirm what cotton is eligible for purchase under this programme?  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 13 
 
 
  When market prices are below the reserve prices, all national cotton that meets the 
quality requirements can be purchased. 
(b) Please explain how cotton purchased  under the programme is sold? 
The Government entrusts the administrati on of the Cotton Reserve Authority to sell 
the cotton openly in markets when needed. 
I. ECUADOR 'S IMPORT LICENSING OF CERTAIN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
12. The United States appreciates Ecuador's respon se to questions from the November 2011 
meeting, though not all of the questions were  answered.  Please confirm the existence and 
enforcement of an official governmental memorandum (Memorandum No. MAGAP-SFG-2011-
1757-M, 19 October 2011) which effectively limits the importation of certain agricultural and 
food products in favour of similar products produced domestically in Ecuador. 
13. The United States has questions regarding Ecuador's Ministerial Decree No. 172, dated 
27 April 2011.  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."   Please define what is meant by "exceptional" in this 
context and what the specific criteria are for making such a determination. 
14. Article 2 of the Decree notes that "Exceptionally, the Under- Secretariat of Technical 
Services of this Ministry may grant licences an d permits to import these products, following a 
technical assessment report issued by the Under-Secretariat of Livestock Development at MAGAP.  
The Under-Secretariat of Livestock Development to issue the technical report must set import 
quotas for milk and its derivatives."  
(a) Please 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. 
(b) Regarding the latter point, how are th ese established and maintained in a 
manner that is consistent wi th Ecuador's WTO obligations? 
Ecuador would like to reiterate its responses concerning the import licensing of certain food 
and agricultural products, as reflected in document G/AG/W/92.
5 
J. INDIA 'S PROGRAMME TO WAIVE AGRICULTURAL DEBTS  
15. The United States understands that India im plemented the Agricultural Debt Waiver 
and Debt Relief Scheme (ADWDRS) in 2008.  This programme has provided US$10 billion in 
debt forgiveness for farmers since 2008.  Under what  classification of support does India plan to 
notify this programme? 
This was a one-time programme which has been  closed.  It will be accounted for in the 
notification of the relevant period. 
                                                      
5 Paragraph 16 of G/AG/W/92 refers. G/AG/W/94 
Page 14 
 
 
  K. INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  
16. The United States understands that the Indonesi an Ministry of Agriculture periodically 
establishes import quantities for beef and ot her livestock and dairy products, which is 
correspondingly managed via the issuance of required import permits for these products.  In 
addition, there are selected poultry products for which the Ministry of Agriculture will not even 
issue import permits.  The United States understands that Indonesia's WTO scheduled 
commitments do not include such quantitative import restrictions.  Furthermore, the United 
States is concerned that the Government of Indonesia may be planning management of fruit 
and vegetable product imports via a similar quant itative import permit system.  The United 
States requests that the Government of Indonesi a provide responses to the following questions: 
(a) Does the Government of Indonesia currentl y utilise an import permit system for 
beef and other livestock and dairy products ?  If so, please explain this system. 
The importation of beef and other livestock  and dairy products is regulated by the 
Decree of the Ministry of Trade No. 24/2011 on Import and Export of Animals and 
Animal Products that came into effect on 1 October 2011.  The objective of the 
Decree is to fulfil the need for foodstuffs and to support food security objectives.   
Imports will be conducted if the domestic production and s upply of the products have 
not been sufficient to meet public consum ption at affordable prices.  Animal and 
animal products that can be imported are lis ted in Annex I and II of the Decree.  The 
import permits for the above-mentioned products  will be issued by the Ministry of 
Trade based on recommendations fro m the Ministry of Agriculture. 
(b) Please clarify if certain products in the poultry category (HS 0207) are not 
eligible to obtain import permits, and hence, certain poultry products are unable 
to be imported into Indonesia. 
The eligibility to import poultry products is based on the Decree of the Ministry of 
Agriculture No. 50/2011 dated 7 September 2011.  Annex II of the Decree contains a 
list of products that can be imported, i.e. meat and edible offal of ducks and turkeys, fresh, or chilled and frozen (HS Codes 0207.11.00.00, 0207.12.00.00, 0207.24.00.00 
and 0207.25.00). 
(c) What are the criteria for the issuance of the above mentioned import permits 
(under (a) and (b)), and are these publicly available? 
The import permit for beef and other livestoc k, dairy and poultry products is issued 
by the Ministry of Trade based on a recommendation by the Ministry of Agriculture.  As stipulated in the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 50/2011 
(recommendation for importing carcasses, meat and offal), Decree No. 51/2011 
(recommendation for importing animal seed or breeding) and Decree No. 52/2011 (recommendation for importing livestock), th e issuance of recommendations further 
depends on an assessment upon the completion of all administrative and technical 
requirements in countries of origin and business units.   
The import permit is publicly available onlin e through the Indonesian National Single 
Window (INSW).  In cases where importation takes place through points-of-entry for 
which an import permit cannot be obtained from the INSW, a copy of the import 
permit shall be manually delivered  to the related institution.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (d) Is the Government of Indonesia's issuance of the above noted import permits in 
any way limited beyond transparent and objective criteria?  For example, is 
issuance based on certain quantitative assessments? 
The issuance of import permits is based on an alysis of domestic demand, particularly 
for beef.  The annual analysis is conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and 
discussed by the relevant ministries. 
(e) Can the Government of Indonesia give a ssurances that fresh and processed fruit 
and vegetable products will not be quanti tatively limited or managed under an 
import permit system? 
Decree No. 3/2012 of the Ministry of Agriculture stipulates that eligibility to import 
fresh and processed fruit and vegetables is based on the analysis of national 
production, supply and demand,  taking account of the objectives of food security, 
food safety, human and environmental health  and harvest time.  The Decree also 
regulates the administrative and technical requirements to obtain a recommendation to import horticulture products. 
Based on the study by the Ministry of Ag riculture, over the last three years, the 
increased importation of agricultural products , the frequency of quarantine plant pests 
entering the Indonesian territory has in creased.  Consequently, the Ministry of 
Agriculture (through Decrees No. 88/2011, No. 89/2011, which are further amended 
by Decrees No. 15/2012 and No. 16/2012)  placed more stringent technical 
requirements on plant origin for imported fresh and processed foods and limited the 
ports of entry for those products.  The ports  of entry (Seaport of Medan, Surabaya and 
Makassar and Airport of Jakarta) and the free ports in Free Economic Zones (Batam, Bintan and Karimun) will be open for the importation of fruit and vegetables into 
Indonesia on 19 June 2012. 
Follow-up:  Australia, Canada and New Zealand shared the US concerns.  Australia and 
New Zealand deemed Indonesia's measures as non-tariff barriers having adverse impacts on 
agricultural trade.  New Zealand observed that its b eef trade reduced significantly as a result of the 
quantitative import restrictions applied on livestock pr oducts at the Indonesian border.  Australia and 
New Zealand expressed worries that similar import regul ations were also being contemplated in the 
horticultural area, which was of major interest to  exporters.  While agreeing with Indonesia that 
sanitary and food safety regulations should be followe d, the United States sought further details on 
the list of products that were allowed to be impor ted, and those that were omitted and hence subject to 
a de facto quantitative restriction.  The United St ates equally enquired about the tonnage capacity of 
the authorised ports-of-entry and thei r ability to accommodate all imports. 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
1. Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/174) 
17. Question by New Zealand:  New Zealand notes that, in 2010, Japan notified tariff quota 
underfill for a number of dairy products.  This continues a trend over a number of years, as summarised in Annex 2.  In response to previo us questions on tariff quota underfill, most 
recently at the 23 September 2010 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Japan has claimed 
that tariff quota underfill is a result of market demand.  If this is the case, would Japan consider G/AG/W/94 
Page 16 
 
 
  moving these products to a tariff only regime?  This would remove the need for tariff quota 
administration, which can distort normal market flows. 
As Japan has already mentioned in Septem ber 2010, under the tariff quota system, Members 
are committed to providing access opportunities for products, but they are not committed to 
fulfilling the tariff quotas.  Although Japan h as been providing current access opportunities 
every fiscal year, the tariff quotas cited in th e question have remained unfilled because the 
total volume of applications from the private sector was less than the tariff quota volume.   
Japan’s TRQ system for dairy products was introduced as part of the Uruguay Round 
agreements.  Japan does not consider it necessar y to change the current TRQ system just 
because these tariff quotas are underfilled. 
2. Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/35) 
18. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) What is the reason for a substantially higher utilization of the tariff quota for 
sheep meat in 2007 compared to earlier years? 
The considerable increase in the use of  the tariff quota for sheep meat in 2007 
compared with previous years is due to the following reasons: 
- The import prices for sheep meat reco rded in 2007, which were very low 
compared to those for 2006;  and 
- Sheep meat imports which, on account of their very low price in 2007, 
partially replaced imports of bovine meat. 
(b) What is the reason for the increase in the in-quota imports of rice in 2007?  The 
tariff quota in that year was fully utili sed, contrary to lower utilization rates in 
previous years. 
Regarding the reason for the increase in the import quota for rice in 2007 and the use 
of the entire tariff quota compared with a lowe r rate of use in previous years, it should 
be pointed out that: 
- In 2007, a year of drought in  Morocco, the areas of land under rice 
cultivation showed a substantial decline,  of the order of 32 per cent compared 
with 2005 and 14 per cent compared w ith 2006.  In addition, the rice sector 
was also affected in 2007 by a pers istent decline in domestic production, 
which fell from 43,000 tonnes in 2005 to 34,000 tonnes in 2006 and 33,000 tonnes in 2007;  and 
- In order to make up for the declin e in domestic rice production, Morocco's 
total rice imports increased to 11, 148 tonnes in 2007, compared with 
2,193 tonnes in 2006 and 2,848 tonnes in 2005.  This increase was mainly 
reflected in higher imports of rice, principally from relatively low-cost 
sources.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 17 
 
 
  3. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/63) 
19. Question by the European Union:  From the information provided by Norway in 
response to questions posed by the European Union during the 63rd meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture, it is obvious that the Norwegia n auctioning system for distributing tariff quotas 
results in very high and variable levels of actual  protection for some products such as beef and 
sheep meat (auctioning prices equivalent to average tariffs of 45-97 per cent during 20086).  
However, other tariff quotas are on ly utilised to a very small exte nt or not at all, resulting in 
very low auctioning price levels (typically 0.01 NOK/kg).  This is the case for the Norwegian 
tariff quotas covering meat of swine, meat of fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, meat of 
turkeys, red cabbage, butter and hens' eggs during 2010.  Several of these tariff quotas have 
been under-utilised for many years.  Thus, it seems that the high in-quota tariffs are too high to 
allow for meaningful imports within the tariff  quotas.  The European Union notes that in 
response to questions it posed during the 62nd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Norway 
stated that: 
"Thirdly, to the contrary of what the Eur opean Union is indicating, the auctioning 
system does not add to price variability in th e domestic market, except, theoretically, 
through very small indirect effects of increa sing the marginal supply of the product 
in question.  These marginal effects wo uld be there regardless of administration 
methods." 
20. Hence, it would seem that lowering the No rwegian in-quota tariffs would not pose a 
significant threat to domestic producers.  On th e contrary, it would only result in very small 
indirect effects of increasing marginal supply.  It might also contribute to a more varied supply 
of the goods in question to the benefit of Norwegian consumers.  Is Norway considering 
reducing or eliminating the relatively high in-quo ta tariffs for the tariff quotas concerned to 
allow meaningful market a ccess within the tariff quotas? 
Norway remains committed to a successful c onclusion of the DDA, in line with the Doha 
mandate.  In light of proposed disciplines on in-q uota tariffs in the latest negotiating texts, 
Norway would anticipate reductions to in- quota tariffs in a final DDA agreement on 
agriculture.  Unilateral market  access liberalisation beyond what is already applied is not 
imminent. 
B. SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/45)  
(i) Transparency issues 
21. Question by Australia:  Australia notes that  the Republic of Korea has in some years 
applied a price-based special safeguard against products such as whea t starch at very low 
volumes (for example, 75 kg in 2009).  Does the Republic of Korea consider that this level of 
imports constitutes a surge in imports? 
                                                      
6 Based on the average unit values of the impor ts taking place within the tariff quotas for each 
individual tariff line actually imported within the tari ff quotas (according to No rwegian data provided in 
response to questions posed by the European Union during the 63rd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture). G/AG/W/94 
Page 18 
 
 
  The Republic of Korea has applied price-based special safeguards against some products such 
as wheat starch in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the 
Customs Act of the Republic of Korea.  A pri ce-based special safeguard  becomes applicable 
once the import price of the product concerned falls below a trigger price.  A surge in imports 
is not required for taking such a measure.   
22. Question by Australia:  Australia requests th at the Republic of Korea provide data on 
the import prices, trigger prices, volumes, number of shipments and duties applied to show that 
the measure was in compliance with Articl e 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
For the data concerning trigger prices and volum es, please refer to the relevant notifications 
by the Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/6, G/AG/N/KOR/45).  The data on import prices, 
number of shipments, and duties applied are considered only when applying special safeguards and are not publicly available.   
23. Question by the European Union:  The Europe an Union appreciates this notification by 
the Republic of Korea.  The European Union would like to ask the reason why Table MA:3 
notifications of the volume-based special safegu ard for the products and years concerned were 
not provided? 
The MA:3 notification on the volume-based sp ecial safeguard measures for the period of 
2005-2007 has already been forwarded to the CRN.  It will be circulated soon. 
(ii) Trigger calculations 
24. Question by Australia:  Can the Republic of  Korea confirm that the volume of imports 
was not declining, in light of the safeguard in the previous year being triggered on 175 kg of 
imports? 
The Republic of Korea confirms that the volume of imports for wheat starch was not 
declining at the time the safeguard was triggered in 2008. 
Follow-up:  Australia reported that bilateral discussi ons had been held with the Republic of Korea on 
responses to these questions, and in respect of wh ich further clarifications will be sought. 
2. Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/92)  
(i) Transparency issues 
25. Question by Australia:  Australia notes th at Chinese Taipei's volume-based safeguard 
notification submitted on 18 November 2011 applied for the period of 25 October 2011 to 
31 December 2011.  Australia further notes the requirement for notifications to be provided "as 
far as in advance as may be practicable and in any event within 10 days of the implementation of 
such action".   Can Chinese Taipei provide reassurance that it will abide by the specified 
notification timings, in seekin g to ensure a robust transparency? 
Chinese Taipei confirms that it will continue to  strive to meet the notification requirements 
set out in the Agreement on Agriculture.  Nevert heless, Chinese Taipei wishes to emphasise 
that its procedure for invocation of the SSG provi sions is fully transparent.  For instance, both 
the volume and the price triggers are published by the end of the previous year on the 
Government’s website, aiming at providing impor ters with the necessary information which is 
timely for decision-making purposes.  In add ition, in terms of the volume-based SSG, the 
public is alerted through the G overnment’s website to the fact that imports have reached  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 19 
 
 
  90 per cent of the trigger level.  Chinese Taipei is of the view that a transparent and timely 
regime is just as important as honour ing the deadlines for notification. 
(ii) Trigger calculations 
26. Question by Australia:  During the Septem ber 2011 regular meeting of the Committee, 
in response to a question from New Zealand regarding  the data used to calculate its SSG trigger 
level, Chinese Taipei responded that 2010 data on  actual imports were not available at the time 
of calculation.  Chinese Taipei's latest notifica tion again uses 2007 to 2009 data to calculate its 
SSG trigger level.  Could Chinese Taipei inform  the Committee as to when 2010 data will be 
available to calculate SSG trigger levels? 
Chinese Taipei would like to reiterate that it has provided answers to similar concerns raised 
by Members at the 45th, 46th, 54th, 59th and 63rd regular meetings of this Committee.  
According to Article 5.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the SSG trigger level should be 
calculated using the "average quantity of imports during the three preceding years for which 
data are available" .  In Chinese Taipei's case, under the procedure described above, the 
trigger level for 2011 was calculated and published by the end of 2010, which was some 
months before the official figure for total actual imports in 2010 became available.  
The 2011 trigger level was therefore calculated using the average quantity of imports during 
the preceding three years for which data  was available, i.e. 2007 to 2009. 
The official data for actual imports in 2010 was subsequently published by the relevant 
authorities in April 2011, and added to the 2008 and 2009 import data to provide the basis for calculating the SSG trigger level for 2012. 
Follow-up:  With reference to the transparency req uirement on the operation of the special safeguard 
in Article 5.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Aust ralia reiterated their concern about the timeliness 
of notifying the information based on which Chinese Taipei calculated  the trigger levels.  Chinese 
Taipei was encouraged to devote continuous effo rts to ensuring transparency in its notifications. 
C. DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
1. Albania (G/AG/N/ALB/6)  
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
27. Question by Canada:  Regarding payments fo r relief from natural disasters, 2010 is the 
first year of its eleven notified years that Albania reports such payments:  Does Albania foresee 
providing a notification of "new or modifi ed programmes" (referred to as Table DS:2 
in G/AG/2) for these payments? 
Albania has already notified a mechanism fo r reimbursing farmers for relief from natural 
disasters.  Albania is not notifying a new programme nor is it going to modify the existing mechanism already notified.  This is, how ever, the first time that Albania uses the 
reimbursement mechanism.  Albania will thus not  provide a new Table DS:2 notification.   G/AG/W/94 
Page 20 
 
 
  (b) Green Box 
(i) Direct payments:  payments for relief under natural disasters 
28. Question by Canada:  How does Albania ensure that the payments meet each and every 
one of the criteria in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
At the end of year 2010 and the beginning of 2011 , the North of Albania, in particular the 
district of Shkodra faced massive floods.  The Albanian Government (t hrough the Order 968, 
dated 1 December 2010 of the Council of Ministers) declared the state of natural disaster in 
the communes and municipalities of the district of Shkodra.  The agriculture and especially 
the livestock sectors in this area incurred huge losses in excess of 30 per cent of production.  
For the livestock sector, the situation was critical because all animal feedstuff was destroyed.  
Given the high water levels in these areas, there was a need to evacuate all livestock in order 
to prevent it from drowning.  Under these c onditions, support to farmers was provided in the 
form of hay (fodder) and concentrate for livestoc k.  This support is the only form of support 
received by farmers; they have not receive d payments from other support schemes.  In 
conclusion, Albania fully complied with pa ragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(ii) Direct payments:  payments under regional assistance programmes 
29. Questions by the European Union:  Could Albania explain how th e regional assistance 
programmes notified in Supporting Table DS:1 meet  the criteria of paragraph 13 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?  In particular , the European Union wonders how the measures 
described convey a benefit to agricultural producers. 
This programme consists in building new w holesale markets for agriculture products and 
slaughterhouses in less favoured areas of Albania, mainly mountain areas.  The programme is not involving payment to the farmers but has the form of investments in the marketing chain 
of agriculture products. The Government of Albania invests in building up these new 
wholesale markets and slaughterhouses. Following the completion of the building work these 
objects will pass unto the authority of local governments that will administer them on behalf 
of the local communities.  The aim is to comple te the marketing chain of agriculture products 
in these areas and to facilitate market acce ss for farmers as well as to increase food and 
agriculture products security. 
Considering that no direct payments are made to producers and that the support measure 
entails the creation of marketing infrastructure,  Albania is open to consider classification of 
this programme under "General services", in future notifications. 
2. Bahrain (G/AG/N/BHR/6)  
Bahrain undertook to provide responses to the questions posed by the United States in 
paragraph 41 of G/AG/W/93 at a later stage. 
3. Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/20) 
(i) Green Box – General services:  other 
30. Question by the United States:  The United States appreciates the significant update 
undertaken in this notification and recalls th e tabled DS:2 notification from October 2011 
outlining the scope of General Services, especially the "Other" category (G/AG/N/BRB/19).   G/AG/W/94 
 Page 21 
 
 
  One of the larger posts in the current set of notifi cations may not have been fully covered in that 
Table DS:2.  Please explain what is meant by "Out-of-crop activities of the Barbados 
Agricultural Management Company Limited". 
The agricultural sector remains of importance to  Barbados and continual efforts are pursued 
towards diversification, improving competitiv eness, and ensuring food security and livelihood 
security for the population. 
The agricultural sector in Barbados has evolve d from a predominantly sugar-based sector to 
include both sugar and non-sugar agricultural ac tivities.  Given its historical role in the 
agricultural sector in Barbados, its current re lationships and connecti ons with many of the 
domestic agricultural producing areas and entiti es, the Barbados Agricultural Management 
Company Limited (BAMC) is integrally invo lved, along with the central Ministry of 
Agriculture, in the research and development ac tivities of the agricultural sector in Barbados.  
The item in question has been included as the "out-of-crop activities of the BAMC" to 
differentiate from the BAMC's historical invol vement in the sugar industry and is merely a 
historical moniker included in the Government 's Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue to 
account for this item. 
The out-of-crop activities of the BAMC include Research and Development activities such as 
variety testing, the diversification programme , and cotton development and, in conformity 
with Annex 2, paragraph 2, qualify for inclus ion as General Services.  Activities include 
research on various sugar cane varieties, cane tes ting, fertiliser trials and research into crop 
diversification and rotation. In addition to research conducted internally, the BAMC 
collaborates with a number of public and research entities, including the Ministry of 
Agriculture, the Caribbean Research and Devel opment Institute and the University of the 
West Indies.  Trials are also conducted in  conjunction with fa rmer organizations. 
The BAMC's out-of-crop activities also include  assisting the farming community on new 
techniques and methods and dissemination of the results from any individual or collaborative 
research – where such is permitted. 
(ii) Amber Box – De minimis 
31. Question by Japan:  Japan notes that the pr oduct-specific AMS of sugar cane remained 
steady during the years 2002/2003 to 2006/2007 at 10 per cent of value of production, which is 
the upper limit of de minimis , although the share of sugar cane AMS to its value of production 
fluctuated every year until 2001/2002.  Could Barbados kindly explain the reason? 
The value of AMS is calculated at not more than  10 per cent of the value of the sugar cane 
crop for all of the years in question, which is the de minimis  limit for developing countries as 
provided under the Agreement on Agriculture.  It should be noted that there is a lag in the 
calculation of the value of the crop to take in to account the actual canes reaped and delivered. 
Payments are therefore also on a lagged basis to  ensure that they adequately capture the 
reality of production.  The steady levels of payment reflect the steady acreage and average 
yield per year in question.  The value of such payments is not more than 10 per cent of the 
value of production in keeping with Barbados' de minimis  commitments under Article 6.4 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. G/AG/W/94 
Page 22 
 
 
  4. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
32. Question by Canada:  Canada appreciates Brazil's disaggregation of debt rescheduling 
programmes7 reported in Supporting Tables DS:2 and DS:9.  Would Brazil provide a similar 
disaggregation for the years 2006/2007, 2007/2008, and 2008/2009? 
The disaggregated amounts are presented in Annex 3. 
(b) Green Box 
(i) General services:  research 
33. Questions by Canada: Canada notes that  the Agricultural Energy Development 
Programme was introduced in 2008.  What is the nature of this programme?  When does Brazil 
foresee being able to provide the relevant Ta ble DS:2 notification (new or modified 
programmes)? 
Public research in agriculture is carried out in Brazil by the Brazilian Agricultural Research 
Corporation (EMBRAPA), under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply 
(MAPA).  The spending notified is just an allo cation of funds to research aimed at developing 
new technologies for improving the use of biofuels, rendering the notification as a new or 
modified programme unnecessary. 
(ii) Domestic food aid 
34. Question by Canada:  Canada notes that Brazil has notified increasing amounts of 
d om e s t i c  f ood  ai d .   A t  t h e  13th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/R/13), Brazil 
indicated that its domestic food aid is pr ovided under the Emergency Distribution of Food 
Program or PRODEA.  Could Brazil confirm that, in the absence of Table DS:2 notifications to 
the contrary, the increasing amounts of domestic  food aid reported in G/AG/N/BRA/27 continue 
to be provided only under PRODEA? 
The amounts of domestic food aid reported in G/AG/N/BRA/27 refer only to meals for 
children in public schools.  PRODEA is not operational anymore. 
(c) Amber Box 
(i) Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
35. Question by Canada:  Over the years, Brazil's notifications have referred to the product 
"grapes" as well as to "grap es (and by-products)".  The 2006/2007 notification refers to both 
"grapes" (Supporting Table DS:4) and "grapes (w ine)" (Supporting Table DS:7).  In order to 
facilitate Canada's understanding of the relevan t programmes, could Brazil please clarify? 
Brazil refers to the product "grapes (wine)" in Supporting Table DS:7 to underscore that the 
programme supported the product wine.   
                                                      
7 G/AG/W/78 refers.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 23 
 
 
  In Supporting Table DS:4 and in the " De minimis  Clause Verification Table",  Brazil refers to 
the product as "grapes" in order to highlight that Brazil calculated the de minimis  threshold  
by comparing the product-specific support on wine to the value of the total production of the basic product. 
(ii) De minimis 
36. Question by Canada:  With regard to the tabl es of data on values of production in the 
notification, and referring to Brazil's answer to a Member's earlier question,
8 would Brazil be 
able to indicate the precise tables from the IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) 
on which the notification relies, including the so urce table for the total value of production for 
all of agriculture? 
Please refer to Annex 4. 
5. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/86) 
(i) Amber Box – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
37. Questions by the United States:  The Province of Ontario recently established the Risk 
Management Program (RMP) for pork.  The United States understands that this programme is 
designed to provide income stabilization insura nce for Canadian hog producers and guarantees 
producers' returns on production at a level equivalent to 40 per cent of the difference between market prices and the support price.  The Un ited States also understands that the RMP is 
designed to complement current programmes such  as AgriStability and the RMP is an advance 
on the Province's 40 per cent share of the AgriStability payment. 
(a) Please explain in more detail how the RMP operates within the AgriStability 
programme and also if it operates within  the same parameters as Quebec's Farm 
Income Stabilization Insurance programme. 
RMP payments have no bearing in the calcu lation of benefits under AgriStability and 
producers in Ontario are eligible for the same AgriStability support as producers in 
other provinces.  RMP payments would not be considered as eligible income, nor 
would producer premiums be considered eligible expenses, in the calculation of 
AgriStability margins. In this regard, there would be no interaction between 
AgriStability and Ontario’s RMP from a federa l perspective.  The same also applies 
to Quebec’s Farm Income Stabilizati on Insurance programme ("Assurance 
stabilisation des revenus agricoles" (ASRA)) payments with respect to AgriStability. 
(b) In Canada's explanation, please conf irm whether the RMP payment can exceed 
the payment amount determined by AgriStability. 
RMP payments are counted as an advance on the provincial portion of AgriStability 
payments.  An eligible producer receives the greater of either the RMP payment or 
the provincial portion (i.e., 40 per cent) of the AgriStability payment.  RMP has no 
impact on the payment amount determined by AgriStability. 
(c) Please confirm, if and how the RMP operates differently from the RMP 
programmes for other commodities in Ontario and the Farm Income 
Stabilization Insurance ("Assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles" 
                                                      
8 Question 25 of G/AG/W/78 refers. G/AG/W/94 
Page 24 
 
 
  (ASRA)) programme in Quebec.  Please al so explain how the support price is 
determined under the RMP for pork. 
The RMP and the Farm Income Stabilizati on Insurance ("Assurance stabilisation des 
revenus agricoles" (ASRA)) programmes bot h help producers offset losses caused by 
volatile commodity prices and production costs.  Programme payments are made if 
the market prices for enrolled commodities fall below the support level based on a 
cost-of-production formula. 
The support price for hogs under the RMP is determined by the industry average cost 
of production.  Cost of production data is taken from both industry records and 
Ontario’s Agricorp database.  The highest  cost producers (with production costs in 
the top 30 per cent) on a per unit basis are re moved from the data sample.  The cost of 
production includes livestock purchase costs (e.g ., early wean or feeder), feed costs 
(e.g., corn, soymeal, and premix) and yard age costs (e.g., all expenses claimed by a 
farmer for income tax purposes other than livestock purchases, feed purchases, family 
labour costs, inventory adjustments, and direct crop production costs), which includes 
a return to labour factor. 
The RMP for hogs operates in the same ma nner as for other commodities (except for 
horticulture) and ASRA.  The concept of  RMP and ASRA programmes take into 
consideration of costs of producing eligible commodities in establishing support 
level.   
Producers of edible horticulture are eligible  for support under the Self-Directed Risk 
Management (SDRM) component of the RMP.  Growers of edible horticulture (fruit, 
vegetables, herbs and spices, as well as honey and maple syrup) contribute a set 
percentage of their net sales into an account , and the Ontario government matches it.  
Growers can withdraw from the account wh en they need it.  More information on 
RMP may be found at: 
http://www.agricorp.com/en-ca/Programs/RMP/Pages/Overview.aspx  
38. Questions by the United States:  Regardi ng Canada's response in paragraph 22 in 
G/AG/W/92 on activity under the 2001 Federal-Provincial Agreement for Chicken, Canada 
replied that price negotiations take place betw een the provincial poultry producer boards and 
poultry processors: 
(a) What is the Canadian legal framework that allows this negotiation to take place? 
Federal and provincial legislation enab les provincial poultry producer boards to 
oversee the production and marketing of chicke n.  At the federal level, the Farm 
Products Agencies Act provides for the estab lishment of national marketing agencies 
and the establishment of the Farm Produc ts Council of Canada to oversee the 
operations of these agencies. The Act also allows for the implementation of federal-provincial agreements , which set out the legal framework for the operation of 
supervisory and producer boards at the federal and provincial levels.  At the 
provincial level, similar legislation exis ts to issue marketing orders and for a 
supervisory body to oversee th e operations of provincial commodity boards.  As 
defined in the Federal-Provincial Agreem ent for Chicken, price negotiation with 
primary poultry processors is the responsibility of provincial commodity boards.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 25 
 
 
  (b) Also, please describe the role Canada 's provincial and territorial (P&T) 
governments play in regulating and overseeing the producer boards? 
Provincial and territorial governments set out enabling acts, marketing orders and 
supervisory boards to oversee provincial commodity boards. 
(c) For example, what role does the Ontario Farm Products Marketing 
Commission, which the United States unde rstands is a part of Ontario's 
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, play in regulating and 
overseeing the Chicken Farmers of Ontario producer board? 
Responsibilities may differ from one provincial supervisory board to another.  In 
general, each provincial supervisory body is  responsible for overseeing the operations 
of provincial commodity boards in the provin ce.  In Ontario, as per the Farm Products 
Marketing Act and the Milk Act, the On tario Farm Products Marketing Commission 
is a supervisory body that is accountable for the conduct and impact of provincial 
marketing boards, including the Chicken Farmers of Ontario.   
(ii) Amber Box – De minimis 
39. Question by the United States:  Regarding Canada's response in paragraph 27 of 
G/AG/W/92 about the steps Canada takes to rev ise its domestic support notifications when 
considerable changes occur in its underlying statis tics, the United States located the production, 
supply and distribution (PSD) tables, but could not find an annual compilation of Canada's 
monthly price surveys.  Please provide the specific  citation for the sources containing the annual 
prices and production volumes for grains and o ilseeds as well as the production values for 
animal products and meats that were cited in the notification. 
The specific citation for the sources was indicated  in Note (1) of Supporting Table DS:4 in 
the 2006 and 2007 notifications.  The source fo r value of production for most products is 
Statistics Canada "Farm Cash Receipts – Agriculture Economic Statistics" , 
Catalogue 21-011-X, Vol. 10, No. 1, table "Farm Cash Receipts – Agricultural Economic 
Statistics" , May 2011.  For certain grains and oil seeds (i.e., wheat and durum, barley, oats, 
corn, canola, and soybeans), the value of pr oduction is equal to production multiplied by 
price.  The source for the year’s production is Statistics Canada "CANSIM Table 001-0010" , 
July 2011.  The year’s price is based on the prices used in Statistics Canada Farm Cash 
Receipt prices. 
40. Question by the United States:  Regarding  Canada's response in paragraph 28 in 
G/AG/W/92 about calculations for value of production, research using the site referenced in the 
notification9 indicates that Canada includes governme nt payments in value of production 
calculations.  Please provide the specific calculat ions made that demonstrate that Canada does 
not use government payments in these calculations. 
Canada does not include governme nt payments in value of prod uction calculations.  While the 
Statistics Canada publication referenced by the United States is the source for value of 
production for most individual products, the correct issue of that publication is 
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-011-x/21-011-x2011001-eng.pdf  (i.e., May, not November).  The 
value of production is defined to  equal total market receipts.  To give an example using the 
May 2011 publication, the 2007 value of production for apples was Can$166.15 million; 
potatoes was Can$865.75 million; cattle and calves was Can$6.34 billion; hogs was 
                                                      
9 See http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-011-x/21-011-x2011002-eng.pdf . G/AG/W/94 
Page 26 
 
 
  Can$3.28 billion; eggs was Can$598.62 million; etc.  These are the values reported in 
column 5 in Supporting Table DS:4 of Canada’s 2007 notification.  However, market receipts 
do not capture the value of inter-farm sales w ithin a province or the value of crops fed 
on-farm.  In order to capture these values, th e value of production for certain grains and 
oilseeds (i.e., wheat and durum, barley, oats, corn, canola, and soybeans) is calculated using 
Statistics Canada’s data, without including g overnment payments.  Notifications for earlier 
years were revised to incorporate this method.  The value of production in column 5, row 
"Non Product Specific AMS", in Supporting Table DS:4 is the sum of the individual value of production entries. 
6. China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) 
(a) Green Box 
(i) General services:  other 
41. Question by the European Union:  Following  up on the reply provided to question 31 of 
G/AG/W/92, could China explain in detail how the changes in expenditure classification led to 
the significant increase of spending under the "other general services" category? 
The primary reason for the increase is that new categories were developed under "other 
general services" after the changes in expenditure  classification in 2007.  Thus the statistics 
for general services are increasingly comprehensive. 
(ii) Public stockholding for food security purposes 
42. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  The European Unio n appreciates the replies that China has 
provided in relation to the review of the domestic support notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/21 and would like to seek further clarifications.  With reference to replies provided to questions 32 and 33 in G/AG/W/92:   
- Please explain how the "financial transparency" in the sense of 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture is ensured in 
the process of stock accumulation and disposal. 
- Please confirm that the sales and purchases are made at "no less than the 
current domestic market prices" in the sense of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) United States:  Regarding previous questions as per paragraph 32 and 33 of 
G/AG/W/92, in order for support to meet  the criteria for "stockholding for food 
security purposes", there must be a clearly defined food security objective or 
practice and pre-determined targets for sp ecific products.  The notification for 
all products, except cotton, does not appear to meet these criteria:  the United 
States remains concerned with its und erstanding that Chinese Government 
entities are making purchases for public stockholding at support prices for the 
various commodities.  Please explain how this meets the exemption criteria of 
Annex 2 paragraph 1(b) "support in question shall not have the effect of providing 
price supports to producers"  – and Annex 2 paragraph (3) "… food purchases by 
the Government shall be made at current market prices and sales from food  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 27 
 
 
  security stocks shall be made at no less than the current domestic market 
price …" ? 
China guarantees that all reserved grains are purch ased and sold according to the market price 
at domestic markets. 
The following measures in existing laws and re gulations relate to food security purposes: 
- classified grain reserve systems for central and local governments; 
- establishing and improving grain market risk funds; 
- setting up the minimum procurement price fo r important grains of shortage in the 
main producing areas; 
- taking price intervention measures upon significant (or potential) increase of grain 
price; 
- establishing a food emergency response system. 
Since 2008, China has implemented the policy of temporary purchasing and storage.  The 
temporary purchasing prices of various grains unde r the policy are set at the market price of 
the year, not the supporting price.  In addition,  public reserved grain is sold at the current 
market price. 
43. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  The European Unio n appreciates the replies that China has 
provided in relation to the review of the domestic support notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/21 and would like to seek further clarifications.  With reference to replies provided to questions 32 and 33 in G/AG/W/92:  Please explain how the 
"targets related solely to food security"  in the sense of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture are established.  Are they included in legislation? 
(b) United States:  Regarding previous questions as per paragraph 32 and 33 of 
G/AG/W/92, in order for support to meet  the criteria for "stockholding for food 
security purposes", there must be a clearly defined food security objective or 
practice and pre-determined targets for sp ecific products.  The notification for 
all products, except cotton, does not appe ar to meet these criteria:  Please 
identify for all commodities, except cotto n, the defined food security objectives 
or practices and the pre-determined targets for specific crops. 
China’s guiding ideology and main goals  of food security are depicted in "The Outline of the 
National Programme for Long-term and Medium-term Food Security (2008-2020)" , which 
can be found online. 
The goals of food security are as follows:  firs t, food consumption per capita would be no less 
than 389 kilograms by 2010 and 395 kilograms by 2020.  Second, to stabilise the grain sown 
area, China’s arable land will not shrink to less than 1.8 billion mu by 2020; and to keep the 
quantity of basic farmland and to increase th e quality, the national cereals sown area will be 
maintained at more than 1.26 billion mu, of wh ich the land for rice will be maintained around 
450 million mu.  To guarantee food production, China will strive to regain the sown area of 
oil crops, such as rapeseed and peanuts, to ar ound 180 million mu.  Third, to ensure the basic G/AG/W/94 
Page 28 
 
 
  supply of important food like grains, and to maintain a food self-sufficiency rate of 
95 per cent, the overall grain production capacity would be brought to over 500 billion 
kilograms by 2010, and will be more than 540 billion kilograms by 2020, of which rice and 
wheat are grains for which China will continue to  be self-sufficient, while for corn China will 
be basically self-sufficient.  Fourth, to mainta in a reasonable level of grain reserve and to 
optimise the reserve layout and the structure of varieties; the proportion of wheat and rice in 
the reserve will be no less than 70 per cent.  Fift h, to establish a sound system of "Four Bulks" 
grain logistics that features bulk loading, bulk unloading, bulk storage and bulk transportation; and to accelerate the development of a modern grain logistics system. The 
proportion of "Four Bulks" to national grain logistics would reach 30 per cent by 2010 and 
55 per cent by 2020. 
(iii) Direct payments:  decoupled income support 
44. Questions by the European Union:  Followi ng up on the replies provided to questions 
34-37 in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) How is the direct payment per hectare calculated? 
It is calculated according to the size of the contracted farm land.
 
(b) Could China provide an update to the Committee on the problem of double 
counting in the state revenue and ex penditures?  Has it been solved? 
China will solve this problem in its next notification. 
45. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  How is compliance with paragraph 6 of Annex 2 provisions 
ensured if, according to China's reply to question 35 in G/AG/W/92, "criteria for 
payments vary between different provinces and there are no universal national criteria" ? 
(b) United States:  With reference to paragraphs 34 to 37 of G/AG/W/92, please 
explain further about exactly how local governments increased payments.  What 
is the mechanism for payments and does it differ by location (i.e., province)? 
Eligibility for such payments in China is determ ined by ownership of contracted land.  No 
specific product is required to be produced by the receiver of this payment.  As China is vast 
in territory, and production conditions in differe nt provinces differ from each other, direct 
subsidies for producers are implemented by provincial governments.  The criteria for subsidies by unit area are different but all of  them are in accordance with the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
46. Questions by the European Union:  Followi ng up on the replies provided to question 37 
in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) The European Union understands that since the base period for determining 
acreage for contracted land is set at the time when the land contract is signed, 
the result is that there may be different base periods for each parcel of 
contracted land.  Could China confirm this understanding? 
Please refer to the Chinese Rural Land Contract Law.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 29 
 
 
  (b) In this context, could China explain comp liance of its direct payments with the 
provisions of paragraph 6(a) in relation to "a defined and fixed base period" ? 
China’s agricultural land is under collec tive ownership, and each producer signs a 
contract with the collective organization.  The contract remains valid for 30 years.  
The amount of mu determined by the contract shall be viewed as the base period, and 
each land has only one base period, which is in conformity with the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(iv) Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
47. Question by Canada:  In paragraph 39(b) of G/AG/W/92, Canada had posed the 
following question:  "The amounts entered as 'payments fo r 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 additio n of the element 'financial assistance to their 
post-disaster livings'.  What mechanisms does Chin a apply to ensure that these increasingly large 
payments continue to meet all the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?"  China's answer was:  "China believes that these payments are in accordance with 
related rules of Agreement of Agriculture."  Could China elaborate and provide additional 
information as to how these payments meet all the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2? 
Since 2003, China has experienced the frequent occurrence of natural disasters.  Although the 
payments for relief from natural disasters incr eased, they only compensated a little of the 
producers' loss.  The payment is definitely non trade-distorting and is in conformity with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
48. Questions by the United States:  The United States wishes to thank China for responses 
to questions at the November 2011 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  The United States has some follow-up questions, specifically with resp ect to the Green Box payments as noted in 
paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) Please provide more detailed informatio n on exactly how the programmes for 
natural disasters and environment are implemented? 
China’s notification of "relief from natural disasters" includes all kinds of measures 
taken by the central and local governments for disaster prevention, disaster reduction, 
and post-disaster restoration of production.   
(b) What are the specific criteria on which payments are made? 
(c) If there are multiple programmes, please provide information for each 
programme. 
China is not able to provide detailed information for each programme, but can 
guarantee that the relevant criteria ar e in accordance with the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
49. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  Following up on the reply to question 38 in G/AG/W/92, the 
European Union understands that agricultural insurance operated in China is 
notified as relief from natural disast ers under paragraph 8.  However, certain 
elements such as "insurance premium subsidy to farmers who are policy-holders"  G/AG/W/94 
Page 30 
 
 
  seem to relate rather to income insu rance and income safety-net programmes 
under paragraph 7 of Annex 2.  Could China explain the reasons for its 
notification of the agricultural insurance under paragraph 8? 
(b) United States: 
- With respect to questions and responses in paragraphs 38 to 41 of 
G/AG/W/92, please provide additional information on the criteria by 
which the insurance premiums are subs idised to ensure the payments are 
consistent with the criteria for "relief from natural disasters". 
- China was unable to provide additional information on specific 
programmes for natural disasters.  Since Members are to show the 
criteria used for notifying program mes under Annex 2:  How did China 
evaluate the programmes to know that they fit the Annex 2 criteria and 
how does China ensure that the programmes meet the relevant criteria?  
Please provide additional information about the programmes so that Members can evaluate the programmes and their implementation. 
At present, China’s agricultu ral insurance mainly compen sates losses caused by natural 
disasters or diseases for producers in the farming and breeding industry.  Its main aim is to restore production after disasters.  The insuran ce amount, basically, is the cost of agricultural 
production.  The government provides certain subs idies to insured farmers as part of the 
insurance premium.  This is in conformity with  the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2.  The 
income insurance under paragraph 7 of Annex 2 insures all the income loss derived from 
agriculture, while the Chinese agri culture insurance only covers natural disaster losses.  That 
is why the agricultural insura nce in China’s notification is classified under "relief from 
natural disasters" and not under "income insurance". 
50. Question by the European Union:  Foll owing up on the reply to question 38 in 
G/AG/W/92, could China inform whether public funding is provided to operators of insurance 
programmes? 
Public funding is provided to farmers. 
(v) Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
51. Question by the United States:  China' s response to questions on environmental 
programmes in paragraph 42 of G/AG/W/92 does no t provide sufficient information to evaluate 
the programmes and how they are implemented.  Please provide further explanation of the 
implementation criteria. 
The reason for the significant increase of pa yments under environmental programmes during 
2005-2008 was that the Chinese Government paid more attention to sustainable economic and 
social development as well as environmental protection.  China’s notification of the payments 
under environmental programmes includes all ki nds of ecological environmental protection 
measures applied to forests, grassland, etc. that are conducted by central and local 
governments.  China is not able to provide specific information.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 31 
 
 
  (b) Amber Box 
(i) Market price support 
52. Questions by the United States:  On the issue of "negative AMS" in paragraphs 47 to 52 
of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) The United States supports the position of Japan.  The United States has 
concerns about the appropriate methodology for dealing with negative support 
levels.  Please explain in detail from prev ious reports and rules of the Secretariat 
on what basis China determined its methodology and that of other Members cited as appropriate. 
Different Members have different calculati on methods on this topic.  Nevertheless, 
China’s Current Total AMS is zer o no matter which method is used. 
(b) The United States has seen data that confirm that the applied administered 
prices are on a paddy (rough) basis, wh ereas the fixed external reference price 
appears to be on a milled basis.  Theref ore, the United States remains concerned 
that the calculations are not on a compar able basis.  Please provide data that 
supports China's response. 
The production of Chinese farmers is small s caled, which is very different from that 
of the developed countries.  Farmers sell pa ddy instead of rice.  Therefore the applied 
administered prices in Supporting Table DS:5 are on a paddy basis, not on a rough 
rice basis.  As to whether the fixed external  reference price is on a milled basis, China 
thinks it is a very good question which allows China to study other Members’ 
methods of collecting data. 
(ii) Market price support:  eligible production 
53. Questions by the United States:  The United States continues to have concerns about the 
appropriate measure of "eligible production" in the response provided in paragraph 63 of 
G/AG/W/92 and requests the following:  How spec ifically does China justify using the actual 
amount of procured products under the mini mum procurement price scheme as "eligible 
production" rather than the total amount of domestic production?  Please cite specific 
references for this justification. 
According to China’s policy on the minimum purch asing price, after grains are harvested, if 
the market price falls below the minimum purch asing price, the state will purchase grains at 
the minimum purchasing price when producers sell their grains to the state.  Producers can 
also sell their grains to other corporations.  Only grains sold to the state at the minimum 
purchasing price are entitled to the applied admini strative price.  Chinese farmers usually save 
part of the grain produced for family consumption.  Furthermore, the minimum purchasing 
price policy functions only in the main grain pr oducing provinces, not in the overall state.  
Therefore, in Supporting Table DS:5, China uses the actual purchased quantity of grain at the 
minimum purchasing price to calculate market price support amounts.   
(iii) Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
54. Questions by the United States:  In follo w-up to some of Japan's questions on 
product-specific support to cotton no ted in paragraph 54 of G/AG/W/92: G/AG/W/94 
Page 32 
 
 
  (a) Please identify how the state purcha ses the cotton in the National Cotton 
Reserve?  In addition, can China please explain this programme in relation to 
cotton purchases outlined by the United States' question regarding China's Cotton Reserve Purchasing System  in paragraph 11 above? 
The state publicizes the reserve prices and the specialised reserve administration is 
responsible for collecting and reserving cotton when market prices are below the 
reserve prices.  
(b) Please clarify the meaning in the fourth sentence of the response supplied in 
paragraph 54 of G/AG/W/92 of 16 January 2012 by explaining what is meant by 
"… the money to collect storage and store is covered by CNCRC …" .  The United 
States understands this to mean the CNCRC (China Nation al Cotton Reserves 
Corporation) provides the money to th e purchase of cotton for storage and 
subsidizes the cost of storage. 
The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) is in charge of 
the policy-making of the Cotton Reserve.  The money for purchasing cotton, for 
storage, and for subsidizing the cost of st orage are provided by the state finance, not 
the NDRC. 
(iv) Non-product-specific AMS 
55. Questions by Canada:  In paragraph 55(c) of G/AG/W/92, Canada had asked the 
following question:  "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 'price subsidies for means of 
production'.  In reply to some Members' ques tions in the meeting of 23 September 2010, China 
clarified that the means of production are mainly  agricultural machines, fertilizers, agricultural 
diesel oil and feeds.  Could China provide a breakdown of the amount of subsidies provided for 
each of these inputs in the years 2005 to 2008?  Have subsidies been intr oduced for any additional 
inputs during this period, compared to 2004?"   Part of China's answer was "China is not able to 
provide the list for individual products, as th is subsidy was calculated  in an overall manner."   
Given the large and rapid increase in this support , it is important to understand the specifics of 
the measures applied. 
(a) Canada therefore now asks what steps Chin a is taking to be able to provide the 
disaggregated information requested. 
The primary reason for the increase is that in 2007, due to the sharp rise of prices of 
the means of production, comprehensive ag ricultural subsidies came into use. 
(b) Canada also asks for confirmation of  its understanding, from China's answer, 
that no subsidies were introduced for other inputs than agricultural machines, 
fertilizers, agricultural diesel oil and feeds in the years 2005 to 2008. 
The subsidies are directly given to farmers to buy the means of production.  
Producers decide what inputs to buy accord ing to their needs.  The main categories 
are agricultural machines, fertilizers,  agricultural diesel oil and feeds.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 33 
 
 
  (v) De minimis 
56. Questions by the United States:  On the issue of value of production in paragraph 46 of 
G/AG/W/92, China's response refers to the footno te in the respective notification which states: 
"Since the categorization of agricultural products of China is different from that of 
the WTO, China claims that the total agricultural production values here are only 
for reference in this notification and shall not be referred to in the DDA 
negotiations." 
(a) Please provide more substantive informat ion for the Committee relative to the 
differences in the value of production calculations and how the Committee can 
understand the values for each claimed product. 
(b) Does China use the WTO definition of agricultural products to measure the 
value of production? 
(c) Can China identify the discrepancies between its definition and that of the 
WTO?  Further, can China also state whether the value to be referenced in the DDA negotiations, as noted in footnote 1 referred to above, matches the WTO 
definition or not, and why that value differs from the one used in this 
notification. 
The WTO has no clear definition for the calcula tion of agricultural production.  As far as 
China understands, different Members have di fferent ways of calculating agricultural 
production.  When China added this footnote, China meant that "if there turns out to be a 
unified definition of calculation in the Doha Round, China will modify its calculation 
according to the unified method" .  China’s present calculation is in accordance with the 
WTO’s definition.  Members sometimes may find different figures, and this is due to the inclusion of fishery output. 
Follow-up:  The European Union sought clarity as  to whether China would correct the problem of 
double counting in the state revenue and expenditures in G/AG/N/CHN/21.  Echoed by Australia, the 
United States pointed out that the practice is to issue an addendum or corrigendum of the original 
notification.  However, China confirmed that it woul d only modify the calculation method in its future 
notifications.  Having found some of  the questions raised by interven ing delegations of interest as a 
general issue for the Committ ee, Japan reserved its rights to follow up on China's responses. 
7. Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/48) 
57. Questions by Australia:  Australia would lik e to request Colombia to provide more 
information on the "Infrastructure services" pr ogramme notified in the Green Box.  Does the 
"Analysis, design, construction, rehabilitation an d modernization of irrigation infrastructure" 
relate to off-farm infrastructure? 
This is a rural development programme estab lished for the purpose of financing activities 
required for land improvement, including cons truction of infrastructure works for the 
promotion of irrigation infrastructure, drainage  or protection against flooding or to improve 
existing infrastructure. 
In order to develop the programme, the Gove rnment, through the Colombian Institute of 
Rural Development (INCODER), supports and advises regional entities in the process of 
identifying, preparing and implementing projects relating to physical, social and productive G/AG/W/94 
Page 34 
 
 
  infrastructure, basic services and land improvement, guaranteeing the sustainable use of 
natural resources in the context of programmes ca rried forward in the areas of agricultural and 
rural development. 
In addition, INCODER is responsible for supervising the implementation of projects 
concerned with the design and construction of i rrigation districts;  establishing the amount of 
government investment in the construction, reha bilitation or extension of land improvement 
districts;  and administering, operating and maintaining small, medium and large-scale 
irrigation districts under its ownership. 
In accordance with the foregoing, this programme  meets the criteria defined in Article 6.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, inasmuch as it is  a programme to encourage rural development 
at the national level The programme is applie d generally for the promotion of different 
agricultural activities and for rural development, and thus to improve the living conditions of 
the Colombian population in the rural areas of the country. 
8. India (G/AG/N/IND/7)  
(a) Green Box – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
58. Questions by Canada:  In paragraph 25(a) of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1, Canada had asked the 
following question:  "The 'Crop insurance scheme' has increased rapidly.  What does the 
monetary value reported here represent, e.g ., is it the indemnities paid to producers, the 
government subsidy of premiums, a budgetary item fo r the operation of the scheme, or some other 
measurement?  How does India ensure that the sch eme meets each and every one of the criteria of 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agri culture?  This includes (but is not limited to) 
ensuring that eligibility for payment is determin ed by a production loss that exceeds 30 per cent as 
per paragraph 8."   India's response indicated:  "The details of the crop insurance scheme may be 
seen at web address: 
http://www.aicofindia.com/AICEng/Pag es/Product_Profile/Present_NAIS.aspx   
Liability in case of agriculture insurance schemes ar ises only in the event of notified crops in the 
notified areas suffering on account of specified  natural disasters or calamities.  Therefore, 
government support in the form of bearing loss in  excess of premium is covered under paragraph 8 
of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture."  
(a) The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) website provides some 
additional information on the crop in surance scheme and it notes that the 
premium subsidy to some farmers is to  be reviewed and could be phased out 
over a period of 3 to 5 years.  Could India provide an update on the status of this 
review and the potential phasing out of the subsidy? 
(b) The NAIS website, however, does not pr ovide information regarding whether 
the payments claimed under paragraph 8 of Annex 2 are determined by a 
production loss that exceeds 30 per cent.  How does India ensure that the crop insurance scheme meets the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2? 
A modified version of NAIS is presently  being implemented (from Rabi 2010-2011 
season) on a pilot basis which is likely to be evaluated in the last quarter of 2012-2013 financial year for starting full-fledged scheme.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 35 
 
 
  The threshold yield for a crop is an insuran ce unit, which is the moving average based 
on past 3 years’ average yield in case of ri ce and wheat and 5 years’ average yield in 
case of other crops, multiplied by the level of indemnity.  On an average, the threshold yield which is the basis for the calculation of indemnity payments is not 
more than 70 per cent of the actual yield.  The premium paid by farmers constitutes 
more than 30 per cent of the total indemnity payment. 
59. Questions by the United States:  The United  States wishes to thank India for responses 
to questions at the September 2011 meeting of the Committee on Agricu lture.  The United 
States has some follow-up questions. 
(a) With respect to India's response on crop insurance, the United States 
appreciates the information on the websit e to better understand the operation of 
the crop insurance programme.  The United  States remains unclear, however, as 
to what data India has notified.  It a ppears from India's response that the data 
notified are government indemnity payments that exceed producer premiums.  Please clarify more precisely the nature, source and application of the data cited 
in the response in paragraph 25 of G/AG/W/88. 
The data source is the budget documen t of the Government of India. 
(b) In addition, the website does not make clear whether producers have sustained 
at least a 30 per cent loss to qualify for an indemnity.  The United States notes 
that actual yields must be below the threshold yield, but it appears that any level of actual yield lower than the threshold yi eld qualifies for an indemnity.  Please 
clarify the numbers and threshold levels  that India has employed in this 
notification. 
Please refer to India's response in paragraph 58(b) above. 
(b) Development programmes – Input subsidies 
60. Questions by: 
(a) Canada:  With reference to the questions  posed in paragraphs 28(b) and 30 of 
G/AG/W/88/Rev.1, India's response in paragraph 25(a) refers to the table at http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/at_a_glance-2007/ch-12/table%2012.1(a).xls .  That 
table does not provide the requested info rmation on how each of the measures 
qualifies as "generally available" to the ta rget group.  In fact, it seems to 
indicate the amount of fertilizer and other subsidies given to "marginal 
farmers" only.  India also explains10 that "marginal" landholdings are only one 
out of five categories of landholdings, specifically those below 1 hectare.   
In the interest of clarifying the data in its notification, could India elaborate on 
how to interpret the apparent different u ses of "marginal" in the data sources to 
which India refers, and the basis for labe lling as low-income or resource-poor all 
producers with marginal, small, semi- medium, and medium landholdings, as 
well as some producers with large hold ings?  Moreover, Canada looks forward 
to India's response to its question in paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 regarding the reporting of the 1.03 per cent of all support that is not reported in 
Supporting Table DS:2 (of the order of US$ 90 million in 2003-2004). 
                                                      
10 Paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 refers. G/AG/W/94 
Page 36 
 
 
  Input subsidies are in-built in their cost and are available to all farmers.  Since more 
than 98 per cent of landholdings are less than 10 hectares, input subsidies are 
considered to be generally available to  low income or resource poor producers.  
Landholdings of more than 10 hectares are un-irrigated dry lands  covered under land 
ceiling laws, whose productivity is much lowe r and therefore they also fall in the 
category of low income or resource poor farmers. 
The term "marginal" is a category of landholding of less than 1 hectare as per India’s 
Agriculture Census.  Farmers in India are generally low income or resource poor.  A 
majority of the population is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, with an 
average landholding of about 1.22 hectares, which is on the decline.  Moreover, more 
than 60 per cent of agriculture lands do not have any assured irrigation and are 
dependent on rain.  
(b) United States:  the United States seeks to better understand India's definition of 
low income, resource poor farmers which, from responses, seems to be based on 
landholdings (see paragraphs 30 to 33 in  G/AG/W/88).  An average landholding 
would not seem to be an appropriate basis for making that determination, 
because the value of the output per unit of land could vary dramatically, depending on what is produced.  The United States notes that in reviewing the 
data for the 2000-2001 census on the website to which India referred, the share 
of landholdings accounted for by the la rge group (> 10 hectares) was 13.2 per 
cent (21,072,000 hectares divided by 159,436 ,000 total hectares).  These data 
suggest that India's use of 98.97 per cent of farm holdings as low income, 
resource poor may be overstated, even using a landholding definition. 
Moreover, several recent studies appear to contradict India's assertion that the 
benefits of input subsidies mostly accrue to low income, resource-poor farmers.  
For example, in a recent paper by th e International Food Policy Research 
Institute (IFPRI), the authors note that "state and cooperative supply of 
subsidized tube wells, credit, fertilizer, an d seed are heavily biased toward medium 
and large farmers in the study areas discussed" .  Another report says that the 
agricultural input subsidies "benefit large-scale farmers more than 
smallholders …" .  In addition, the authors provide data that shows a large share 
of the benefits of the electricity subsidy go to larger farmers in the two States 
analysed.
11  Likewise, the data for fertilizer u se is not as heavily skewed towards 
the larger landholdings, but even using India's definition of "greater than 
10 hectares" , about 9 per cent of the benefits went to the large landholdings. 
- Please provide the data and source showing that 99 per cent of India's 
farms are low-income, resource poor. 
- Please provide the calculations an d source for how much of the input 
subsidies go to low-income, resource poor farms. 
India would urge that reliance be placed on Memb ers' notifications and official data sources. 
See also India's response in paragraph 60(a) above.  
                                                      
11 See Annex 5.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 37 
 
 
  61. Question by the United States:  Although the United States appreciates India providing 
a website for data associated with input subsidies (paragraphs 28 and 29 in G/AG/W/88), a 
website with a spreadsheet did not respond to th e United States and other Members' questions, 
especially since the data do no t correspond to India's notificati on.  Please provide a further 
explanation of how India has accounted for the budgetary outlays in this notification. 
Notified inputs subsidies are the same as given in  the data sheet.  The only difference is that 
the figures given in the data sheet are in Indi an Rupees whereas the notification is in U.S. 
dollars, into which was converted based on the rate of the relevant period. 
62. Questions by the United States:  With respec t to outlays for input subsidies, as noted 
above, the data supplied by India do not correspond to India's notification: 
(a) What exactly do the notified outlays cover? 
The "other input subsidies" include th e total subsidy on fertilizer, electricity, 
irrigation and other input subsidies in the form of seeds, etc.  The data sources for the 
subsidies are budget documents. 
(b) Additionally, the United States notes that for electricity, the website specifically 
says it covers more than agriculture.  How did India account for agriculture's 
share? 
As has been noted by the United States, in the data associated with input subsidies, 
the figures do not give a breakdown for electricity subsidies for the agriculture sector.  
This is due to the fact that such a breakup is not available. 
(c) Amber Box 
(i) Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
63. Question by the United States:  The United States is concerned with India's responses to 
questions regarding currency conversion.  Si nce Members raised concerns about India's 
conversion practice in its 1995/1996 notification, India should provide a response beyond simply 
stating what it did in that notification.  With  respect to the U.S. question about the consistency 
of converting the applicable administered rupee pr ice into U.S. dollars, the United States would 
like to further amplify its concerns by noting  that India's support prices in rupees have 
increased at a much faster rate than support pri ces denominated in U.S. dollars.  For example, 
the United States estimates 25 per cent growth using rupees versus 15 per cent for paddy rice 
using U.S. dollars;  15 per cent versus 5 per cent for wheat;  20 per cent versus 8 per cent for 
cotton.  Moreover, India explains in a reply to Canada that the support prices are based on costs 
of production, all of which would be rupee-based.  It follows that decisions to adjust the support 
prices for specific commodities would be based on  data in rupees, not dollars.  In sum, the 
United States' concern is that the use of dollar- based prices is not accurately capturing the level 
of market price support for the relevant commoditi es.  Please provide a clear rationale based on 
the provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture for converting from rupee-based base period 
tables (G/AG/AGST/IND) to a U.S. dollar-ba sed equivalent in India's notifications. 
The external reference price for various co mmodities for the base period 1986-1988 has been 
fixed in U.S. dollar terms.  The exchange rate between the Indian Rupee and the U.S. dollar is 
determined by market forces and in order to provide comparable estimates, India has been 
notifying its domestic support in U.S. dollars since 1995-1996. G/AG/W/94 
Page 38 
 
 
  India has followed a consistent approach in  currency used while notifying its domestic 
support notifications.   
(ii) Market price support 
64. Question by the United States:  Regarding the U.S. request for documentation and 
information on external reference prices, th e United States was seeking more detailed 
information than that provided in India's respon se because of the large gap between the applied 
administered price and the external reference prices notified in Supporting Table DS:5.  For 
example, the external reference price for cotton is approximately three times as large as the 
applied administered price.  The United States wo uld like to confirm, among other things, that 
the prices have been measured at the same stage  of production (seed cotton or milled cotton).  
Repeating the question from September 2011, please provide documentation (source, grade, location, transport adjustments, quality adjustme nts) for the external reference prices for each 
commodity included in Supporting Table DS:5. 
As regards the calculation of AMS for cotton, India is collecting rele vant information for 
arriving at a conversion factor for seed cotton to cotton lint and will report back to the 
Committee as soon as the exercise is completed. 
The external reference prices ar e the averages of the c.i.f./f.o.b. prices of the product in 
question during the 1986-1988 period.  Th e details are listed in G/AG/AGST/IND. 
65. Question by the United States:  With resp ect to responses to Members' questions on 
public stockholding (paragraphs 20 to 24 in G/AG/W/88), the United States fails to see how 
India has "accounted for the AMS" as required by  Annex 2, paragraph 3.  India references the 
supporting tables in G/AG/AGST/IND, which Memb ers have noted are expressed in rupees.  
India has notified that it does not have an AMS for wheat and rice, the main products of interest 
here.  The United States notes again that India has done its calculations in U.S. dollars.  These 
dollar figures are not contained in the G/AG /AGST/IND, so the United States does not 
understand India's reference to the data in this  document.  Moreover, by suggesting that 
G/AG/AGST/IND be examined, India's answer supports the argument that its AMS calculations 
should be done in rupees.  Additionally, wi th respect to prices for procuring and releasing 
stocks, India's answer confirms that purchases ar e being made at minimum support prices, and 
sales are being made at less than market prices.  Since India has provided no information as to 
whether the minimum support prices can be cons trued as market prices, the presumption is 
that they are government-administered prices and are therefore, by de finition, not market 
prices.  The United States repeats its concern th at India is not operating its public stockholding 
programme in conformity with Annex 2, paragr aph 3 because India is not properly accounting 
for the AMS for the products at issue.  Given these  points, please explain fully the consistency of 
India's AMS calculations for wheat and rice with  the requirements of Annex 2, paragraph 3. 
The minimum support price is based on the price that a farmer should get to cover the cost of 
production as assessed by the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). 
India’s public stockholding programme is in c onformity with paragraph 3 and footnote 5 of 
Annex 2.  It may be seen that this footnote covers both the acquisition and the release of 
foodstuffs at administered prices.  As requi red, India notifies the difference between the 
acquisition price and the external reference price as AMS. 
India does not agree with the United States' assertion.  India has accounted for its stock 
holding programme in its AMS calculation for wheat and rice. The entire procurement of 
wheat and rice done by designated Central Agencies at the minimum support price is reflected  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 39 
 
 
  in AMS calculations for wheat and rice.  The difference between the cost of procurement and 
the issue price is accounted for separately in the Supporting Table DS:1 under "public 
stockholding for food security purposes". 
66. Question by the United States:  India responded that all perishables not covered under 
the Minimum Support Price Scheme were covered  under the Market Intervention Scheme 
(MIS).  When will India submit a notification fo r those products that benefited from the MIS? 
There have been very few interventions under MIS due to operational difficulties.  Quantities 
procured and amount spent thereon have been insignificant.  However, India has noted the United States' concern. 
(iii) Market price support:  eligible production 
67. Questions by the United States:  With respect to  eligible production in paragraphs 39 to 
42 in G/AG/W/88, the United States kindly request India's response to the following: 
(a) Why did India switch in the definition from "all production" used in its first 
notification (G/AG/N/IND/1) to "pu rchased production" in subsequent 
notifications? 
(b) Why has India not reported a market pri ce support calculation for each of the 
24 crops for the appropriate period? 
Except for the year 1995-1996, India has consiste ntly filed its domest ic support notification 
taking actual quantities procured under MSP ope rations as eligible production.  India 
considers that only production which is procured by designated agencies at the minimum support price is the production receiving market support. 
India has reported market price support calculati ons for all the crops that were procured by 
designated agencies at minimum support prices. 
68. Questions by the United States:  With respect  to the U.S. question as to whether all 
production is eligible to receive India's mini mum price support, the United States understands 
India's response to mean that as along as mark et prices are below the minimum support prices, 
there is no limit on the amount of production  that farmers may approach the government for 
procurement.  Therefore, all production is eligib le for procurement, though not all production is 
procured.  Please confirm whether the U.S. und erstanding is correct.  If India does not agree 
with the above statement regarding all production, please explain. 
India uses the quantity of purchased production as "eligible production" for calculating the 
market price support.  Therefore, the "eligible production" is defined as the quantity of the 
production procured by designated government agencies at the Minimum Support Price 
(MSP).   
(iv) Negative support amounts 
69. Question by the United States:  With respect to the use of a negative AMS 
(paragraphs 34 in G/AG/W/88, the United States supports the position of Canada.  If India plans to continue notifying negative support, please explain fully the consistency of India's 
support calculations with Article 1(a) and an y other relevant articles of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. G/AG/W/94 
Page 40 
 
 
  The negative figures reflect the results of the methodology for calculating product-specific or 
non-product-specific AMS since G/AG/AGST/IND. 
9. Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/43/Corr.1) 
70. Question by Australia:  Australia would like to request from the Republic of Korea an 
explanation for the amendment to  its notification showing a reduction in support provided to 
rice production. 
It was just to correct a simple error in data calculation. 
Follow-up:  Australia appreciated the opportunity of  having discussed bilaterally with the Republic of 
Korea, particularly of having obtained more details.  Australia suggested that the Republic of Korea 
shares their information w ith all other delegations. 
10. Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/15) 
71. Question by Australia:  Australia understands  that Nigeria has in place a domestic 
fertiliser programme in favour of Nigerian farm ers.  Could Nigeria provide details on this 
programme and advice about its classification under the Agreement on Agriculture (i.e. Article 6.2 for input and inv estment subsidies, for example)?  
The Government of Nigeria has designed the Growth Enhancement Support (GES) scheme as 
a vital component of the Agricultural Transfor mation Agenda (ATA), which seeks to achieve 
food security for the farmer at the micro-level and national security for the country at the 
macro-level.  The new scheme represents a po licy and pragmatic shift within the fertilizer 
subsector, putting the resource constrained farm er at its centre through the provision of a 
series of incentives to encourage the critical ac tors in the fertilizer value chain to work 
together in order to improve productivity, household food security and farmers' income. 
Furthermore, during the 2012 season, a total of 500,000 metric tonnes of assorted fertilizers, 
namely urea and NPKs, valued at N 55 billion, will be provided to farmers via the e-wallet 
platform using mobile phones.  The Federal and State Governments are to contribute 
25 per cent each to make up 50 per cent support on fertilizers to farmers, which translate into 
N 27.5 billion.  Each farmer will be supported with N 5,500 in order to purchase two bags of 
fertilizer (50 kg each), which will be increased to four bags in subseque nt seasons.  A total of 
five million smallholder farmers are targeted to benefit from the GES scheme each year for 
four years starting in 2012. 
Follow-up:  Nigeria proposed a bilateral consu ltation with Australia on  this matter. Whilst 
welcoming this initiative, Australia commented on the discrepancies between the information in 
Nigeria's recently issued notification and that alrea dy available on the Nigerian Government website. 
11. Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) 
72. The European Union withdrew the questions  contained in paragraph 96 of G/AG/W/93.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 41 
 
 
  12. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/AG/N/VCT/2) 
(i) Green Box – General services:  research 
73. Question by the United States:  Saint Vin cent and the Grenadines notified domestic 
support commitments for the years 1995-2009.  It reports that agricultural research over the 
full period notified is a programme aimed at providing valid technologies aimed at improving 
the production of agricultural produce.  Please provide details on what "valid technologies" 
include. 
"Valid technologies" can be explained as the creation of new lines of agricultural 
commodities to improve the characteristics of pl ants enabling them to be disease resistant 
through the process of "plant biotechnology". 
(ii) Green Box – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
74. Question by the European Union:  The Euro pean Union appreciates this notification 
provided by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.  Please explain how "payments to farmers (direct 
in kind) affected by the Moko disease"  notified under payments for relief from natural disasters 
in the reporting period 2007 comply with paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
The payments that were made to farmers w ho suffered losses of the Musa spp. due to the 
outbreak of the Ralstonia solanacearum  (Moko disease) is in confor mity with paragraph 8(a) 
of Annex 2, which states that "such payment shall arise only following a formal recognition 
by Government authorities that a natural or like disaster (including disease outbreaks has 
occurred and shall be determined by a produc tion loss which exceeds 30 per cent of the 
average production in the preceding three year average of production excluding the highest 
and lowest average" . 
In 2007, the compensation provided was based on the fact that losses exceeded the 30 per cent 
threshold that is stated in paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2, since crops in affected farms are 
mandatorily destroyed, which results in 100 per cent losses of production in that year.  The 
level of production (marketable yield) was cal culated based on verifiable sales from the 
preceding three years.  Furthermore, due to th e prevalence of the disease, the Ministry of 
Agriculture has established a mandatory restricti on of cultivation on those affected farms for a 
further three years in order to cont ain the spread of the disease.   
13. Togo (G/AG/N/TGO/2)  
Togo undertook to provide a response to the question posed by the European Union in 
paragraph 99 of G/AG/W/93 at a later stage. 
14. Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/2/Rev.1)  
75. The European Union would like to thank the Delegation of Tonga for a revision of their 
notification which now provides details on external financing. 
 G/AG/W/94 
Page 42 
 
 
  D. NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) 
1. Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/33) 
(i) Green Box – General services:  marketing and promotion services 
76. Questions by Canada:  
(a) Honduras introduced a new measure called the Agribusiness Development 
Programme for Small and Medium-sized African Palm Producers which will 
increase African palm production by rep lanting and expanding African palm 
crops.  The measure is meant to s upport small and medium sized palm 
producers.  Could Honduras explain why it claims this measure as exempt under 
paragraph 2(f) Annex 2, marketing and promotion services, and how the 
measure conforms to the criteria in that paragraph as well as in the chapeau of 
paragraph 2, Annex 2? 
Honduras' conclusion was that this progr amme was not correctly classified and 
should be included in Annex 2, paragraph 2(d): extension and advisory services, 
including the provision of means to facilita te the transfer of information and the 
results of research to producers and consum ers.  This is because the purpose of the 
programme is to sow 7,206 hectares of African palm, of which 2,882 hectares 
(40 per cent of the programme) is for the re newal of plantations and 4,324 hectares 
for expanding the cultivated area, in ot her words 60 per cent of the programme. 
The programme also provides for the development of nurseries in which 
700,000 seedlings are being produced for the cultivation of 5,000 hectares of African 
palm with new genetic materials that will produce higher yields in the plantations of 
the project area, using sound farming and fertilization practices.  At the same time, the programme provides for the introduction of a technical and financial assistance 
system to contribute to the development of the palm sector.  
(b) Honduras introduced a new measure called the Small and Medium-sized Rural 
Enterprise Programme (PYMERURAL) which seeks to contribute to job and 
income creation for men and women in ru ral areas in the context of rural micro, 
small and medium-sized enterprises, with a focus on stimulating economic 
growth to ensure sustainability and the development of food and non-food 
agribusiness chains, combining the value  chain approach with a territorial 
economic development approach.  Could Honduras explain why it claims this 
measure as exempt under paragraph 2(f) marketing and promotion services, and 
how the measure conforms to the criteria in that paragraph as well as in the chapeau of paragraph 2, Annex 2? 
This programme aims to facilitate regi onal, national and local public-private 
interaction for the competitive development of rural micro, small and medium-sized enterprises combining two complementary approaches (value chains and local 
territorial economic development) aligned with  the country's relevant public policies, 
seeking to harmonise with other partners and promoting capacity building of the different actors according to their role with a view to promoting collective ownership 
of visions and actions for in clusive economic development.   G/AG/W/94 
 Page 43 
 
 
  (ii) Development programmes – Investment subsidies 
77. Questions by Canada:  
(a) In notification G/AG/N/HND/32, Honduras reports the introduction of the 
Technology Voucher Project in 2008-2009, claimed as exempt "Investment 
subsidies generally available to agricultu re" under Article 6.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  It shows a monetary  value of some US$244 million, which is 
very large in relation to the size of the agriculture sector (value of production of 
about US$ 1.4 billion in 2007 according to the Banco Central de Honduras).  This gives rise to questions about the conformity of the measure with the 
Article 6.2 criteria, which Canada poses in relation to this Table DS:2 
notification.  Canada recognizes the posi tive step that Honduras has taken by 
submitting Table DS:2 notifications in lin e with the notification requirements for 
new or modified measures. 
Regarding the Technology Voucher Project  in 2008-2009, the amount for the period 
between June 2008 and May 2009 needs to be  corrected - the value of the investment 
for that period is estimated at L 214.2 million which, in U.S. dollars, amounts to 
US$ 1.4 million. 
(b) Regarding the Technology Voucher Project, could Honduras explain how it 
ensures that subsidies under the programme are generally available to 
agriculture in Honduras?  This arises particularly because the project seeks to increase staple grain production by small producers, which excludes, for 
example, livestock and horticulture pro ducers as well as large and medium-sized 
producers.  Additionally, would Honduras be able to provide information on 
how the Technology Voucher Project is administered and what technologies are 
supported? 
As regards the technologies supported by this project, they involve the introduction to 
the use of improved seeds and fertilizers.  The Technology Voucher Project (BTP) 
consists of providing small producers with improved seeds and fertilizers for sowing one manzana  (0.7 hectares) of crops - either ma ize, beans, rice or sorghum, as well as 
technical assistance services and training, and measures designed to increase 
production, yield, income, knowledge and the efficient utilization of resources.  The 
BTP provides for the use of improved seeds by small producers in order to ensure 
greater yield per area cultivated, contributing to the food safety of the population, 
particularly in the rural areas, and to re lieve pressure on the agricultural frontier, on 
the forests and on the protected areas.  The producers receive the vouchers through 
the existing local Facilitating Organizations (FO), which undertake to provide 
technical assistance to the beneficiaries and organizational support for the development of alternative financing mechanisms. 
The general objective is to contribute to th e food security of the population in general 
and to increase the yield of staple grains th rough the use of appropriate technologies.  
The beneficiaries are subsistence farmers with less than five manzanas  (3.5 hectares); 
located in hillside and fringe areas and essen tially grow staple grains, generally for 
their own consumption, using family la bour, and having limited access to credit and 
capitalization problems.  These farmers do not receive technical assistance services 
and many of them do not have enough land to feed their families.  
Annex 6 provides a graph showing the Technology Voucher Project Cycle. G/AG/W/94 
Page 44 
 
 
  (iii) Classification of measures 
78. Questions by the United States: It appears that Honduras may have categorized some 
programmes incorrectly as general service programm es instead of investment subsidies.  Please 
explain what portion of the monetary value co rresponding to the following activities involves 
investment subsidies or input subsidies? To what  extent is each programme generally available 
to agriculture versus specific types of producers? 
(a) Honduras rural competitiveness project 
The COMRURAL project is geared toward s improving competitiveness in the rural 
sector.  The project focusses on operationalizing processes and mechanisms to 
facilitate rural productive alliances in which a rural producers' organization positions 
itself in the market with a business plan on  a competitive basis.  The project helps 
with organization, training, information, technical studies and support, infrastructure 
and productive investment so as to encourage the participation of organized producers 
in the value chains. 
(b) Rural business promotion programme (Pronegocios Rurales) 
The main objective is to boost the income of rural households suffering from poverty 
and extreme poverty by co-financing Sustainable Business Plans (PNS) linked to market-oriented agricultural and non-agri cultural production chains and developed 
according to a format established by the Programme.  The specific objectives include: 
(i) strengthening the rural business service providers (PSER);  (ii) co-financing 
productive agricultural and non-agricultural rural business projects linked to 
production chains;  (iii) supporting co mplementary policies and programmes. 
The programme consists of:   - identifying, prioritising and de veloping production projects;  
- financing business plans:  (a) linke d to production chains;  (b) rural 
micro-business; 
- Improving the coordination of public investment in the agricultural sector. 
(c) Food security and extension project 
Food security extension project (EXTEN SA): The objectives are to increase the 
availability and access to food by promo ting increased production and agricultural 
diversification of subsistence fa rmers, including staple grains. 
(d) Agribusiness development programme sm all and medium-sized African palm 
producers 
Agribusiness development programme for small and medium-sized African palm 
producers:  The project provides for the sowing of 7,206 hectares of African Palm, of 
which 2,882 hectares (40 per cent of the proj ect) will be for the renewal of plantations 
and 4,324 hectares for extending the cultivated  area, in other words 60 per cent of the 
project.  The project also provides for the development of nurseries in which 
700,000 seedlings are being produced for the cu ltivation of 5,000 hectares of African 
palm with new genetic materials that will produce higher yields in the plantations of  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 45 
 
 
  the project area, using sound farming and fertilization practices.  At the same time, 
the project provides for the introduction of a technical and financial assistance system 
to contribute to the development of the palm sector. 
2. Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/45) 
(i) Green Box – Environmental programmes 
79. Question by the European Union:  Please explain how the measure "Responsible 
Production Project – Integrated Natural Resource and Biodiversity Management Project"  complies 
with the provisions of paragraph 12 (b) of Annex 2 which state:  "The amount of payment shall 
be limited to the extra costs or loss of income  involved in complying with the government 
programme."  
The proposals funded by the Responsible Production Programme (PPR) cover only the 
incremental costs incurred by the producer fo r natural resource and biodiversity conservation 
investments and management.  The baseline cons ists of conventional production practices.  
The PPR was extended by mutual agreement be tween the Government and the World Bank 
until 31 August 2012.  In 2011, the PPR paid US$5.66 million in direct financial support to 
producers and expects to pay US$4.87 million in the first eight months of 2012.  By the end 
of its implementation, it is estimated that some 5,500 producers will have received direct 
financial support from the project.  Products to benefit from the project include all agricultural 
goods produced using environmentally clean a nd friendly processes, and products deriving 
from small-scale fishing activities. Other products to benefit are those deriving from conservationist biodiversity management, and indigenous flora and fauna managed according 
to conservationist principles. 
(ii) Transparency issues (delayed notification) 
80. Question by Japan:  Japan understands that the domestic support measures described 
in G/AG/N/URY/45 have already terminated.  Could Uruguay kindly explain the reason why 
the notification was delayed even though Table DS:1 notifications for 2007 until 2010 had 
already been submitted? 
Uruguay had omitted to submit Table DS:1 for these measures, and decided to submit it late 
after receiving an enquiry about the measures. 
E. E
XPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1-ES:3) 
1. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/37) 
81. Questions by the United States:  The United  States would like to request Costa Rica to 
explain how the export subsidy scheme for fruit operates.  Is this programme different from the 
Tax Credit Certificate that Costa Rica notified prior to 2000 and that it reported to Members 
that it was eliminating in 1999? 
As Costa Rica explained in notification G/ AG/N/CRI/35 concerning Table ES:1, in 2011 it 
granted no export subsidies for agricultural products or for fruit in particular.  The Tax Credit Certificate programme referred to by the U.S.  delegation expired in 2000.  Notification 
G/AG/N/CRI/37 concerning Table ES:2, which sh ows Costa Rica's total exports of fruit, 
meets the country's obligation to notify this information in accordance with the List of G/AG/W/94 
Page 46 
 
 
  "significant exporters" for the purposes of the notification requirements in respect of export 
subsidy commitments, contained in docum ent G/AG/2/Add.1 of 16 October 1995. 
Costa Rica would like to take this opportunity to request that the list of "significant exporters" 
be updated as soon as possible so as to reflect the current situation as regards trade in 
agricultural products. 
III. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER AGENDA ITEM I.B (ii)12 
1. Questions by Switzerland in relation to G/AG/N/CAN/89 
82. Could Canada explain why their tariff quota fill rate is only 88 per cent?  What is the 
relationship between the tariff quota administ ration as indicated in G/AG/N/CAN/87/Rev.1 
from 24 February 2012 and the tariff quota fill ra te?  Has Canada already contemplated any 
changes in terms of administering the tariff quota so  as to attain a 100 per cent fill rate?  If so, 
what directions will these changes take?  What  non-tariff barriers might there be?  And could 
they contribute to the current fill rate? 
                                                      
12 This item relates to notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the convening airgram.  In accordance with the Committee's Wo rking Procedures, 
these will be automatically inscribed in the agenda of the next meeting.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 47 
 
 
  Annex 1 
 
Response by Brazil to question posed by  the United States (paragraph 10(b)) 
 
Budgetary expenditures on PEPRO (Prêmi o Equalizador Pago ao Produtor) and 
PEP (Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto) 
 
 
 Product Agricultural year beginning PEP PEPRO 
US$1,000 
Cotton July 2009 - 269,018.9 
Maize July 2009 172,260.1 38,241.3 
Sisal July 2009 2,431.6 - 
Wheat March 2010 12,662.0  - G/AG/W/94 
Page 48 
 
 
  Annex 2 
 
Question by New Zealand (paragraph 17) 
 
Tariff quotas imports (tons) and fill rates (per cent) by Japan 
 
 
  Tariff 
quota 
volume 
(tons) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
SMP for school 
lunch 7,264 2,643 2,907 2,767 2,653 2,696 2,227 2,028 2,109 1,879 
36% 40% 38% 37% 37% 31% 28% 29% 26% 
SMP for other 
purposes 85,878 35,525 35,418 30,994 30,759 25,197 31,078 24,913 24,674 23,040 
41% 41% 36% 36% 29% 36% 29% 29% 27% 
Evaporated milk 1,585 1,498 1,461 1,329 1,505 1,498 1,499 1,482 1,500 1,500 
95% 92% 84% 95% 95% 95% 94% 95% 95% 
Whey and 
modified whey 
for feeding 45,000 22,895 22,774 31,384 32,749 33,788 37,000 31,217 30,985 31,620 
51% 51% 70% 73% 75% 82% 69% 69% 70% 
Prepared whey 
for infant 25,000 11,880 10,471 9,580 8,975 8,645 9,245 8,222 8,624 8,966 
48% 42% 38% 36% 35% 37% 33% 34% 36% 
Butter and 
butter oil 1,873 199 225 242 173 250 235 241 249 199 
11% 12% 13% 9% 13% 13% 13% 13% 11% 
Mineral 
concentrated 
whey 14,000 4,504 3,730 3,566 3,589 4,347 4,035 2,872 2,992 2,574 
32% 27% 25% 26% 31% 29% 21% 21% 18% 
PEF 18,977 18,887 18,909 18,549 18,317 18,816 16,299 15,309 13,676 13,333 
100% 100% 98% 97% 99% 86% 81% 72% 70% 
Other dairy 
products for 
general use 133,940 132,245 132,040 132,362 128,303 130,703 129,601 131,958 133,067 125,715 
99% 99% 99% 96% 98% 97% 99% 99% 94% 
Designated dairy 
products for 
general use 137,202 130,065 126,258 134,012 132,312 136,156 135,862 196,599 131,674 136,252 
95% 92% 98% 96% 99% 99% 143% 96% 99% 
 
Source:  Notifications by Japan to the WTO.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Annex 3 
 
Response by Brazil to question posed by Canada (paragraph 32) 
 
Disaggregation of debt rescheduling programmes   
 
 
Supporting Table DS:2 (Development programmes) – Values in US$1,000 
 
Programme 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 
PROCERA  
(Special Credit for Agrarian Reform Programme) 14,101.5 16,441.2 14,840.5 
PRONAF 
(National Programme for the Strengthening of Family 
Farming) 13,599.1 15,855.4 14,311.7 
 
 
 
Supporting Table DS:9 (Non-product-specific AMS) – Values in US$1,000 
 
Programme 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 
Rural Debt Securitization Programme 783,356.8 913,332.6 824,408.4 
Pesa (Financial Assets Rehabilitation Pr ogramme) 164,818.2 192,165.1 173,455.5 
FCO (Center-West Region Fund) 53,010.1 61,805.6 55,788.1 
FNE (Northeast Region Fund) 37,210.6 43,384.6 39,160.6 
FNO (North Region Fund) 35,605.6 41,513.3 37,471.5 
Other programmes 81,463.9 94,980.5 85,733.0 G/AG/W/94 
Page 50 
 
 
  Annex 4 
 
Response by Brazil to question posed by Canada (paragraph 36) 
 
Table of IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) web links to information on value of 
production  
 
 
Value of 
production Link Other comments 
Crops "http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/agric/
default.asp?t=3&z=t&o=11&u1=1&u2=
1&u3=1&u4=1&u5=1&u6=1 "   If the link does no t work, please visit 
www.sidra.ibge.gov.br .  On the left hand side 
column, under the heading "Temas" (topics), click 
on the link "Agricultura" (agriculture).  Click on 
the worksheet titled "Valor" (value).  Scroll down 
to the two tables related to the value of production 
of specific products (one for annual crops and the 
other for perennial crops). 
 
Livestock 
products "http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pecua/
default.asp?t=5&z=t&o=24&u1=1&u2=
1&u3=1&u4=1&u5=1&u6=1&u7=1 "   If the link does no t work, please visit 
www.sidra.ibge.gov.br .  On the left hand side 
column, under the heading "Temas" (topics), click 
on the link "Pecuária" (livestock).  Click on the 
worksheet titled "Produtos" (products).  Scroll to 
the tables presenting the value of livestock 
products ("Valor dos produtos de origem animal"). 
 
Total 
agricultural 
production "http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/tabela/
listabl.asp?z=t&o=15&i=P&c=1846 "   If the link does no t work, please visit 
www.sidra.ibge.gov.br .  On the left hand side 
column, under the heading "Temas" (topics), click 
on the link "Contas nacionai s" (national accounts). 
Open the folder titled value of current prices 
("Valor a preços correntes") at the top of the page.  
Clicking on the link with the same name right 
above will lead to a search page by quarter of year. 
 
 
Note:  All web pages are in Portuguese and the figures are shown in thousand or million Reais.  G/AG/W/94 
 Page 51 
 
 
   
Annex 5 
 
Question by the United States (paragraph 60(b)) 
 
Distribution of electricity and fertilizer subsidies in India 
 
Table 8.4 – Distribution of electricity subs idy by farm size in Andhra Pradesh, 2003/2004 
Farm size Subsidy per hectare (Rs) Subsidy per holding (Rs)Percenta ge of total 
electricit y subsid y
Marginal (<1 ha) 2,370  1,517  0.9 
Small (1-2 ha) 2,771  4,020  4.2 
Medium (2-4 ha) 3,937  10,677  21.9 
Large (4-10 ha) 4,390  25,406  46.9 
Very large (>10 ha) 3,947  60,774  26.1 
All groups 4,039  16,696  100.0  
Source: Vashishtha, P.S.  (2006a).  Input subsidy in Andhra Pradesh agriculture .  Unpublished manuscript.  
International Food Policy Research  Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi. 
Table 8.5 – Distribution of electricity subsidy by farm size in Punjab, 2003/2004 
Farm size Subsidy per hectare (Rs) Subsidy per holding (Rs)Percenta ge of total 
electricit y subsid y
Marginal (<1 ha) 3,844 2,671 1.9 
Small (1–2 ha) 4,615 4,764 4.4 
Medium (2–4 ha) 3,967 9,223 19.9 
Large (4–10 ha) 3,804 20,434 45.4 
Very large (>10 ha) 3,361 47,843 28.4 
All groups 3,725 15,142 100.0 
Source: Vashishtha, P.S.  (2006b).  Input  subsidy in Punjab agriculture , unpublished manuscript.  International Food 
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi. 
Table 4.3 – Use of fertilizers by size of landholdings, 2000–2001 
Farm size 
(ha) Gross 
cropped 
area 
(thousand 
ha) Area 
treated with 
fertilizers 
(thousand 
ha) Total consumption nutrients (tons)  
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Total 
Marginal 
(<1 ha) 29,081 18,632 1,885,435 804,736 329,865 3,020,036 
Small  
(1–2 ha) 29,168 18,281 1,455,338 693,675 260,179 2,409,192 
Medium  
(2–4 ha) 35,974 21,870 682,515 797,976 228,691 1,709,183 
Large  
(4–10 ha) 38,454 22,086 690,978 779,747 149,193 1,619,918 
Large  
(>10 ha) 20,298 9,139 692,622 313,414 32,179 1,038,215 
All groups 152,976 90,008 7,406,888 3,389,548 1,000,107 11,796,543 
Source:  Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (2008).  Agricultural statistics at a glance 2008;  
http//dacnet.nic.in/eands /At_Glance_2008.htm, accessed 23 April 2010. 
 G/AG/W/94 
Page 52 
 
 
  Annex 6 
 
Response by Honduras to question posed by Canada (paragraph 77) 
  
Technology Voucher Project Cycle 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Necessary      Critical     Indispensable  
 
 
__________  Launch  Cooperation  
agreements  Section of 
producers  
Supply of lists
Voucher 
distribution/FO  FO/producer  
meetings  Repayment  
commitment  Withdrawal  of 
inputs 
Sowing 
Refresher  
workshops  
Social 
component  
DICTA 
Purchase of 
inputs 
Technical  assistance
Monitoring  and follow‐up
Evaluation
Governmen t  SAG/DICTA   Facilitation  Offices ProducerTransfers  Allocation  
of 
Resources  Promotion 
workshops