RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/78 
22 October 2010 
 (10-5502) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of responses to questions raised during the Committee on Agriculture meeting 
 
on 23 September 20101 
  
 The present document compiles the responses recei ved in writing by the Secretariat to the 
questions raised in document G/AG/W/77.  
_______________ 
 
 
Table of Contents
 
 
I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ...............4  
A. STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA : THE EUROPEAN UNION 'S RESCHEDULING OF ITS 
DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS .....................................................4  
B. UKRAINE 'S PROPOSED "TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL FEE".......................................................4  
C. CANADA 'S TRADE -RESTRICTIVE MEASURES ON DAIRY PRODUCTS ..........................................4  
D. ARGENTINA 'S APPLICATION OF "CERTIFICATES OF FREE CIRCULATION " AND 
CERTAIN FOOD IMPORT DISTRIBUTION PRACTICES ...................................................................5  
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............5  
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)...................................................................................................5  
1. China   G/AG/N/CHN/19.......................................................................................................... 5 
2. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/153 ......................................................................................................... 6 
3. Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/51 ................................................................................................6  
B. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO 
MA:5).......................................................................................................................... ................6  
1. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/ 76, TPKM/77 and TPKM/78 ...........................................6  
2. United States   G/AG/N/USA/74 ..............................................................................................8  
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1)......................................................................................................................... .....9 
1. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 ......................................................................................................... .9 
                                                      
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/78 
Page 2  
 
  (a)
 Supporting Table DS:1:  Agrarian organization;  agrarian reform settlement............................9  
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Government agricultural insurance programme .................................9  
(c) Supporting Table DS:1:  Green Box expenditures....................................................................10  
(d) Supporting Table DS:2:  Production credit...............................................................................10  
(e) Supporting Table DS:2:  Funds for agricultural investments....................................................10  
(f) Supporting Table DS:2:  Debt rescheduling programmes ........................................................11  
(g) Supporting Table DS:5 .......................................................................................................... ...12 
(h) Supporting Table DS:7 .......................................................................................................... ...12 
(i) Supporting Table DS:9:  Risk minimising agribusiness programme........................................13  
(j) Data sources................................................................................................................... ...........13  
2. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17........................................................................................................14  
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  General services................................................................................14  
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Public stockholding for food security purposes................................14  
(c) Supporting Table DS:1:  Environmental programmes..............................................................15  
(d) Supporting Table DS:1:  Decoupled income support ...............................................................15  
(e) Supporting Table DS:1:  Regional assistance programmes ......................................................16  
(f) Supporting Table DS:5:  Protective price system and minimum procurement price 
system ......................................................................................................................... ..............16  
(g) Supporting Table DS:5:  External reference price ....................................................................17  
(h) Supporting Table DS:7:  Improved crop strains and seeds.......................................................18  
(i) Supporting Table DS:9:  Price subsidies for means for production..........................................18  
3. Costa Rica  G/AG/N/CRI/6/Rev.1, CRI/7 /Rev.1, CRI/9/Rev.1, CRI/24/Rev.1 and 
CRI/30......................................................................................................................... .............18  
(a) Table DS:1:  Notified AMS level .............................................................................................18  
(b) De minimis  expenditures...........................................................................................................20  
(c) Supporting Table DS:1:  "Productive conversion programme" and "Farming and 
livestock protection and development trust for small and medium-sized producers"...............21  
(d) Various supporting tables ...................................................................................................... ...22 
4. Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/57/Rev.1 .............................................................................22  
5. Dominican Republic   G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1....................................................................22  
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  "Rice production and marketing programme" and 
"Marketing incentive programme for other crops" ...................................................................22  
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Marketing and promotion services....................................................23  
6. Switzerland  G/AG/N/CHE/49 ...............................................................................................24  
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  Public stockholding for food security purposes................................24  
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Decoupled income support ...............................................................24  
(c) Supporting Table DS:1:  Structural adjustme nt provided through investment aids..................25   G/AG/W/78 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (d) Supporting Table DS:1:  Environmental programmes..............................................................25  
(e) Supporting Table DS:1:  Regional assistance programmes ......................................................25  
7. Uruguay  G/AG/N/URY/39 ....................................................................................................26  
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  Environmental programmes..............................................................26  
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Direct payments to producers ...........................................................26  
D. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2).........................................................................................................26  
1. China   G/AG/N/CHN/18........................................................................................................26  
2. United States   G/AG/N/USA/73 ............................................................................................27  
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS 
(TABLES  ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) ....................................................................................................28  
1. Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/29.................................................................................................28  
2. Poland   G/AG/N/POL/66.......................................................................................................28  
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QU ESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA....................................29  
(a) Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:  Domes tic support, export subsidies, tariff quota 
fill and special  safeguard ..................................................................................................... .....29  
(b) China:  Domestic support....................................................................................................... ...29 
(c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies........................................................................29  
(d) India:  Tariff quota administration, tari ff quota fill, domestic support and export 
subsidies...................................................................................................................... ..............29  
(e) Korea:  Domestic support and export subsidies........................................................................30  
(f) Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies......................................................................30  
(g) United States:  NFIDC Food Aid..............................................................................................31  
 G/AG/W/78 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. S
TATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA : THE EUROPEAN UNION 'S RESCHEDULING OF ITS DOMESTIC 
SUPPORT AND EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  
1. Australia would like to use this opportunity to  remind the Committee of the outstanding issue 
of the European Union's proposed approach to rescheduling its export subsidy and domestic support 
commitments following its expansion.  While the EU's proposed approach has not been resolved, 
Australia welcomes the discussions with the EU.  Australia looks forward to further detailed 
engagement with the EU in order to progress and finalise this issue. 
B. UKRAINE 'S PROPOSED "TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL FEE" 
2. Question by Canada:  Canada understands that Ukraine has proposed a "temporary 
agricultural fee" that would be in force for three  years starting 1 January 2011.  This proposed 
ten per cent fee would be applied to imports of meat, fish and fish products, and plant 
protection products.  Canada requests greater clar ification of this temporary agricultural fee, 
including:   
(a) the specific tariff lines upon which the fee would be levied;   
(b) whether the fee would constitute a customs duty;   
(c) whether the fee would be applied exclusively to imports;   
(d) whether this policy has been finalized by  the Ukrainian Government and if not, 
when it expects it to be final. 
In particular, Canada is interested in knowi ng how such a measure conforms to Ukraine's 
WTO commitments.  Canada suggests that Ukrain e provide a written summary of the proposed 
fee and any related documents to Committee Members at the earliest possible time. 
 
 Ukraine has not proposed a "temporary agricu ltural fee".  The Ministry of Agricultural 
Policy of Ukraine has drafted the Law of  Ukraine "On amending certain laws of 
Ukraine on taxation" (to support employment in Ukraine in the global financial crisis), 
which stipulates the introduction of a "temporary agricultural fee" and has made it available for expert discussion on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture.  The Government of Ukraine has neither approve d the draft nor submitted this draft, nor 
any drafts of a similar kind, to the Parliament of Ukraine. 
 
C. C
ANADA 'S TRADE -RESTRICTIVE MEASURES ON DAIRY PRODUCTS  
3. Question by New Zealand:  How is Canada en suring that cumulative protection-driven 
policies in its dairy sector are consistent with its WTO obligations and various commitments not 
to introduce new trade-restrictive measures?  Measures of concern include:   
(a) modifications to the 4M milk classes' programme, which undercuts the price of 
imported ingredients used in cheese;   
(b) the "100 per cent Canadian milk" ice cream subsidy programme where there is 
a lack of clarity about the degree of involvement of a government agency (the Canadian Dairy Commission);  and   G/AG/W/78 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (c) changes to Canadian compositional sta ndards for cheese, which unjustifiably 
restrict the use of imported ingredients in cheese (as previously raised in the 
TBT Committee). 
 As already noted in Canada's responses to the questions posed by New Zealand in the 
past, Canada does not see these measures as new trade-restrictive measures.  We 
consider that these measures are consistent with Canada's WTO ri ghts and obligations. 
 D. A
RGENTINA 'S APPLICATION OF "CERTIFICATES OF FREE CIRCULATION " AND CERTAIN FOOD 
IMPORT DISTRIBUTION PRACTICES  
4. Question by the United States:  The United  States understands that there are significant 
delays in many cases for Instituto Nacional de Alimentos (INAL) issuing the "certificate of free 
circulation" for food imports, and that in some ca ses this is only issued after the importer agrees 
to undertake additional commitments with respect to  exports.  We are concerned that this could 
be acting as a de facto  discretionary import licensing proce dure.  We would therefore appreciate 
further explanation regarding this requirement, and the basis for maintaining such a regime.  
Additionally, we have heard reports of Government of Argentina officials entering grocery 
stores and requesting that certain imported items be removed from the shelves.  Can Argentina 
comment?  
 Argentina is unaware of any delays in the i ssuing of the certificate of free circulation.  
Recent figures, however, show an increase in Argentinian imports from the United States.  Statistical data (from domestic sources) relating to HS Chapters included in 
Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, in th is case Chapters 1, 2 and 4 to 24, show 
a seasonally adjusted increase in imports between the second quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2010, with a 34 per cent rise in import volume and a 37 per cent rise in import value.  The quarter-on-quarter va riation (including seasonality) also shows a 
steady increase in imports from the fourth quarter of 2009 onwards, with a 6 per cent 
increase in volume and a 23 per cent increase in  value.  A 10 per cent increase in value 
and a 6 per cent increase in volume was reco rded between the fourth quarter of 2009 
and the fourth quarter of 2010.  This trend can also be seen in the first and second 
quarters of 2010, with a 13 per cent increase in import value and a 31 per cent increase in import volume.  The recent trend shows that Argentinian imports from the United States have increased and that they continue to do so. 
 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. N
OTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. China   G/AG/N/CHN/19 
5. Question by Canada:  Canada notes that the ta riff quotas for corn (1.2 per cent fill), rice 
(6.7 per cent fill), wheat (9.38 per cent fill) an d sugar (54.7 per cent fill) were significantly 
underfilled.  Could China elaborate on the reasons for the underfill?  
 Ever since China's entry into the WTO, Ch ina's agricultural tariff  rate quotas (TRQs) 
have been allocated strictly accordin g to China's accession commitments.  The 
enterprises acquiring the tariff quota, independently decide whether they will import 
based on the market situation.  In recent years, the filling of China's TRQs varies 
according to the product.  Every year, China completely fills its 8,940,000 tonne cotton TRQ.  For corn, rice and wheat, due to China's grains output increasing for six G/AG/W/78 
Page 6  
 
  consecutive years since 2004, the domestic suppl y is sufficient and the market price is 
stable.  The willingness of enterprises to import is not strong, therefore the import volume is limited. 
 
2. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/153 
6. Question by New Zealand:  New Zealand notes that Japan has notified low tariff quota 
fill rates for skimmed milk powder for school lunc hes, skimmed milk powder for other purposes 
and whey powder for 2008.  Could Japan provide an explanation for the low fill rates for these 
tariff quotas and outline any steps being take n to address the underfill of these tariff quotas?  
 Under the TRQ system, Members are committed to providing access opportunities for 
products, but they are not committed to filli ng the TRQs.  The TRQs in question have 
remained unfilled because the total volume app lied for by importers was less than the 
bound tariff quota volume.  In order to increase the fill rates of these products, Japan considers it necessary for the private sector in exporting countries to make commercial efforts to expand their markets.  Therefor e, Japan does not consider it necessary to 
change its TRQ system due to the underfill of these tariff quotas.  
 
3. Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/51 
7. Question by Canada:  Could Switzerland elab orate on the reasons why the tariff quota 
for coarse grains for human consumption was underfilled?  
 TRQ No. 28 covers several products, namely  barley, oats and maize, all for human 
consumption.  The TRQ is not allocated to specific partners, nor is it subject to special 
access arrangements.  This TRQ is not admi nistered and the quantity is thus not 
restricted (cf. G/LIC/N/3/CHE/5).  The reason for the TRQ underfill is therefore lack of demand.  
 
B. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/76, TPKM/77 and TPKM/78 
8. Questions by Australia:  
(a) Australia welcomes the notifications from Chinese Taipei regarding the 
invocation of the SSG on dried shiitake, ch icken legs and wings, and fresh milk.  
Australia notes that SSG entitlements a re scheduled at a tariff line level in a 
Member's Schedule of Commitments, not at  a product level.  We note that 
Chinese Taipei has, for chicken legs and wings, and for fresh milk, grouped 
together four tariff lines for each product description, e.g. for fresh milk – HS 0401.10.10, 0401.20.10,  0401.30.10, and 0402.99.10.  Also, Chinese Taipei has 
grouped tariff lines covering fresh/chilled,  frozen, salted/brined/dried/smoked, 
and prepared/preserved chicken legs and wings, with one line in a different HS 
Chapter. 
(i) Can Chinese Taipei explain why it  did not notify each tariff line 
separately and provide the relevant trigger calculations? 
(ii) Can Chinese Taipei provide the trigger level and volume of imports for 
each tariff line and the additional SSG duty that has been applied?  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (iii) Can Chinese Taipei explain the ration ale for the grouping of the chicken 
legs and wings tariff lines, especially given the lack of substitution between dried/smoked chicken with fresh or frozen chicken? 
 Because the line-by-line statistics for domestic consumption are not available, 
Chinese Taipei groups the relevant tari ff lines together for the purpose of 
calculating the trigger level.  The application of separate trigger volumes is 
consistent with the Agreement on Ag riculture and Chinese Taipei's accession 
commitments. 
 
(b) Australia notes that Chinese Taipei has used imports from 2006-2008 for the 
calculation of the trigger level for all th ree SSG notifications.  Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture specifies that the trigger level should be calculated 
based on the three preceding years for wh ich data are available.  On 15 March 
2010, Chinese Taipei notified imports under tariff quotas (G/AG/N/TPKM/75) 
for calendar year 2009, with the SSG no tifications occurring subsequently in 
June 2010 and August 2010.  Can Chinese Taipei explain why 2009 import data 
was not used in the calculation of the 2010 SSG volume trigger levels, considering imports under tariff quotas for 2009 were available and notified 
months before the submission of the SSG notifications?   
 On the question of the reference years used in calculating the trigger levels, 
our answer is the same as that provided at the 45
th and 46th regular meetings of 
this Committee.  According to Article 5.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
the SSG trigger level should be calcu lated using the "average quantity of 
imports during the three preceding years for which data are available".  As the trigger level for 2010 was calculated and published at the end of 2009, and the 
data on actual imports for 2009 was not ava ilable at that time, the trigger level 
was calculated using the latest data available and based on average annual 
imports from 2006 to 2008. 
 
(c) Australia notes that Chinese Taipei has notified imports under tariff quotas for 
2009 for dried shitake and liquid milk (G/AG/N/TPKM/75) and that both tariff quotas were underfilled (12.6 per cent and 38.9 per cent fill rate, respectively). 
(i) Can Chinese Taipei assure Members that SSG duties have not been 
applied to in-quota imports in 2010? 
(ii) If SSG duties were applied only on over-quota imports, can Chinese 
Taipei clarify why importers would attempt to import over-quota at higher tariff rates, instead of within the tariff quota and at a lower duty, 
particularly given the low fill rates? 
 Chinese Taipei confirms that the SSG on fresh milk was applied to out-of-
quota imports only.  The current SSG provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture clearly stipulate that in- quota imports shall be exempted from an 
additional duty even when the SSG has been invoked.  Therefore, the minimum market access opportunity as co mmitted by Members can always be 
secured.  Importers can make their own decisions as to whether or not they 
wish their imports to be subject to the out-of-quota tariff rate. 
 
(iii) Is the administration of these tariff quotas too onerous, limiting fill rates 
and leading to the application of the SSG? G/AG/W/78 
Page 8  
 
  (iv) Given these concerns, will Chinese Taip ei consider eliminating the SSG 
as part of the Doha Round, in lin e with commitments for developed 
country Members? 
 As a recently-acceded Me mber, Chinese Taipei has already undertaken very 
extensive market access commitments at the time of our accession.  For a net 
food-importing developing Member like Chinese Taipei, the SSG is a very 
useful tool.  It provides a certain degree of comfort to importing Members when they open up their markets.  Si nce we are all committed to a substantial 
improvement in market access in the D oha Round, we are convinced that the 
current SSG measure should be maintained as long as the reform process is 
on-going, in accordance with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Chinese Taipei confirms that the calculation and application of SSG for each product is fully in accordance with its accession commitments and Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
9. Questions by the United States:  Some  Members do not apply the volume-based 
agricultural safeguard (SSG), even if the trigger is  met, for example, when prices are stable or 
increasing.  Why did Chinese Taipei decide to  apply the SSG?  What are current domestic 
prices?  
 See reply under paragraph 8 (c) (iii) and (iv).  It is of critical importance for Chinese 
Taipei to adopt SSG measures for these key products. 
 
2. United States   G/AG/N/USA/74 
10. Question by Brazil:  In relation to the app lication of the price-based SSG, could the 
United States specify the trigger calculations as per Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture for the following lines?  
0201308090 Bovine meat cuts, boneless,  fresh or chld., over-quota 
0202308000 Frozen beef, boneless, over-quota 
1701115000 Raw cane sugar, over-quota 
1701915800 Flavoured sugar over 10% sugar, over-quota 
1701995010 Specialty sugars, not flavored or colored, over-quota 
1701995020 Refined cane or beet sugar, no t flavored or colored, over-quota 
1701995030 Cane or beet sugar, not raw, not flavored or colored, over-quota 
1701995090 Cane or beet sugar, not raw, not flavored or colored, over-quota 
 
 
 The United States notified the WTO Committe e on Agriculture with the requested 
price trigger calculations in November 1995 (G/AG/N/USA/1/Add.1):  
 
Import Price Tariff Item 
Number Description of Product 1986 1987 1988 Trigger 
Price 
0201.30.80 Fresh/chilled bonele ss beef 1.77 2.00 2.12 $1.97 
0202.30.80 Frozen boneless beef 1.77 2.00 2.12 $1.97 
1701.11.50 Raw cane sugar 0.34 0.31 0.35 $0.33 1701.91.58 Flavored sugar over 10% sugar N/A 0.44 0.55 $0.48 
1701.99.50 Refined suga r 0.51 0.51 0.49 $0.50 
  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 9 
 
 
  C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/26 
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  Agrarian organization;  agrarian reform settlement  
11. Question by Australia:  Can Brazil explain which General Services category "agrarian 
organisation; agrarian reform settlemen t" programmes are classified under?  
 A set of social rural programmes is  included under the heading "Agrarian 
organization".  Such programmes are direct ed to landless poor farmers.  The amounts 
spent are related to the acquisition of ru ral land by the government, its preparatory 
measures, in addition to expenses linked to  the management of the programme and 
support for rural settlement projects.  It is classified under paragraphs 2(d) and (g) of 
Annex 2. 
 (b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Government agricultural insurance programme
 
12. Questions by Australia:  Can Brazil expl ain its "government agricultural insurance 
programme"?  Under which section of A nnex 2 is this programme notified?  
 The measure complies with the criteria set out in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, as it provides relief from natural disasters.  The Ministry of Agrarian Development is in charge of the Warranty Crop Programme, which is a 
social programme granting R$600.00 (approxi mately US$ 350.00) per family farmer 
who applied to the programme (by paying a premium) in the event that the Government authorities formally recognize that a natural disaster occurred.  In 
addition, incurred losses should be of at least 50 per cent of the crop.  The programme 
does not cover all the Brazilian territory, being confined geographically to the 
Northeast region, the north of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo States, areas with high drought incidence. 
 13. Questions by Canada:  Brazil claims support  under "Warranty-Crop Fund" as Green.  
Under what paragraph of Annex 2 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture is this programme claimed 
as green?  Specifically, how does this programme meet each and every criterion of the relevant 
paragraph?  
 See reply in paragraph 12. 
 14. Questions by the European Union:  
(a) Among the expenditures notified in the G reen Box, is the crop insurance scheme 
indeed notified under Annex 2, paragraph 7? 
 The reply is in the negative. 
 
(b) What are the regulatory provisions to ensu re compliance with the criteria in this 
paragraph (loss threshold, etc.)? 
 See reply in paragraph 12. 
 G/AG/W/78 
Page 10  
 
  (c) Supporting Table DS:1:  Green Box expenditures
 
15. Question by Japan:  The total Green Box more than doubled in 2005, and increased 
again in 2006.  Would Brazil explain the rea sons and the background for these increases?  
 The amounts of government spending on meas ures classified as "general services" 
have two sources of expansion.  Firstly , many social and rural development 
programmes were enhanced.  The two programmes that contributed most to this 
expansion were Agrarian Reform and Domest ic Food Aid (meals for public schools).  
Secondly, the Brazilian currency (Real) has appreciated significantly against the American dollar throughout this period. 
 
(d) Supporting Table DS:2:  Production credit
 
16. Questions by Australia:  What type of pr oduction and marketing credit assistance do 
Brazilian famers receive?  Is it targeted at any particular products?  
 Brazilian farmers are eligible to rece ive production and marketing credit through 
public credit or private credit under interest rates defined by the government.  There is 
no allocation for any specific type of pr oduction.  Nevertheless, the values for 
production credits (by hectare) vary according to  the cost of production of the product.  
Likewise, the value of marketing credit depends on the price of the product.  Also, there is an individual limit per farmer to benefit from this type of programme.  The 
implicit subsidy is estimated by calculating th e difference between the interest rate for 
each programme and the benchmark interest rate (SELIC), taking into account all the 
parameters of the programme. 
 
17. Questions by the United States:  How does Br azil calculate the subsidized interest rate 
for its non-product-specific production and mark eting credit notified for 2004/05 and 2005/06?  
In particular, which publicly-available references fo r commercial or consum er interest rates are 
used by the Government of Brazil to establish th e non-subsidized rates against which subsidized 
rates are measured?  
 The implicit subsidy for each programme w as estimated by calculating the difference 
between the interest rate for each progra mme and SELIC interest rate (benchmark), 
taking into account all the parameters of  each programme.  All information about 
credit programmes is available at the websit es (only in Portuguese) of the following 
agencies:  Ministry of Agriculture, Minist ry of Agrarian Development, and Central 
Bank websites. 
 
(e) Supporting Table DS:2:  Funds for agricultural investments
 
18. Question by the United States:  Are subsidized interest rates provided to Development 
Bank BNDES through the National Treasury fo r rural development projects and agricultural 
sector investments included in Supporting Tabl e DS:2 or are they notified elsewhere?  
 All credits provided by Development Ba nk BNDES programmes to the agricultural 
sector are included in Supporting Table DS:2 under the heading "Funds for agricultural investments".  The BNDES progr ammes for agriculture currently notified 
are MODERFROTA, PRODEFRUTA, MODERAGRO, PRODEAGRO, 
MODERINFRA, PRODECOOP and FINAME Agrícola Especial. 
  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (f) Supporting Table DS:2:  Debt rescheduling programmes  
19. Question by Australia:  How does Brazil's  debt rescheduling programme work?  
 The general debt rescheduling programme i nvolved two main types of arrangements.  
First, the government restructured rura l loans with overdue debt under R$200,000 
(roughly US$117,000).  Under this arrangement, known as rural debt securitization, 
debtors were granted an extension of the re payment period of seven to ten years with a 
two-year grace period.  The outstanding debt was to be indexed based on the minimum guaranteed price index, and the interest rate was set at 3 per cent per year. In order to re-capitalize the banks involved,  treasury bonds were issued with the same 
period of maturity as the restructured debt  and transferred to the banks.  However, 
these agreements remained la rgely unfulfilled as repayments were not honoured by the 
farmers.  This situation led to a further renegotiation of the initial terms.  The new 
agreement extended the repayment period to 24  years.  To become eligible for this 
modified scheme, producers were obliged  to offset all overdue repayments 
accumulated until then and cover at least 35 pe r cent of repayments due.  The majority 
of debtors were able to join this modifi ed scheme;  however some debtors continued 
to adhere to the original scheme.   
  Another rescheduling arrangement concerned loans over R$200,000 under the 
Programme of Financial Assets Rehabilitati on (PESA).  Treasury bonds were issued 
with a face value equal to this debt with a 20-year maturity.  Debtors were required to 
buy these bonds at their present value and tran sfer them to the banks.  Moreover, at 
the beginning of the 2000s, the amount of debts held by small producers also became an issue.  Those debts referred to ove rdue loans under the PROCERA and PRONAF 
programmes.  The PROCERA programme was in place between 1986 and 1999, 
providing loans to settlers under agrarian  reform programmes.  The terms of 
PROCERA debt rescheduling underwent several modifications that resulted in the 
progressive relaxation of repayment term s.  Under current conditions, PROCERA 
debtors are granted an extension period for repayments of 18 years. 
 
20. Questions by Canada:  In its 2004/05 and 2005/06 notifications Brazil shows in both 
Supporting Table DS:2 (Development Programm es) and Supporting Table DS:9 (Non-product-
specific AMS) certain amounts of support called "Debt rescheduling programmes".  It appears 
that Brazil's producers enjoy support under numerous credit programmes.  
(a) For the amount of support reported as "Debt rescheduling programmes" in 
each supporting table, how was the amount of support calculated for each relevant credit programme? 
 The amounts are presented below. 
 
 Supporting Table DS:2 (Development programmes) – Values in US$ '000 
Programme 2004/2005 2005/2006 
PROCERA (Special Credit for Agrarian Reform Programme) 10,080.7 11,713.5 
PRONAF (National Programme for the Strengthening of 
Family Farming) 9,721.5 11,296.1 
 G/AG/W/78 
Page 12  
 
   Supporting Table DS:9 (Non-product-specific AMS) – Values in US$ '000 
Programme 2004/2005 2005/2006 
Rural Debt Securitization Programme 559,996.4 650,700.3 
Pesa (Financial Assets Rehabilitation Programme) 117,823.2 136,907.3 
FCO (Center-West Region Fund) 37,895.2 44,033.2 
FNE (Northeast Region Fund) 26,600.6 30,909.2 
FNO (North Region Fund) 25,453.3 29,576.0 
Other programmes 58,235.9 67,668.5 
(b) How much support would arise from debt forgiveness and how much from 
preferential interest rates under the debt rescheduling programmes? 
 It is important to highlight that the Brazilian Government does not provide for debt 
forgiveness under the debt rescheduling progra mmes.  The total amount notified refers 
to preferential interest rates support.  The implicit subsidy was estimated by 
calculating the difference between the interest rate of each programme and the benchmark interest rate - SELIC - plus 2 per cent, or the TR (Referential Interest Rate) plus 11 per cent, according to the pr ogramme, and taking into account all the 
parameters of the programme and the rescheduling conditions. 
 
21. Questions by the United States:  For 2004/05 and 2005/06, Brazil lists debt rescheduling 
under PRONAF and PROCERA progra mmes.  How does Brazil account for debt restructuring, 
including debt forgiveness, discounted repaym ent or extended repayment terms related to 
transfers of outstanding debt from financial inst itutions into the "Active Union Debt (DAU)" of 
the National Treasury?  Also, do these programmes include "equalization" payments provided 
to financial institutions that renegotiate terms of repayment to offset newly-assumed risk and/or 
financial losses associated with restructuring?  
 See reply in paragraph 20 (b).  The resc heduling programme may include equalization 
payments, but Brazil considers that th e implicit subsidy calculation, which 
consistently arrives at higher values than equalization, is a more conservative and 
accurate approach. 
 (g) Supporting Table DS:5
 
22. Questions by the European Union:  How are the maximum eligible quantities calculated, 
which are very small compared to Brazil's produc tion?  What are Brazil's legislative provisions 
for considering that there is indeed a maximum elig ible quantity, so as not (as is usually the case 
for guaranteed minimum price systems) to cons ider production as a whole as being eligible 
under the programme?  
 The quantities notified are the actual quan tities that benefited from the programme.  
Although there is no legal limit for the eligib le quantity, budgetary constraints limit 
the coverage of the minimum price programme to only a fraction of the total 
production.  
 (h) Supporting Table DS:7
 
23. Questions by the European Union:  In Supporting Table DS:7, how is the budgetary 
expenditure notified for the PROP, PEP or PEPRO schemes calculated?  What does it 
correspond to exactly?  What are the amounts ac tually involved and the quantities eligible  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 13 
 
 
  under these schemes?  Could Brazil elaborate on why the expenditure relating to wheat for 
agricultural year 2004/2005 is much higher than all the others?  
 PEP, PEPRO and PROP are support programme s provided through public auction to 
farmers, traders or industries (depending on the programme) interested in the purchase 
or sale of products in a given region, by the minimum price set by the government.  
Government acquisitions are not a requirem ent for the operation of the programme.  
The actual quantity benefiting and premium paid (the difference between minimum 
price and market price) are notified.  Payments for wheat during crop year 2004/2005 were comparatively higher than those ma de to other crops, because actual market 
prices for this product have fallen well below the minimum price set by the 
government. 
 (i) Supporting Table DS:9:  Risk minimising agribusiness programme
 
24. Question by Australia:  What is Brazil's "risk minimising agribusiness programme"?  
 It is a programme in which the government defrays part of the rural insurance 
premium.  The government subve ntion has a ceiling per producer. 
 
(j) Data sources  
25. Questions by the United States:  In confirmi ng information provided in the notifications, 
it is often unclear which data sources or methods of calculation are being used.  For example, in 
determining eligible production for market price support, which publicly-available price and 
production data series are used to determine the value of production for commodities for de 
minimis  purposes?  We would appreciate the opportunity to work with Brazil to gain a better 
understanding of Brazil's sources used to de velop this notification and which can be 
transparently provided to all WTO Members.  
 Since 1999, Brazil has consistently employed the same methodology to notify its 
measures under Green Box.  More recently,  we improved their format by presenting 
the figures in a more disaggregated manner .  The source is the Brazilian government 
budget.  Spending data is collected from SIAFI (Electronic Budget System).  Spending under the programme headings "a griculture", "education" and "agrarian 
organization" is collected, selected, and or ganized in accordance with the provisions 
under Supporting Table DS:1.  It is to be noted that Brazilian government budget 
information is not available to the public in as disaggregated a format as the one 
notified to the WTO. 
  The Central Bank of Brazil is the source fo r information concerning credits provided.  
The implicit subsidy was estimated by calcu lating the difference between the interest 
rate of each programme and the SELIC interest rate plus 2 per cent, or the TR 
(Referential Interest Rate) plus 11 per cen t, according to the programme, and taking 
into account all the parameters of each pr ogramme and the rescheduling conditions.  
There is no debt forgiveness under debt rescheduling programmes, and the total 
amount refers to preferential interest rates support.  
 
 All the information regarding credit provided,  interest rates, market price support, and 
crop insurance is available at the websit es (only in Portuguese) of the following 
agencies:  Ministry of Agriculture, National Food Supply Company, Ministry of Agrarian Development, and Central Bank.  The value of production of the products is G/AG/W/78 
Page 14  
 
  available at the website of the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE, 
only in Portuguese). 
 
2. China   G/AG/N/CHN/17 
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  General services
 
26. Question by the United States:  Regardin g General Services reported in Supporting 
Table DS:1, could China provide detailed info rmation about "the government payments 
provided for various services to promote agricul tural development" including the types of 
services, and the payment rate and/ or amount for specific services?  
 General services under the Governmental Service Programmes include the eight types 
of services as notified in the Supporting Tabl e DS:1.  The payments for each type of 
service have been notified. 
 
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Public stockholding for food security purposes  
27. Questions by Australia:  Does China have ta rgets for the volume and accumulation of 
public stockholding of wheat, corn, rice, vegetable o ils and sugar?  If so, wh at are those targets?  
At what prices did the government purchase these products?  
28. Question by the European Union:  Page 4 shows support between 42 and 55 billion yuan 
annually for public stockholding.  Can China elab orate on how the products that are mentioned 
are being procured?  
29. Questions by the United States:  Could Ch ina share information on how these figures 
are calculated or the outlay documents where th ese figures can be found?  At what prices are 
these stocks purchased, and how a re those prices determined?  Are these stocks released or sold 
onto the domestic or international market at any point in time after their acquisition, and if so, 
at what prices are they released onto the market?  
 China established a national grain reserve sy stem consisting of both central and local 
reserves.  The Central Grain Reserve is one of the major macro-economic policies 
used to deal with severe natural disasters or big harvests through selling or purchasing 
grain.  The purchase price of grain for the reserve is based on the prevailing market 
price and conducted either by way of dir ect procurement or procurement through 
public bidding in the wholesales market.  Public stocks for security purposes are 
allowed to be procured at market prices.  The figures of public stockholding are calculated based on the Final Account of State Revenue and Expenditure. 
 
 According to the relevant regulations, a cer tain amount of the food stocks should be 
swapped annually. The time and price of such  swaps are determined by the enterprises 
responsible for the operation and management  of public stockholding, and enterprises 
should assume sole responsibility for their ow n profits and losses.  The food swapped 
out can only be sold in the domestic market, instead of being sold to other countries or 
regions. 
  The volumes of public stockholding of gr ains and sugar are determined based on 
various aspects, such as the production,  consumption, growth, domestic and 
international market supply, and demand and price situation. The above-mentioned 
products are purchased at market prices by the government. 
  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (c) Supporting Table DS:1:  Environmental programmes  
30. Questions by Australia:  Are China's envi ronmental programmes a part of clearly-
defined government environmental or conservat ion programmes?  Are payments under these 
programmes dependent on the fulfilment of specific criteria?  
31. Questions by the European Union:  Page 4 shows a significant increase in support under 
environmental programmes in 2004, i.e. 61.6 billio n yuan, up from 21.6 billion yuan in 2003.  
Can China explain the reason for this increa se and whether any specific programmes are 
concerned?  Are the payments made to farmers?  
 China always attaches great importance to environmental protection.  The outlays of 
the environment programmes listed in G/AG/N/CHN/17 were mainly paid to 
agricultural environmental programmes, includi ng afforestation, reforestation, natural 
forestry protection, desert control and prevention.  As the fulfillment of criteria varies 
according to different programmes, it is impossible to determine whether the 
payments under these programmes are depe ndent on the fulfillment of specific 
criteria. 
 
 The significant increase of environmental programmes in 2004 is mainly attributed to 
the increase in expenditure for the afforest ration and reforestation programme.  Grain 
support due to the implementation of the above programme was delivered in kind 
before 2003, while delivered in cash in 2004.   Due to fiscal accounting difficulties, 
grain support in terms of cash for both 2003 and 2004 were delive red in 2004, thus 
contributing to the substantial increase of the outlay in 2004.  However, it should be 
noted that all this support was used solely  for compensation to the farming households 
affected by the afforestration and reforestation programme. 
 
(d) Supporting Table DS:1:  Decoupled income support  
32. Question by Australia:  Australia notes that paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2 requires that 
eligibility for decoupled income support "be de termined by clearly-defined criteria ... in a 
defined and fixed base period".  Could China ad vise what "clearly-defined criteria" and what 
"defined and fixed base period" determine e ligibility for its "direct payment to farmers"?  
 All farmers with contracted land are eligible  for the Farmer's Direct Payment.  There 
is no restriction for the use of the land, i.e., farmers are not required to produce any 
specific product. Payment rates are de termined by provincial governments 
respectively, and thus may differ from province to province.  The area of land covered 
by this programme is not currently available. 
  China has listed in Table DS:2 the legisla tion on criteria for farmers eligible for the 
support, i.e.  "Opinions of the CCCPC and the State Council Concerning Some 
Policies on Promoting the Increase of Farmers' Income" .  Farmers shall
 have 
contracted land to qualify for the suppor t while the base period for determining 
acreage for the contracted land is set at the time when the land contract was signed. 
  In China, land in the rural area is owned by the farmers collectively.  Any member in 
the collective economic organization is eligible  to contracted land.  The term for the 
land contract is 30 years, and th e land contract can be renewed.  G/AG/W/78 
Page 16  
 
  (e) Supporting Table DS:1:  Regional assistance programmes
 
33. Question by Canada:  China notes that aid and assistance are provided to 
disadvantaged regions.  Could China elaborate on  the criteria for determining which region is 
disadvantaged?  
 "Regional assistance programmes" are used to  help the people in the "key poverty-
stricken counties" to shake off poverty.  Th e criteria for defining a "poverty-stricken 
county" include the population of impoveri shed people, per capita net income of 
farmers, per capita GDP, per capita fiscal re venue and other basic factors.  During the 
notification period between 2002 and 2004, China had 592 "key poverty-stricken counties".  The impoverished population can be further divided into two categories, 
the "rural absolute impoverished people"  (subsistence population) and the "low-
income impoverished people", based on hou sehold per capita net incomes.  In the 
years 2002, 2003 and 2004, the standards for defining the "rural absolute 
impoverished people" were below 627 yuan, 637 yuan and 668 yuan, respectively, and 
the standards for defining the "low-inc ome impoverished people" were below 869 
yuan, 882 yuan and 924 yuan, respectively. 
 
(f) Supporting Table DS:5:  Protective price system and minimum procurement price system
 
34. Questions by Australia:  In 2002-2004, did Ch ina provide market price support for rice, 
wheat and corn?  How did China's protective pri ce system, which was repealed in 2004, actually 
work?  How does the minimum pr ice procurement system work?  
35. Questions by the European Union:  Footnote 2 on page 13 of the notification reads as 
follows:  "The protective price system was repealed in 2004.  Subsequently, the minimum implemented in 2004, however, since the market price was higher than the minimum 
procurement price, no procurement was actually made.  In addition, the procurement of wheat 
was implemented in 2005."  With reference to this footnote, could China inform:  
(a) whether after 2003 no market price support  mechanism for corn is applicable 
anymore, not even a "minimum procurement price system"? 
(b) what are the differences between (i) the price support schemes as applied under 
the "protective price system" of 2002 and 2003 and (ii) the "minimum procurement price system" of 2004 and later, for rice and wheat? 
(c) what is the reason for showing the elig ible production for the price support 
measures as "0" or "-" in the Supporting Table DS:5 for 2004? 
(d) what is the reason for the decrease in th e eligible production for the supported 
production between 2002 and 2003 in Supporting Tables DS:5? 
36. Questions by the United States:  For 2002 and 2003, could China please provide further 
information on the protective price system and how it operated?  For example, what was the 
basis for the applied administered price?  How were the eligible production amounts 
determined?  For 2004, could China provide further information about the minimum procurement price system and/or related documentation about the programme?  
 The differences between the protective pr ice system and the minimum procurement 
price system mainly include: 
  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 17 
 
 
  • the varieties of products subject to the two systems are different.  The protective 
price system covers rice, wheat and corn whilst the minimum procurement price system only covers rice and wheat.  
• the areas where the policies are implemente d are different.  The protective price 
system is implemented across the board in China whilst the minimum 
procurement price system is implem ented only in major rice- and wheat- 
producing areas.  
• the implementation time is different.  No specific implementation time is 
scheduled for the protective price system and the system is implemented during 
the whole year.  The implementation time of minimum procurement price policy is set only for the peak season of crop procurement.  If the market price is higher 
than the minimum procurement price the procurement entities will cease to 
purchase the products at the minimum procurement price.  Otherwise they will continue to buy the products if the ma rket price is lower than the minimum 
procurement price. 
  China attempted to introdu ce market-oriented reform of the food procurement and sale 
system in 2001.  In 2002 and 2003, the re gions benefiting from the protective price 
system shrank, and the volume of procurement decreased year by year.  The total volumes of wheat, corn and rice procured  were 67.08 million tonnes and 40.96 million 
tonnes, respectively.  Protective prices were set at the level that could compensate the 
cost of production and provide appropr iate amount of profits for farmers. 
 
 In 2004, China began to implement a minimum procurement price system for major 
grain varieties cropped specifically in majo r production areas of grain varieties.  In 
2004, the policy was designed only for grain, with the minimum procurement price set 
for early indica rice, medium indica ri ce and japonica rice at 70 yuan/50 kilos, 
72 yuan/50 kilos and 75 yuan/50 kilos, respectively.  However, due to factors such as market supply and demand as well as market expectations, the market price for rice in 
2004 was higher than the minimum procurement price for rice, thus the minimum 
procurement price system for grain in 2004 was not triggered and implemented.  Rice-
producing farmers sold their produce to the mark et at market prices and the amount of 
rice subject to the minimum procurement price in 2004 was zero.  
 
 On the one hand, a pilot programme of abolishing the protective price system in some 
major production areas for grain varieti es was introduced in 2002.  The pilot 
programme was further expanded to larger areas while coverage of the variety and 
class of the products subject to the protectiv e price system were further reduced in 
2003.  On the other hand, market price of  some grain varieties rose above the set 
protective price level, thus the procured amount of grain under the protective price 
system by state-owned grain enterprises decreased to some extent. 
  China has duly notified market price support for rice, wheat and corn in 2002-2004. 
 
 China implemented neither the protective price system, nor the minimum procurement 
price system for corn after 2003. 
 
(g) Supporting Table DS:5:  External reference price
 
37. Questions by the United States:  Could China provide further details on how the 
external reference prices for wheat, corn, a nd rice were determined?  For example, was the G/AG/W/78 
Page 18  
 
  external reference price for wheat based on diff erent classes of wheat, or only one class of 
wheat?  
 The external reference prices for wheat, corn and rice are determined by the total 
value in the base-period (1996-1998) at c.i.f.  prices, then divided by the total import 
volumes according to the China Customs statistics. 
 
(h) Supporting Table DS:7:  Improved crop strains and seeds
 
38. Question by Canada:  Footnotes 2 and 3 in  Supporting Table DS:7 for years 2002, 2003, 
and 2004 note a "subsidy for improved crop stra ins and seeds" for rice, wheat, corn and 
soybeans.  Could China elaborate as to wheth er this subsidy is provided to producers to 
encourage them to grow a certain variety of these crops,  or is it used to offset some of the cost of 
purchasing certain varieties of seed?   
 In order to expand the coverage of impr oved strains and seeds and enhance the quality 
of the crops, China has been making great efforts in pushing the application of 
improved crop strains and seeds.  Considering the relatively high prices of the 
improved seeds, China has carried out polici es to encourage the use of improved crop 
strains and seeds since 2002, mainly to off set some of the cost of purchasing certain 
varieties of seed. 
 
(i) Supporting Table DS:9:  Price subsidies for means for production  
39. Questions by Australia:  Can China explai n its input subsidies notified under non-
product-specific AMS?  What are the "means of production" that received "primarily price 
subsidies"?  
40. Question by Canada:  In Supporting Table DS :9 for years 2002, 2003, and 2004, China 
shows increasing amounts of "price subsidies for means of production".  Could China elaborate 
on the means of production that were being subsidized?  
 "Price subsidies for means of producti on" are mainly provided for agricultural 
machines, fertilizers, agricultural diesel oil and feeds. 
 
3. Costa Rica  G/AG/N/CRI/6/Rev.1, CRI/7/R ev.1, CRI/9/Rev.1, CRI/24/Rev.1 and CRI/30 
(a) Table DS:1:  Notified AMS level  
41. Question by Australia:  We would welcome cl arification from Costa Rica on its recent 
total AMS expenditure, noting that Costa Rica 's Table DS:1 notifications for 2007-2009 show 
current total AMS above its Final Bound Tota l AMS commitment level of US$15.945 million.  
42. Question by Canada:  Canada appreciates Co sta Rica's commitment to transparency 
and the information provided in its notification .  Canada has concerns with respect to the 
pattern of support found in Costa Rica's domestic  support notifications.  Canada notes that it 
raised questions during the 56th meeting of the Committee regarding reporting year 2007 in which Costa Rica reported a Current Total AMS in  excess of its scheduled commitment level.  
Costa Rica again reports a Current Total AMS fo r reporting years 2008 and 2009 in excess of 
its scheduled commitment level.  In addition, th e violations are increasi ng in size from 2007 
onwards.  What steps has Costa Rica taken or will take to avoid a future recurrence of a 
violation of its Total AMS commitment?   G/AG/W/78 
 Page 19 
 
 
  43. Questions by New Zealand:  New Zealand no tes that Costa Rica has notified Current 
Total AMS of US$62,477,560 in 2008 and US$91,743,860 in 2009.  The reported AMS consisted of product-specific market price support for rice.   These notified amounts are in excess of Costa 
Rica's AMS commitment level of US$15,945,000.  Could Costa Rica explain why its AMS commitment appears to have been exceeded?  What steps are being taken to ensure that 
Current Total AMS is within commi tment levels for future years?  
44. Question by Thailand:  Thailand would like to  seek further clarification from Costa 
Rica on the reason why its AMS support during 2007-2009 exceeded the Total AMS commitment level.  
45. Questions by the United States:  At the September 2009 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture, we noted that Costa Rica exceed ed its total AMS level for 2007 and asked what 
steps Costa Rica had taken or would take to ensure that the total AMS level would not be 
exceeded in the future.  Costa Rica reported that  it was studying this matter and that it would 
provide an answer to the Committee as soon as possible.  The United States asked again in November 2009 and received the same response.  Cost a Rica again provided the same response 
in March 2010.  In May 2010, Costa Rica revised its previous Table DS:1 notification for 2004, 
2005, 2006, and 2007, and notified a Table DS:1 for 2008 and 2009.  The 2007 Current Total AMS that had exceeded Costa Rica's ceilin g was revised upward and the 2008 and 2009 
Current Total AMS were almost four times and six times, respectively, higher than Costa Rica's 
ceiling.  While the United States applauds Cost a Rica's transparency, we have the following 
question:   
(a) what steps has Costa Rica taken to lower its Current Total AMS to remain 
within its bound ceiling? 
(b) if Costa Rica has not taken any steps as yet, what steps will Costa Rica take and 
when will it take those steps? 
(c) once steps are taken, how will Costa Rica ensure that it will not exceed its total 
AMS in the future? 
 As a result of applying its price support me chanism for rice, Cost a Rica exceeded its 
bound AMS level in 2007, 2008 and 2009.  Pursua nt to its obligation to notify, Costa 
Rica submitted documents G/AG/N/CRI/30 (2008-2009) and G/AG/N/CRI/24/Rev.1 (2007). 
 
 There are a number of reasons for the above: 
• for rice, Costa Rica bound an external reference price of US$223.78 per metric 
tonne, that is, a price below the cu rrent international prices for rice; 
• agricultural commodity prices underwent a rapid increase in 2007 and 2008 and 
continue to remain high.  This compe lled the Government to raise the fixed 
producer purchase price for rice to enable the country's rice crop to be sold 
domestically;  and  
• the increase in the fixed producer price has stimulated the expansion of domestic 
production;  in addition, other policies were  applied in 2007-2008 to raise staple 
grain production levels in response to th e price crisis prevailing at the time. 
 
 The formula for calculating the AMS is made up of a fixed and low bound external 
reference price, high domestic prices resulting from the high international price G/AG/W/78 
Page 20  
 
  situation, and an increased volume of production,  with the result that Costa Rica vastly 
exceeded its bound ceiling of US$15,945,000. 
  The Government of Costa Rica is aware of  the implications of maintaining its AMS 
above the WTO-bound levels.  In order to remedy this state of affairs, a commission 
of vice-ministers of Foreign Trade, Agriculture, and the Economy has been set up.  
This commission is responsible for findi ng technical solutions to the problem and 
establishing as soon as possible a regime in support of the agricultural sector consistent with the country 's multilateral obligations. 
 
 Costa Rica thanks the delegations of Aust ralia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand, the 
United States and Uruguay for the comment s made, the questions raised and the 
concerns expressed in this regard since this Committee's September 2009 meeting.  
Costa Rica reiterates that it attaches the ut most importance to compliance with its 
WTO commitments and respect for the principle of transparency. 
 
(b) De minimis  expenditures
 
46. Question by Australia:  We note that Cost a Rica has included its non-product specific 
support within its calculation of Current To tal AMS for the years 2004-2007 inclusive, even 
though such support was less than ten per cent of  the value of Costa Rica's total agricultural 
production in those years.  Under Article 6. 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, such de 
minimis  non-product specific support does not have to be included in the calculation of the 
Current Total AMS.  We would welcome clarificatio n from Costa Rica as to why it has included 
its de minimis  non-product specific support in it s calculation of Current Total AMS.  
 Australia's comment is correct.  The amount reported for non-product-specific AMS 
for the years 1998-2007 is indeed less th an ten per cent of the total value of 
agricultural production.  It was mistakenly in cluded and the error will be corrected in 
the course of the process of review and improvement of agriculture notifications to which Costa Rica referred at this year's March meeting.
2 
 
47. Question by Australia:  We note that, under Article 6.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, de minimis  product-specific support (support that is less than ten per cent of Costa 
Rica's total value of production of the product in question) does not have to be included in the 
calculation of Current Total AMS.  Can Costa Ri ca please provide its value of production for 
rice for the years 1995-1999 inclusive and for the years 2004-2009 inclusive?  
 Costa Rica is providing a written table with the value of rice production over the 
period 1995-2009.  The table also includes the amounts notified for rice-specific AMS 
and the percentage of rice-specific AMS in relation to the total value of rice 
production.  These data supersede those communicated at the previous year's September meeting.
3 
 
                                                      
2 Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the summary report of the meeting, document G/AG/R/58, refer. 
3 Annex 4 of the summary report of the meeting, document G/AG/R/56, refers.  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Table 1 
Costa Rica.  Aggregate measurement of support for rice as 
a percentage of total value of production 
(US$) 
Reporting periods 1998-2009 
Year Amount notified
(US$) Value of rice 
production (US$) % of value of 
rice production 
1995 6,113,238 43,006,435 14.21% 
1996 9,319,577 56,955,528 16.36% 
1997 12,727,164 62,780,570 20.27% 
1998 12,135,857 60,271,084 20.14% 
1999 12,481,062 71,629,244 17.42% 
2000 11,605,342 71,225,076 16.29% 
2001 7,372,134 55,865,209 13.20% 
2002 6,387,191 47,083,061 13.57% 
2003 11,594,886 47,631,519 24.34% 
2004 6,811,656 50,942,967 13.37% 
2005 8,772,225 49,780,316 17.62% 
2006 14,366,091 53,700,723 26.75% 
2007 23,291,081 63,510,337 36.67% 
2008 62,477,559 111,904,212 55.83% 
2009 91,743,858 149,169,551 61.50% 
 Source :  COMEX, on the basis of CONARROZ data. 
 
(c) Supporting Table DS:1:  "Productive convers ion programme" and "Farming and livestock 
protection and development trust fo r small and medium-sized producers"  
48. Questions by the United States:  
(a) In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2004-2007, under the "Productive conversion 
programme," what are the "objectively de monstrated structural disadvantages" 
referenced in Annex 2, paragraph 11(a) that these producers face? 
(b) Under the "Farming and livestock protection and development trust for small 
and medium-sized producers" programme, Costa Rica states that this support is given to "producers who experienced difficulties as a result of…the behaviour of the international prices of agricultural goods."  Can Costa Rica explain how this 
meets the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 11(c), which states that the amount of 
payments shall not be related to or based on the prices, domestic or international, applying to any production undertaken in any year after the base period? 
 As the Committee was inform ed in March 2010, Costa Rica has undertaken a process 
of analysis and improvement of its notif ications regarding domestic support for 
agriculture.  It is currently reviewing the measure type under which some of the 
programmes are entered.  This includes the "Productive conversion programme" and 
the "Farming and livestock protection and development trust for small and medium-sized producers (FIDAGRO)", which ca me to an end in 2008.  As soon as the 
process is completed, the relevant amendments will be submitted. 
 G/AG/W/78 
Page 22  
 
  (d) Various supporting tables
 
49. Question by Canada:  The notification notes th at some figures have not been included in 
various supporting tables for 20 08 and 2009.  Could Costa Rica indicate when these figures will 
be provided to the Committee?  
 Costa Rica is in the process of gathering the requisite information to complete its 
notifications for 2008 and 2009.  It has set itself the deadline of December 2010 for 
their submission to the WTO. 
 
4. Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/57/Rev.1 
50. Question by Australia:  We note the Czech Republic has included all product-specific 
AMS and non-product specific AMS in the calcul ation of its current total AMS.  This means 
that all product-specific AMS and non-product specific AMS was above de minimis , which is 
five per cent of the value of production for each  agricultural product and five per cent of the 
total value of agricultural production for no n-product specific support.  Can the Czech 
Republic provide its value of production data  for 2003 to verify its AMS calculations?  
 De minimis  levels for individual products coul d not be calculated in notification 
G/AG/N/CZE/57/Rev.1 because information on the corresponding value of production is missing.  Therefore the full amount of support has been reported. 
  For the overall value of production we refer to the reply already given to a question 
from Australia at the March 2010 meeting.  Point 20 of the compilation of responses, 
document G/AG/W/75/Rev.4, shows a figure of  91.638 billion CZK.  
  Since 2004 the Czech Republic has been a pplying the CAP and all support, together 
with information on production value, has since then been notified on aggregate for 
the whole of the European Union, either in its composition of 25 or, more recently, of 
27 member States. 
 
5. Dominican Republic   G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1 
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  "Rice production and marketing programme" and "Marketing 
incentive programme for other crops"  
51. Question by Australia:  Can the Dominican Re public provide a brief description of its 
"rice production and marketing programme" a nd "marketing incentive programme for other 
crops"?  
 This programme is implemented by the Vi ce-Ministry of Agricultural Production and 
Marketing through the Departments of Agri cultural Production, Cocoa, Seeds, Rice 
Development, Tobacco and Agribusiness and Ma rketing, and the Department of Rural 
Road Construction and Reconstruction. 
  For 2008, the implementation of this progra mme is based on free trade agreements, in 
particular that between the Dominican Re public and the United States and Central 
America (DR-CAFTA), which secures market access.  In this light, the programme seeks to increase the production and export of various agricultural products, in 
particular vegetables, coffee, cocoa, organic bananas, and fruit, as well as the 
production of rice and onions by introducing new high-yield varieties. 
  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 23 
 
 
   Events to be taken into consideration fo r 2008 include the external shock caused by 
international price increases, which affected domestic prices of food products, and the adverse weather conditions that hit the count ry in 2007 and 2008.  In this light, the 
activities under the programme were stepped up  in order to restore the affected areas 
and consolidate and enhance the growth of agriculture and its contribution to the 
overall GDP. 
  The purpose of these programmes is to promote production and productivity in respect 
of the Dominican Republic's main agricultural products.  In this context, the programmes focus on improving returns from agricultural production through the 
reduction of agricultural crop production cost s, the provision of quality plant genetic 
resources that can contribute to the compe titive marketing of products such as cocoa, 
mangoes and bananas, harvesting and post- harvesting practices, and rural road 
maintenance with a view to facilitating the transport of products to marketing and 
consumption centres. 
 
(b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Marketing and promotion services
 
52. Question by the United States:  It appears that many of the listed programmes may 
involve payments to producers or subsidization of  inputs that have an effect on production.  
Could the Dominican Republic detail how these programmes meet Annex 2 criteria?  
 This notification covers expenditure incu rred under the annual budget of the Ministry 
of Agriculture.   These services contribute to the development of the production chain 
by identifying aspects that may hamper its expansion and by strengthening its potential for making better use of opportunities, as part of efforts to attain the objectives of the Sustainable Agriculture Project (PAS), which are to increase the 
number of traded products and raise income  levels among small-scale farmers.  They 
consist of the provision of free technical assistance, land preparation services, seed 
and plant material distribution, the supply of agricultural chemicals (including fertilizers), land levelling services, the provisi on of sprinkler irrigation equipment, and 
the construction of tube wells, and have also  included the rebuilding of rice factories, 
the construction of small greenhouses, and the supply of fuel and lubricants in 
production areas.  On the understanding that Green Box support has no, or at most 
minimal, market-distorting e ffects or effects on production and trade, this support is 
granted through publicly-funded government programmes that do not involve transfers 
from consumers or influence the market price. 
 
53. Question by the United States:  Can the Do minican Republic confirm that the Natural 
Resource Development Programme no longer ex ists in the Green Box programmes for 2008?  
 The last Ministry of Agriculture notific ation concerning this programme was for 2007, 
at which time the issue of natural resour ces was handled by the new Ministry of the 
Environment and Natural Resources.  We need to find out from our authorities whether the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources has continued this programme.  We hope to clarify this matter  in time for the next Committee meeting. 
 G/AG/W/78 
Page 24  
 
  6. Switzerland  G/AG/N/CHE/49 
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  Public stockholding for food security purposes
 
54. Questions by Australia:  Does Switzerland ha ve a pre-determined target for public 
stockholding of concentrated fruit juice related solely to food security?  What price does the 
Government pay for concentrated fruit juice?  Is it a current market price?  
 The Confederation does not purchase concentr ated fruit juice, but covers additional 
costs linked to storage.  The stock levels  under State supervision vary, but may not 
under any circumstances exceed 40 per cent of the sales to the stockholder.  In 2010, 
funds have been approved to finance the storage of 3,252 tonnes of concentrated juice.  The legal basis for this measure is the Sw iss Ordinance on measures in favour of the 
fruit and vegetable market (RS 916.131.11). 
 (b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Decoupled income support
 
55. Questions by Australia:  What are the crite ria for receiving decoupled income support 
payments?  Is the criteria based on a defined and fixed base period?  
 Switzerland's decoupled income support payments are notified in G/AG/N/CHE/204 
where the legal framework is described.  In particular, the ordinance on direct 
payments5 gives the detailed information on the eligibility for receiving direct 
payments.  The farmer receiving direct paym ents must fulfill the obligations, such as 
proof of ecological performance (PEP).  Re quirements include regulations concerning 
the application of pesticides, balance of  the nutrients, crop rotation, livestock 
husbandry and the maintenance of ecological compensation areas (ECA).  The 
condition is to set aside 7 per cent of the fa rmland as ECA, including different types of 
extensively used grassland, hedgerows and bushes, wild flower strips or other 
elements.  The payments are not based on a defined and fixed base period.  These criteria are fixed and do not change year ly. Only the amounts allocated can vary, 
generally every four years, when the new bill is adopted.  
 
56. Questions by Brazil:  On page 3 of Support ing Table DS:1, regarding Decoupled Income 
Support, Switzerland notified SwF 1,213.3 millio n for general direct payments, including 
"supplement to market earnings".  
(a) Could Switzerland describe this programme in more detail? 
 This is not a programme, rather one of the aims of the area payments which are the 
basis for the direct payments referred to in Switzerland as "general".  The confusion 
certainly arose from the use of a semi-col on before the phrase "supplement to market 
earnings".  Switzerland will submit a corrigendum amending this description to the WTO Secretariat. 
 
(b) How does this programme comply with paragraph 1 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture? 
 See the response under (a).  By way of a gene ral explanation, it should be recalled that 
area payments are completely decoupled fro m production and are therefore consistent 
with Annex 2. 
                                                     
 
4 Dated  11 June 1999.  
5 RS 910.13.   G/AG/W/78 
 Page 25 
 
 
   
(c) Supporting Table DS:1:  Structural adjustment provided through investment aids  
57. Questions by Australia:  What is the stru ctural disadvantage being compensated by 
investment credits (loss of interest on total credits granted)?  Are the payments limited to the amount required to compensate fo r the structural disadvantage?  
 Investment credits are one-off payments gr anted for structural investments which seek 
to raise living standards and improve econom ic conditions in rural areas, modernize 
farms and machinery and help to achieve e nvironmental protection, animal protection 
and land management objectives.  Allocated amounts are fixed and repayable.  Applications are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the nature of 
the disadvantage faced.  Preference is given to applications related to mountain areas.  
Investment credits have no influence wh atever on the type of production and are 
therefore consistent with Green Box principles. 
 (d) Supporting Table DS:1:  Environmental programmes
 
58. Questions by Australia:  Are there any specifi c conditions that Swiss farmers must fulfil 
in order to receive support for environmental pr ogrammes?  What is the basis for payments 
under environmental programmes?  
 Ecological direct payments create, for th eir part, an additional incentive and reward 
voluntary environmental services provided by farmers.  Besides the payments for 
ecological compensation areas (ECA), the Federal Office for Agriculture has 
additionally launched the Natural Resour ce Programme.  The Programme aims at 
encouraging and supporting farmers in im plementing environmental measures that go 
further than the legal requirements, esp ecially regarding minimizing the use of 
fertilisers and the consumption of energy in agriculture, soil conservation as well as 
the preservation and promotion of biological diversity.  Other instruments of support 
are payments to support organic farming and extensive production of cereals and 
rapeseed.  The requirements for these payments  are set in order to achieve the goals 
defined for each instrument.  The basis of these payments follow the principle of the 
cost for these externalities (less output, higher costs). 
 (e) Supporting Table DS:1:  Regional assistance programmes
 
59. Questions by Australia:  Is the regional assistance programme which provides 
"allowances for milk processed into cheese" limited to produ cers in a disadvantaged area?  
What is the basis on which these regions are deemed to be disadvantaged?  How is the 
allowance for milk processed into cheese determined?  
 The allowance for milk processed into ch eese is not in itself a regional assistance 
programme.  The best way to take a dvantage of agricultural production in 
mountainous regions has been found to be to  produce milk and process it into cheese 
and historically farmers have focused on this  type of production.  In order to sustain 
farming in such regions and thereby ensure  decentralized occupation of the territory, 
the Confederation therefore decided to gran t an allowance for milk processed into 
cheese (a measure which also helps to contai n costs related to milk collection in often 
remote regions).  It should be noted that the amount of this assistance, namely 
CHF 261 million, is included in the sum total allocated to milk under the heading "Price support". 
 G/AG/W/78 
Page 26  
 
  7. Uruguay  G/AG/N/URY/39 
(a) Supporting Table DS:1:  Environmental programmes
 
60. Question by Australia:  Could Uruguay provide a brief explanation of its "Responsible 
Production Project" notified as a payment unde r environmental programmes?  We note that 
Uruguay has notified this programme as Green Box;  we would therefore welcome a Table DS:2 
notification for this programme to provide furt her information on how it complies with Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 The measure consists of a programme to disseminate information, raise awareness, 
provide training, and develop management  and planning skills in respect of the 
Animal Identification and Registration System (SIRA).  It also provides support for 
the development of procedures for training hu man resources in animal health control, 
general animal health management, and the safety of food of animal origin. 
 (b) Supporting Table DS:1:  Direct payments to producers
 
61. Question by Australia:  Could Uruguay pr ovide a brief explanation of its direct 
payments to producers for "traceability, animal health and food protection"?  We note that 
Uruguay has notified this programme as Green Box;  we would therefore welcome a Table DS:2 notification for this programme to provide furt her information on how it complies with Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
62. Question by the European Union:  With reference to Supporting Table DS:1, could 
Uruguay elaborate on how the expenditure under "(c) direct payments to producers: 
traceability, animal health and food protection" complies with the criteria of Annex 2?  
 It complies with the criteria of Annex 2 because these policies involve expenditures in 
relation to programmes that provide services or  benefits to agriculture or the rural 
community.  Moreover, the support is provi ded through a publicly-funded government 
programme that does not involve transfers fro m consumers, nor does it have the effect 
of providing price support to producers.  This measure was mistakenly notified as 
"Direct payments to producers" when it should have been notified as a Green Box measure under "General Services" becau se it encompasses pest and disease control, 
including general and product-specific pest  and disease control measures (item b), 
specialist training services (item c), extension and advisory services including the provision of means to facilitate the transfer  of information and the results of research 
to producers and consumers (item d). 
 
D. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. China   G/AG/N/CHN/18 
63. Questions by Canada:  Could China provide a description of the criteria "contracted 
land"?  It is not clear from the description in the notification as to what eligibility criteria a 
farmer must meet in order to receive a paym ent under the Direct Payment to Farmers.  Could 
China provide the eligibility criteria for this measure?  
64. Question by the European Union:  Under point 3 of the notification, China mentions 
that "Any farmer with contracted land is eligib le for the Direct Payment".  Can China inform  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 27 
 
 
  whether this eligibility is defined in national le gislation together with a defined and fixed base 
period as required by paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2?  
65. Questions by Japan:  Would China explain what kind of "acreage" is used (e.g. base 
period, any standard on eligibility) as the ba sis for "Direct Payment to Farmers" which is 
notified as a Green Box measure?  Is there any qualification for farmers to be eligible to the 
programme?  
66. Questions by the United States:  What are th e qualifications necessary for a farmer to be 
a "qualified" farmer?  Are all farmers eligible fo r this programme, or only certain farmers?  
Also, are there any restrictions on what the land can be used for by the qualified farmers, and 
do farmers have to produce a product at all?  Could China list how much these payments are 
per unit of land, and how much agricultural land is covered in this programme?  
 All farmers with contracted land are eligible  for the Farmer's Direct Payment.  There 
is no restriction for the use of the land, i.e., farmers are not required to produce any specific product. Payment rates are de termined by provincial governments 
respectively, and thus may differ from province to province.  The area of land covered 
by this programme is not currently available. 
 
 China has listed in Table DS:2 the legisla tion on criteria for farmers eligible for the 
support, i.e.  "Opinions of the CCCPC and the State Council Concerning Some 
Policies on Promoting the Increase of Farmers' Income" .  Farmers shall
 have 
contracted land to qualify for the suppor t while the base period for determining 
acreage for the contracted land is set at the time when the land contract was signed. 
 
 In China, land in the rural area is owned by the farmers collectively.  Any member in 
the collective economic organization is eligible  to contracted land.  The term for the 
land contract is 30 years, and the land contract can be renewed.  
 
2. United States   G/AG/N/USA/73 
67. Question by Australia:  We would welcome clarification from the United States as to 
how it will ensure that payments under th e "Conservation Stewardship Programme" are 
limited to the "extra costs or loss of income  involved in complying with" the "Conservation 
Stewardship Programme" within paragraph 12(b) of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
We note that the programme criteria provide that "a participant's annual payment will be 
determined using the conservation performance  estimated by the conservation measurement 
tool, and computed by land-use type for enrolle d eligible land" and that "annual payment rates 
will be based to the maximum extent practicable , on ... costs incurred by the participant ... 
income foregone by the participant; and expected environmental benefits , determined by 
estimating conservation performance improvement  using the conservation measurement tool." 
(Paragraph (3), 1470.24 Payments, Part 1470 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations).  
 As stated in our Table DS:2, the Conser vation Stewardship Programme (CSP) offers 
participants two possible types of payments: 
• annual payment for installing and adopti ng additional activities, and improving, 
maintaining, and managing existing activities.  The Conservation Measurement Tool (CMT) referenced by Australia in the regulation is used to rank applications 
for programme funds based on conservation "performance" or benefit.  However, 
the actual payment rate per each environmental benefit is based on the average 
cost per activity associated with the resp ective environmental benefit.  In essence, 
the CMT encourages programme funds to be distributed first to priority G/AG/W/78 
Page 28  
 
  conservation practices, but the actual payment rates are still determined by the 
cost related to those particular practices; and 
• supplemental payment for the adoption of resource-conserving crop rotations.  
The payment rate is based on the differences in crop production costs between conventional and resource-c onserving crop rotations; ergo, payments will not 
exceed the costs associated with adoptin g the resource-conserving crop rotation. 
  Based on the first two instalments of the programme, it is estimated that the average 
government cost-share percentage for ca rrying out conservation activities under the 
CSP have been well below 10 per cent per acre, demonstrating that the programme 
clearly does not exceed costs.  
E. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES  ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/29 
68. Question by the United States:  Argentina reports that it had no export subsidies in the 
period from 1 December 2008 to 30 November 2 009.  The United States understands that the 
Government of Argentina has since introduced new measures affecting imports and exports of 
agricultural products.  It appears that since the end of April 2010, the G overnment of Argentina 
has conditioned the issuance of import permits for food products ("certificate of free circulation") on a requirement that the importer commit to export as much or more than it is 
importing.  Insofar as this appears to be a bene fit (receipt of import authorizations) conditioned 
on export performance, we would like to know if the Delegation of Argentina agrees that 
programmes of such a nature (conferring benefi t) should be notified to the Committee on 
Agriculture as export subsidies?  
 Argentina can confirm that notification G/AG/N/ARG/29 is correct.  No export 
subsidies were introduced in the period re ferred to.  No new governmental measures 
affecting the import or export of agricultural products, such as those referred to in the 
second and third sentences of the United Stat es' question, have been introduced. 
2. Poland   G/AG/N/POL/66 
69. Questions by Australia:  Poland has notified  that its annual budgetary outlay of export 
subsidies for powder milk in 2002 was US$9.5852 million.  This is considerably more than its 
annual commitment of US$5.6 million as set out in  Part VI of the multilaterally-agreed Schedule 
for Poland.  Can Poland explain why it exceed ed its export subsidy annual commitment for 
powder milk in 2002?  How does Poland reconcile  its 2002 budgetary outlay for milk powder 
with its WTO obligations set out in Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 In the year 2002 Poland applied export s ubsidies for three products only.  Export 
support payments to exporters of skimme d milk powder were granted for 36,100 
tonnes, which was well below the quantity limit for that year.  Unfortunately Poland 
exceeded its annual outlay commitment.  This problem was corrected for the year that 
followed and has never occurred again.  In a ddition, it should be po inted out that since 
2004 Poland is a member of the EU and its commitments have been included in a common EU-25 commitment.  The monitori ng system of the European Union 
applicable to this commitment does not a llow it to be exceeded, neither in quantitative 
terms nor in monetary terms.  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 29 
 
 
  III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA 
(a) Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:  Domestic support, export subsidies, tariff quota fill and 
special safeguard  
70. Australia notes that the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela has outstanding market 
access, domestic support and export subsidy notifi cations (the last notification was submitted in 
April 2003).  Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela explain the cause for the long delay 
and indicate when it intends to submit its outstandi ng notifications?  We would be grateful if the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela could observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing.  
 We note that a set of notifications has alread y been sent to the Secretariat.  However, 
these notifications have not been circulat ed to Members yet, because upon reviewing 
them, the Secretariat made a number of comments.  We hope to clear up these details in the next few days so that the notifications  can be circulated in the near future.  As 
we already mentioned earlier, the Bolivar ian Republic of Venezuela acknowledges the 
commitments acquired under the WTO and cons iders that they should be honoured by 
all WTO Members, with due respect for the principles of sovereignty and 
self-determination of peoples. 
(b) China:  Domestic support
 
71. Australia welcomes China's recently-submi tted domestic support notifications for 
calendar years 2002-2004.  Australia notes that do mestic support notifications for the period 
2005-2009 are still outstanding.  Could China explai n the cause for the delay and indicate when 
it intends to submit these outstanding notifica tions?  We would be grateful if China could 
observe "best practice" and provide its response in writing.  
 China is preparing its domestic support no tifications for the year 2005-2009 and will 
notify the WTO immediately after completion of preparation. 
(c) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
72. Australia notes that Egypt has outstanding  domestic support and export subsidy 
notifications for the period 1999-2009 (Egypt's la st notification was submitted in May 1999).  
Could Egypt explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  We would be grat eful if Egypt could observe "best practice" and 
provide its response in writing.  
 As the Egyptian delegation has previously indicated, a process has been streamlined to 
further compile the data required for the notif ications.  This process is ongoing and the 
Committee on Agriculture will be appropriately informed of further developments.  
(d) India:  Tariff quota administration, tariff quot a fill, domestic suppor t and export subsidies  
73. Australia notes that India has not submit ted a notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture since June 2002.  Austra lia notes also that since the 52nd regular meeting of the 
Committee of Agriculture, Australia has consiste ntly asked India when Members could expect 
India to comply with its notification obligatio ns.  When responding to Australia's question, 
India has indicated that the process of gatheri ng information in preparation for compliance 
with its notification obligations was underway, a nd as soon as this process was completed, India 
would circulate the outstanding  notifications to Members.  G/AG/W/78 
Page 30  
 
  For example, India has still not made a Table MA:1 notification to explain the administration of 
tariff quotas that have been incorporated in its Schedule since 2003 (covering skim milk powder, corn, crude sunflower and safflower oil, and refined rape, colza, canola and mustard 
oil).  This issue was raised in 54th Regular meet ing of the Committee on Agriculture (refer to 
G/AG/R/54, paragraphs 59-61). 
Could India provide Members with an update on  progress of gathering information to prepare 
its WTO agriculture notifications?  Could India pr ovide an indicative time when it intends to 
submit these outstanding notifications?  We would be grateful if India could observe "best 
practice" and provide its response in writing. 
 India would like to thank Australia for its continued interest in India's notification 
obligations since the 52
nd meeting.  The process of validation and compilation of the 
information required for notifications fo r domestic support and market access has 
almost been completed and the filing of the notification to the WTO is to take place 
shortly. 
(e) Korea:  Domestic support and export subsidies  
74. Australia notes that Korea has outstanding domestic support, export subsidy and the 
special safeguard notifications for calendar ye ars 2005-2009.  Could Korea indicate when it 
intends to submit these outstanding notifications?   We would be grateful if Korea could observe 
"best practice" and provide its response in writing.  
 Korea is doing everything it can to meet its  WTO notification obligations within the 
given time limits.  As recently as this August, Korea circulated a Table MA:2 
notification for the period 2008 to 2009.  Th is month, Korea also submitted an export 
subsidy notification (Table ES:1) for the period 2005 to 2008 to the Secretariat, which 
will be circulated among Members shortly.6  With regard to the outstanding domestic 
support and special safeguard notifications (Table DS:1 and Table MA:5) mentioned 
by Australia, Korea will make its best effo rts to submit the notifications as soon as 
possible. 
(f) Turkey:  Domestic suppor t and export subsidies  
75. Australia notes that Turkey has outstandi ng domestic support and export subsidy 
notifications (Turkey's last notification was s ubmitted in May 2002).  Could Turkey explain the 
cause for the long delay and indicate when it in tends to submit its outstanding notifications?  
We would be grateful if Turkey could observ e "best practice" and provide its response in 
writing.  
 Turkey would like to inform Members th at the domestic support and export subsidy 
notifications have been delayed due to th e fact that Turkey has been undergoing a 
modification and a reform process both in its policy and infrastructure in the area of agriculture.  The detailed information re garding the delay has previously been 
reported in document G/AG/R/54.  Turkey is aware of the notification obligation and has been making its best effort to comply with it. 
                                                     
 
6 Issued as G/AG/N/KOR/42, dated 4 October 2010.  G/AG/W/78 
 Page 31 
 
 
  (g) United States:  NFIDC Food Aid  
76. Australia notes that the United States' most  recent notification concerning actions taken 
within the framework of the Decision on Meas ures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of 
the Reform Programme on Least-Developed a nd Net Food-Importing Developing Countries 
(Table NF:1) was G/AG/N/USA/65, submitted on  21 November 2008, covering the fiscal years 
2004, 2005 and 2006.  Could the United States indicate  when it intends to submit its outstanding 
notifications for 2007-2009?  
 The United States submitted Table NF:1 notifications for 2007 and 2008 to the WTO 
on 19 August 2010, and expects the Secretariat to publish them shortly.7  The United 
States will endeavour to submit the 2009 notification in time for the annual discussion 
at the November meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. 
_________ 
                                                      
7 Issued as G/AG/N/USA/76, dated 20 September 2010.