WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
26 January 2012 
 (12-0531) 
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 29-30 September 20111 
 
Revision 
 
 
 The present revision reflects the inclusion under paragraph 49 of the written responses by Tonga, submitted on 10 January 2012, to the questi ons contained in para graph 55 of document 
G/AG/W/87, and modifications under paragraphs 43- 48 and 71-75 of the written responses by Japan. 
 
  
_______________ 
                                                      
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/88/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Table of Contents 
 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ............... 5  
A.  BRAZIL 'S PEP- PRÊMIO PARA ESCOAMENTO DE PRODUTO PROGRAMME :  EXPORT 
SUBSIDIES FOR RICE AND WHEAT  .............................................................................................. 5  
B.  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  ........................................................................................................ 6  
(a)  Ice Cream Promotion Initiative ................................................................................................ ... 6 
(b)  Milk Class 4(m) and Milk  Class 4 A2 proposal .......................................................................... 7  
C.  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPULSORY LEVY ON MILK PRODUCTION  ................................................... 7  
D.  THAILAND 'S NEW RICE POLICY  .................................................................................................. 8  
E.  STATE -OF-PLAY OF COSTA RICA'S REFORM POLICIES TO ADDRESS BREACH IN AMS  
COMMITMENTS  ........................................................................................................................... 8  
F.  INDIA 'S MILK TARIFF QUOTA  ..................................................................................................... 9  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 9  
A.  NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) ................................................................................................... 9  
1.  Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/53 and G/AG/N/NOR/56 ................................................................. 9  
2.  Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/87 ...................................................................................... 10  
B.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO 
MA:5) ......................................................................................................................... ............... 11  
1.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/165 and G/AG/N/JPN/166 ................................................................. 11  
2.  Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/88 ...................................................................................... 11  
C.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 12 
1.  Costa Rica   G/AG/N/CRI/30/ Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CRI/34 .................................................. 12  
(a)  Reclassification of domestic support programmes ................................................................... 12  
(b)  Compliance with Bound Total AMS ........................................................................................ 12  
2.  India   G/AG/N/IND/7 .......................................................................................................... ... 13 
(a)  AGST constituent data and methodology ................................................................................. 13  
(b)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 15  
(c)  Development programmes ........................................................................................................  18 
(d)  Table DS:2 notifications ...................................................................................................... ..... 21 
(e)  Amber Box ..................................................................................................................... ........... 21  
3.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/167 and G/AG/N/JPN/167/Corr.1 ..................................................... 25  
(a)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 25  
(b)  Amber Box ..................................................................................................................... ........... 26  
4.  Tonga   G/AG/N/TON/2.......................................................................................................... 30 G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 4 
 
 
  5.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/9 ...................................................................................................... 3 0 
6.  United States   G/AG/N/USA/ 77/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/80 ............................................. 31  
(a)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 31  
(b)  Amber Box ..................................................................................................................... ........... 34  
7.  Uruguay   G/AG/N/URY/42 ................................................................................................... 37  
(a)  General ....................................................................................................................... ............... 37  
(b)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 37  
(c)  Development programmes ........................................................................................................  38 
D.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ......................................................................................................... 38  
1.  Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/83 ................................................................................................... 3 8 
(a)  Green Box ..................................................................................................................... ............ 38  
2.  Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/168 ....................................................................................................... 39 
E.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES 
ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) ................................................................................................................... 40  
1.  India   G/AG/N/IND/8 .......................................................................................................... ... 40 
F.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 42 
1.  Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/13 ........................................... 42  
2.  Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 ........................................................................................... 42  
  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. BRAZIL 'S PEP- PRÊMIO PARA ESCOAMENTO DE PRODUTO PROGRAMME :  EXPORT SUBSIDIES 
FOR RICE AND WHEAT  
1. Questions by Canada:  According to recen t media reports, the Brazilian Government 
recently granted an export subsidy of about US$53 per tonne covering 117,711 tonnes of rice 
under the Premium for Marketing Products Programme ( Prêmio para Escoamento de Produto  
(PEP)).  According to these reports, total reported subsidies under the programme have 
supported 1,476,626 tonnes of Brazilian rice cost ing about US$120.2 million this calendar year.  
Other reports state that the PEP is also u sed for Brazilian wheat exports (GAIN Report 
No. BR0705).  As neither wheat (HS 1001) nor rice (HS 1006.10, HS 1006.20, HS 1006.30, and HS 1006.40) are part of Brazil's Uruguay Round Sc hedule of commitments for export subsidies, 
could Brazil explain the PEP programme and how it complies with Brazil's commitments under 
the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Rice and wheat are both eligible for PEP.  PEP has already been notified to the WTO.  It is a 
domestic support programme which provides an  economic subvention (premium), offered 
through public auction, to buyers interested in the purchase of the eligible products in a given 
region directly from a producer or cooperative, at the minimum price set by the Government.  
It does not require government acquisitions.  The programme is designed as a government 
instrument to complement supply in deficient regions through private stocks.  The products 
acquired under the programme can either be commercialized in specific regions of Brazil or 
exported.  Although there is also the option of  exporting the product, Brazil does not consider 
it to be an export subsidy, since the paymen ts are not contingent on export performance. 
2. Questions by the European Union:  The Euro pean Union noted in press reports, as well 
as those from the "Ministerio do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão", that Brazil recently 
granted export subsidies for rice.  According to these reports the subsidies were granted in 
order to export a production surplus of rice following a bumper harvest in 2010/11.  As a 
consequence, Brazil would export up to 1.5 m illion tonnes.  Can Brazil confirm these reports?  
If yes, has the surplus initially  been the object of government  intervention on the internal 
market?  And, if so, could Brazil inform which WTO commitment covers the subsidised 
exports?   
No.  During the last year, Brazil provided domestic subsidies to rice producers through PEP 
and Public Option Contracts. 
 
 As regards PEP, see response in paragraph 1 above. 
 
Public Option Contracts are offered to rura l producers and cooperatives through auctions.  
The purchase of an option provides its holder the right to sell to the government the amount of 
product specified in the contract, at its expiration date, at a certain price (option price), 
provided that the specifications of quality, place of delivery, etc., are met.  This contract 
indicates to market agents the government's expectation in relation to future prices, and 
provides, therefore, a hedging instrument to producers and cooperatives.  
3. Questions by the United States:  The United  States wishes to better understand the scope 
and impact of Brazil's PEP Programme.  The United States understands the PEP has been used 
in recent months extensively for rice.  Generally , this programme, which has been listed as a 
trade-distorting support in Brazil's domestic support notifications (Table DS:1) seems to 
provide benefits for the movement of certain li mited Brazilian agricultural products to certain G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 6 
 
 
  destinations.  More specifically, commercial buyers  receive benefits if Brazilian commodities are 
sold either in certain geographic regions in Braz il or if the commodities are exported to any 
destination outside of Brazil.  
(a) The United States requests that Brazil provide an explanation of the objectives of 
the PEP Programme. 
As regards PEP, see response in paragraph 1 above. 
(b) Does the Government of Brazil use criteri a to decide which commodities will be 
eligible for the programme each year;  if so, what are those criteria? 
Eligibility for the programme depends on mark et prices, availability of funds and the 
level of stocks.  
(c) Does the implementation of the programme (and hence the benefits) vary by 
commodity?  
No, the implementation of the programme is  generally the same for all eligible 
products.  However, the destinations in Br azil where the products acquired under the 
programme should be commercialized may vary by commodity.  
(d) Since Brazil has not notified domestic support since 2005/2006, we request Brazil 
provide outlays by commodity for the programme for recent years. 
The subvention of the PEP programme for the last four crop years is listed in Table 1 
of Annex 1 (provisional figures).  The figures for crop year 2010/2011 are not yet 
available for all products since payments  under the programme regarding auctions 
that took place in crop year 2010/2011 are still being disbursed.  
(e) With respect to rice, we request that Brazil provide a breakdown of activity by 
tonnage under the PEP between the dom estic movement under the programme 
compared to that moving into export channels. 
As PEP is designed primarily for meeting domestic purposes, Brazil does not register 
in a promptly-available electronic database the movement of the products under the 
programme.  Brazil will therefore need some additional time to provide the 
information requested.  However, with a view  to providing transparency in relation to 
the programme, Brazil presents in Table 2 of  Annex 1 the figures currently available 
regarding support provided for rice unde r PEP as well as Brazilian production and 
total exports of rice.  
B. C
ANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  
(a) Ice Cream Promotion Initiative 
4. Question by New Zealand:  In response to p revious questions from New Zealand in the 
Committee on Agriculture, Cana da has confirmed that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), 
a Crown corporation, calculates the pooling retur ns and sharing of promotion costs related to 
the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative on behalf of  the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC).  This 
Crown Corporation plays an active role in administering the DFC promotion initiative.  Given 
the function of this Crown corporation in suppo rting this initiative, would Canada provide the  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Committee with the total value (Can$) of th e pooling returns and a break-down of the 
promotion costs since the initiative was launched?  
As mentioned at the 23 June 2011 session of the Committee on Agriculture2, CDC does not 
administer the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative.   The Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a 
private and confidential contractual agreement,  between the Dairy Fa rmers of Canada, a non-
governmental organization, and individual ice cream processors.  
 
The break-down of the promotion costs since th e initiative was launched is not available to 
government authorities since this is confidential information shared between Dairy Farmers of 
Canada and individual ice cream processors.  Th e data provided regarding this initiative to the 
CDC is of a commercial nature and is provi ded to the CDC on the understanding by the 
initiative participants that it will not be shared. 
 
(b) Milk Class 4(m) and Milk Class 4 A2 proposal 
5. Questions by New Zealand:  New Zealand wish es to continue to register concern about 
Canada's special milk class system.  New Zeal and questions the WTO consistency of Canada's 
approach of offering reduced prices under Milk Class 4(m) to stimulate demand from Canadian 
dairy processors to use domestic milk protei n concentrates (MPCs) rather than imported 
MPCs.  New Zealand understands that Canada now intends to introduce another milk class:  
Milk Class 4 A2.  The Canadian Milk Supply Co mmittee (CMSC) is currently working on the 
Milk Class 4 A2 proposal and we understand it  is likely to be endorsed at the next CMSC 
meeting.  New Zealand requests that Canada pr ovide the Committee with background material 
on:  (i) the rationale for another milk class;  (ii) key provisions of the Milk Class 4 A2 proposal;  (iii) details as to how the milk class complie s with Canada's WTO commitments;  and (iv) 
information to confirm that both Milk Class 4( m) & Milk Class 4 A2 has not/will not have a 
negative impact on overall imports of MPCs?  
Canadian dairy industry stakeholders have  decided not to move forward with the 
implementation of a new milk class.  Canadian users of dairy protein ingredients (milk protein 
isolates and milk protein concentrates) base th eir use of these products on market prices and 
on commercial relationships they have deve loped with suppliers of these products. 
 
C. S
WITZERLAND 'S COMPULSORY LEVY ON MILK PRODUCTION  
6. Questions by New Zealand:  On 31 August 2011, the Swiss Government announced that 
it had taken a decision to implement a compulso ry levy of Sw F 0.01/kg of marketed milk to 
support the export of milk fat until 30 April 2013.  The press release announcing this decision 
states that revenues of around Sw F 34 million are expected every year, to support "relief on the 
butter market".  Would Switzerland provide more  detail of how this compulsory levy on milk 
production is to be administered and confirm that it is within Switzerland's export subsidy 
commitments?  
On 3 May 2011, delegates of the Swiss In ter-professional Association of the Milk 
Industry ( IP Lait ) adopted a series of measures aimed at stabilizing the milk market.  The 
members of IP Lait  produce approximately 95 per cent of the total quantity of milk in 
Switzerland.  In order to ensure that there were no free-riders, IP Lait  asked the Federal 
Council to declare the measures adopted in Ma y 2011 compulsory for all, including the 
5 per cent of milk producers that were not me mbers of the Inter-professional Association. 
 
                                                      
2 Paragraph 7 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers. G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 8 
 
 
  On 31 August, the Federal Council ruled on this request and announced that the 
two following IP Lait  measures were applicable to non-members:  firstly, the essential 
elements of a standard contract for the purchase of milk at the first and second levels;  and 
secondly, a contribution of one centime per kilo of milk marketed, to support relief measures 
on the milk-fat market.  This extension of the measures to non-members will be applicable 
until 30 April 2013. 
 
The payment of one centime per kilo of milk  marketed is a contribution by Swiss milk 
producers, and is paid into a special fund set up by IP Lait .  This compulsory contribution was 
introduced in May 2011 for members of IP Lait , i.e. 95 per cent of milk producers.  As from 
1 October 2011, the five per cent of milk producers that are not members of IP Lait  will also 
be required to apply this measure.  IP Lait  should collect an estimated total of 
Sw F 34 million per year of which only Sw F 1.7 million will come from non-members to 
export butter in order to relieve the Swiss market.  
Consequently, the Federal Council's decisi on merely subjects non-members to measures 
decided upon by IP Lait .  It is not a provision of State funds, but simply a form of assistance 
to private regulation.  IP Lait  is a purely private association, and does not exercise any State 
authority.  Switzerland therefore remains in conformity with its WTO obligations. 
 D. T
HAILAND 'S NEW RICE POLICY  
7. Questions by the United States:  The United States understands that the new Thai 
Government has implemented a domestic rice po licy which involves a rather large increase in 
the support price for rice production.  
(a) Could Thailand provide the Committee with a short overview of the major 
changes in their new rice policy? 
During the administration of the previous government, the " Farmer's Income 
Guarantee Programme " was implemented with the main objective of providing 
sufficient income support to farmers and to enhance farmer income stability. 
 
Farmers with a family income of less th an the set guaranteed level will receive a 
direct payment to raise actual income to the guaranteed level.  The price of rice is not 
a factor to determine the payment.  Since the support was decoupled from the actual 
commercial transaction between sellers (farme rs) and buyers (millers), the support has 
a minimal impact on the market. 
 
The basic principle of Thailand's present rice policy is to provide a low interest loan 
(a mortgage) to farmers based on the quantity of rice harvested and the loan rate.  The 
loan could be repaid at the loan rate plus interest or, with the harvested rice.  
(b) When are the changed support provisions to go into effect? 
The new provision is tentatively scheduled to start in October 2011. 
 
E. STATE -OF-PLAY OF COSTA RICA'S REFORM POLICIES TO ADDRESS BREACH IN AMS  
COMMITMENTS  
8. Questions by the United States:  Accordin g to Costa Rica's formal notifications, 
beginning in 2007, Costa Rica's rice support po licies have breached its WTO commitments for 
trade-distorting support as measured by the Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS).   G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Costa Rica has assured Members at several meetings  since then that it would make changes to 
its rice support policy that would result in Co sta Rica honouring its WTO commitments.  To 
date, however, it appears that little or no con crete action has been implemented and the breach 
of Costa Rica's WTO commitment continues unabate d, and in fact, according to Costa Rica's 
notifications, has worsened.  We note that a ll other Members that have broken total AMS 
commitments have taken immediate steps the follo wing year to bring their trade-distorting 
support down within commitment levels.   The United States requests that Costa Rica provide 
details on any changes that have been implemented to its rice support policies, including the specific effects on the support price and production.  If such actions have not been taken or have 
been insufficient, we request Costa Rica to explain why it has not completed steps that 
sufficiently reduce the trade-distorting support that has grown each year since it first broke its commitment in 2007.  
As mentioned to this Committee at the most recen t meetings, at the beginning of this year the 
Government of Costa Rica prepared a draft Nati onal Rice Policy.  The purpose of this draft is 
to improve competitiveness in the rice sect or and abandon price support for rice, which 
resulted in the maximum level of AMS being exceeded. 
 Regarding questions on the implementation of the plan, Costa Rica is not in a position to give 
an estimate of when it will be able to bring its AMS levels into line with its commitments. 
 
F. I
NDIA 'S MILK TARIFF QUOTA  
9. Question by the United States:  The United States understands that India is increasing a 
tariff rate quota (TRQ) on milk powder.  The Un ited States requests that India provides details 
o n  t h e  T R Q .   D o e s  i t  p l a n  t o  s u b m i t  a  Table MA:1 notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture?  
India is still working on the remaining notifications that are due. 
 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE MA:2) 
1. Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/53 and G/AG/N/NOR/56 
10. Questions by the European Union  
(a) Could Norway specify which products (at 8-digit tariff level) were imported 
within the Norwegian WTO TRQs for beef and sheep meat during 2008 and 
2009?  Which quantities and values of each of the products at the 8-digit tariff 
level were imported within the TRQs from each exporting country? 
Not all the requested information was ava ilable from Norway's statistics, as Norway 
would normally limit statistical reporting on individual TRQs to the information 
required to fulfil its international notifi cation obligations.  Country-specific export 
shares are therefore not available in Norway's statistics, and import values and TRQ imports divided by tariff line are only ava ilable for the year 2008.  The available 
information is provided in Annex 2. 
 G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 10 
 
 
  (b) What level of protection in ad valorem terms would the Norwegian auctioning 
prices for beef and sheep meat correspond to for the products (at 8-digit level) 
eligible to be imported within the TR Qs during 2008 and 2009?  How does this 
relate to the applied out-of-quota duty rates in ad valorem terms? 
As has been well illustrated in the ag riculture negotiations under the Doha 
Development Agenda, coming up with an appropriate methodology for calculating 
ad valorem  equivalents can be a complex matter.  Furthermore, Norway struggles to 
see the relevance of using auctioning fees from an allocation process in calculations 
that are more commonly used for measuring import protection.  This notwithstanding, 
Norway hopes that the information provided in its response under paragraph 10(a) 
would be useful in allowing the European Union to do its own calculations by any methodology with which it feels comfortable. 
 
(c) According to EU information, the auction price for beef TRQs (different 
headings at 8-digit level) amounted to NKr 50.74/kg in 2007.  This amount is 1.5-
5.5 times higher than the in-quota duty ra te for these different headings.  In this 
context, we invite Norway to comment on compliance with GATT Article II:2(c) 
stating that fees or other charges should be commensurate with the cost of 
services rendered. 
Norway considers auctioning to be a useful market-based administration system with 
a number of advantages such as full transpar ency of the allocation process and equal 
opportunities for all, whether these are ne w entrants or established businesses, nearby 
or distant suppliers.  The system is also  efficient in ensuring TRQ fill.  Norway 
considers the auctioning administration syst em to be fully consistent with GATT 
Article II.  In our view, the allocation process should not be confused with import 
duties or import protection. 
 
Norway hopes this response satisfies the Eur opean Union, especially since the content 
is intended to be the same as that provided in a statement by another Member at the 
42
nd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  As indicated in the report from the 
meeting3, that statement was supported by the European  Communities. 
 
2. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/87 
11. Questions by the European Union  
(a) During the 62nd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Chinese Taipei 
confirmed that there had been no impo rts of mango, banana and shaddock 
under TRQs in 2010.4  The EU would like to ask a follow-up question concerning 
imports of shaddock. 
TRQ allocations are made in accordance with Chinese Taipei's accession 
commitments.  They are based on market m echanisms and conform to the principles 
of transparency, predictability, and equity.  The nil or low import quantities of 
shaddock in recent years simply reflect th e situation of market demand and supply. 
 
                                                      
3 Paragraph 9 of G/AG/R/42 refers. 
4 Paragraph 20 of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (b) According to Table MA:2 notifications covering 2008 and 2009, the bound TRQ 
for shaddock of 4,300 tonnes with an in- quota rate of 25 per cent was not used 
(G/AG/N/TPKM/67/Rev.1 for 2008;  G/AG/N/TPKM/75 for 2009).  At the same time, according to Table MA:3 and Table MA:5 notifications covering 2008 and 
2009 (G/AG/N/TPKM/57 and G/AG/N/TPK M/65 for 2008;  G/AG/N/TPKM/66 
and G/AG/N/TPKM/74 for 2009) Chinese Taipei applied volume-based SSG on 
shaddock with a trigger of 0 tonnes in 2008 and 0.1 tonnes in 2009.  Could 
Chinese Taipei explain the reasons for the application of a volume-based SSG on 
shaddock in 2008 and 2009 with very lo w trigger levels despite unutilized bound 
TRQs? 
Chinese Taipei's calculation and applicati on of SSG is fully in accordance with 
Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  When imports exceed the trigger volume, 
the SSG measure will be applied.  Neve rtheless, according to the current SSG 
provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture,  the in-quota imports shall be exempted 
from additional duty even when the SSG h as been invoked.  Therefore, Chinese 
Taipei confirms that the SSG on shaddoc k would be applied only to out-of-quota 
imports.  Chinese Taipei would like to em phasize that the minimum market access 
opportunity as committed upon accession can always be secured. 
 
B. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/165 and G/AG/N/JPN/166 
12. Questions by the United States:  Japan's notifications on special safeguard actions 
(volume-based) indicate that sufficient out-of- quota imports for yogurt (G/AG/N/JPN/165) and, 
buttermilk and other dairy products (G/AG/N/ JPN/166) occurred and that additional duties 
could be applied.  The United States believes th at imports under TRQs could be relevant as to 
whether a safeguard should be triggered.  The United States requests that Japan supply 
quantities imported to date under the "Other Dair y Products for General Use" TRQ.  If that 
TRQ is not yet filled, provide background to explain why traders are not filling the lower cost TRQ before meeting the demand with higher cost out-of-quota imports.  If the TRQ is not yet 
filled, are there special conditions which lead tr aders not to meet the lo wer-cost demand first?  
If the TRQ is not yet filled, has Japan consid ered taking steps to encourage greater use of 
TRQs?  
The TRQ quantity for "Other Dairy Products for General Use" in fiscal year (FY) 2011 is 
133,940 tonnes (whole milk equivalent) and all of this TRQ has been completely allocated in 
April.  The TRQ for "Other Dairy Products for General Use" is almost filled every year:  
97 per cent in FY 2007, 98 per cent in FY 2008, and 99 per cent in FY 2009. 
 
2. Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/88 
13. Questions by New Zealand:  Could Chinese Taip ei explain why it has used 2007 to 2009 
data to calculate the trigger level for its SSG  on fresh milk when data for 2010 are available 
from the Directorate General of Customs?  Using 2008 to 2010 data as stipulated in Article 5 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (the trigger should be calculated based on imports from the three 
preceding years for which data are available) pr oduces a trigger level of 3,327.7 tonnes versus 
Chinese Taipei's calculated 861.0 tonnes.  
Answers to similar questions on the reference year s used in calculating the trigger levels have 
been provided previously, during the 45
th, 46th, 54th, and 59th regular meetings of the G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 12 
 
 
  Committee.5  According to Article 5.4 of the Agr eement on Agriculture, the SSG trigger level 
should be calculated using the "average quantity of imports during the three preceding years 
for which data are available".  As the tri gger level of 2011 was calcu lated and published by 
the end of 2010, and the data on actual imports for 2010 was not available at that time, the 
trigger level was therefore calculated using th e latest data available and based on average 
annual imports from 2007 to 2009. 
 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Costa Rica   G/AG/N/CRI/30/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CRI/34 
(a) Reclassification of domestic support programmes 
14. Question b y Australia:  The notification states that a number of programmes were 
reclassified.  Can Costa Rica provide an explanation of each change?  
The Productive Reconversion programme  (non-repayable funds) and the Farming and 
Livestock Protection and Development Tr ust for Small- and Medium-Sized 
Producers (FIDAGRO) programme  were reclassified as Amber Box programmes since 
during the review of their classification, it was concluded that they did not meet all of the 
criteria set forth in paragraph 11 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, mainly because they were not in response to objectively demonstr ated structural disadvantages.  Furthermore, 
the FIDAGRO programme provided for price support for producers, so that it was decided 
that it should be reclassified as an Amber B ox programme even though no such support was 
actually given.  The FIDAGRO and Productive Conversion programmes ended in 2008 and 
2009 respectively, as indicated in the footnotes to the notification. 
Regarding the Social Welfare and Development prog ramme with Conditional Transfers , the 
support for agriculture component, which offered food aid for the most disadvantaged sectors 
of the population, was eliminated in 2008.  Consequently, the programme no longer qualifies 
as a programme of domestic support for agriculture, and was therefore removed from the 
notification. 
Other programmes, such as Support for Small and Medium-Sized Agricultural Producers 
Affected by Predefined Natural Phenomena (Law 8047) , a General services programme, and 
the Agricultural Development Project in the Nicoya Peninsula (PRODAPEN) , a development 
programme, were terminated in 2007 and in 2006, respectively. 
Finally, the Screwworm Epidemiological Surveillance programme , a General services 
programme in the Green Box, was merged with the so-called Animal Health programme . 
(b) Compliance with Bound Total AMS 
15. Question by Japan:  What is the administered  price of rice in 2011 in terms of market 
price support?  
The current administered price is 2.7 times hi gher than the external reference price for the 
product based on the period 198 6-1988 of US$223.78 per tonne. 
 
                                                      
5 See, for example, paragraph 6 of Annex 5 of G/AG/R/46, paragraphs 11 and 12 of Annex 5 of 
G/AG/R/54, and paragraph 8(b) of G/AG/W/78.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  16. Questions by  
(a) Australia:  A substantial amount of ma rket price support for rice producers 
remains in the revised notification, the le vel of which breaches Costa Rica's AMS 
commitments.  Can Costa Rica provide an update on efforts to bring domestic 
support expenditure in line with AMS commitments?   
(b) Canada:  Canada appreciates the updates th at Costa Rica has provided at past 
meetings of the Committee regarding this issue.  However, we reiterate the grave 
concerns expressed about Costa Rica's conti nuing violations of Article 3.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Not only a re the amounts of the excess support large, 
they are also increasing in size.  What concrete steps is Costa Rica taking to 
rapidly bring itself into compliance wi th the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(c) Japan:  Japan appreciates the prompt notification by Costa Rica 
(G/AG/N/CRI/34) and its transparency, but  is concerned that the Current Total 
AMS continues to exceed its commitment level.  Can we understand that the Current Total AMS in 2011 will go below the commitment level as a result of 
various efforts explained in the previous meetings? 
See response under paragraph 8. 
 
2. India   G/AG/N/IND/7 
(a) AGST constituent data and methodology 
17. Questions by  
(a) Canada:  India's underlying AGST docu ment G/AG/AGST/IND uses Rs (Indian 
rupees) as its currency.  Notification G/AG/N/IND/7 uses U.S. dollars.  This 
practice deviates from the requirement in Article 1(h)(ii) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture to calculate the level of s upport actually provided during any year 
"with the constituent data and methodology used in the tables of supporting 
material incorporated by reference in Part IV" of India's Schedule, i.e., 
G/AG/AGST/IND.  We would ask India to re-submit its notification using Indian 
rupees as per its constituent data and methodology. 
(b) the United States:  The United States notes that India's fixed external reference 
prices, converted to U.S. dollars at the rate of Rs 13.409 per US$, are 
significantly overstated relative to any rea sonable measure of world prices from 
the 1986-1988 period, which has the effect of distorting the comparison between 
the fixed external reference prices and applied administered prices.  This notification covers six separate periods of  time that reach back between seven to 
twelve years ago.  No notification covers the latest six to seven years and leaves 
open how these more recent periods could be reported.  The United States notes that the use of dollar-based accounting is of particular concern.  India has 
significantly increased rupee-based minimum support prices for many 
commodities in recent years.  The rupee- based increase appears not to be fully 
captured or is incorrectly reflected due to presentation of this domestic support 
in dollar-denominated applied administered prices. G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 14 
 
 
  - We request that India provide a detailed explanation as to why the 
currency used in its base period tables (G/AG/AGST/IND) is not used in 
notifying market price support in Supporting Tables DS:5. 
- What is the rationale, according to provisions in the Agreement on 
Agriculture, for converting rupee-based 1986-1988 fixed external 
reference prices into U.S. dollars, and notifying its domestic support 
using applied administered prices converted to U.S. dollars?   
- As a practical matter, are decisions to support India's agricultural 
production consistently reflected by the use of converting the applicable 
administered rupee price into US dollar-based equivalents? 
India has been notifying its domestic support in U.S. dollars since 1995-1996 as these 
provide comparable estimates. 
18. Questions by the United States   
(a) We request that India provide data on the minimum support prices in rupees for 
all the commodities and years notified in G/AG/N/IND/7. 
The data on minimum support prices (MSP) in Indian rupees for all the commodities 
for the period of notification (i.e. 1998-1999 to 2003-2004) may be seen at http://agricoop.nic.in/sta tistics2003/chap8.htm#chap81 . 
(b) Provide documentation (source, grade, location, transport adjustments, quality 
adjustments) for the external reference prices for each commodity included in 
Supporting Tables DS:5. 
(c) We request that India provide the source data for the external reference and 
administered prices for each commodi ty included in Supporting Tables DS:5. 
As per paragraph 9 of Annex 3 of the Ag reement on Agriculture and as indicated in 
G/AG/AGST/IND, the external reference prices are the average c.i.f./f.o.b. prices of the 
product in question during the 1986-1988 period. 
 
The source data for administered price (MSP is  the administered price) are available at 
http://agricoop.nic.in/sta tistics2003/chap8.htm#chap81 . 
 
19. Question by the European Union:  The foot note at the bottom of Supporting Table DS:5 
explains that external reference prices are establis hed at the average exchange rate prevalent in 
the base period (1986-89).  Such choice of the exchange rate certainly has an effect on the 
calculated support.  The European Union invites India to comment.  
This is as per paragraph 9 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (b) Green Box 
(i) Public stockholding for food security purposes 
20. Questions by  
(a) Canada:  "Buffer stock operations (food grain)" is the major item reported in 
the Green Box.  It has increased rapidly,  by more than 150 per cent over the six-
year period reported.  The size and growth of this item motivates a need for 
more information.  Where can such information be found? 
(b) Japan:  Would India kindly provide the ac tual volume of each product stocked 
under the buffer stock operations from 1998-1999 to 2003-2004. 
Buffer stock quantities are available on the website http://fcamin.nic.in/dfpd_html/index.asp . 
21. Questions by  
(a) Canada:  What products make up the aggregate "food grain"?  Does this 
aggregate include other crops than grain, such as oilseeds? 
(b) the European Union:  What products are eligible for the buffer stock 
operations? 
(c) Japan:  Would India kindly provide inform ation regarding the products stocked 
under the buffer stock operations from 1998-1999 to 2003-2004. 
The products eligible and stocked under the buffe r stock operations are rice, wheat and coarse 
grains.  These products make up the aggregate "food grain". 
22. Questions by  
(a) Canada: 
- Following paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
what are the predetermined targets related solely to food security? 
- Have any food purchases by the gov ernment been made at other than 
current market prices and, if so, how was the price determined? 
- Have any stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes been acquired at 
administered prices?  If so, which foodstuffs, and what was the 
acquisition price and what was the ex ternal reference price?  How is any 
difference between these prices accounted for in the product's AMS? 
(b) the United States:   
- A further aspect of Annex 2, paragraph 3 on public stockholding relates 
to footnote 5, which requires that the difference between the acquisition 
price and the external reference price be accounted for in the AMS.  We 
request that India explain how the public stockholding system is in conformity with the requirement of footnote 5, including the annual G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 16 
 
 
  values that would be associated wi th the specified price difference for 
each purchased commodity. 
- We request that India explain the operation of its Public Distribution 
System to confirm that the programme is operated consistent with 
Annex 2, paragraph 3.  For example,  provide the predetermined targets 
for the volume and accumulation of public food stock. 
(c) Japan:  Would India kindly provide the predetermined target volume of each 
product under the buffer stock operations from 1998-1999 and the formula to calculate such target amount, if any. 
Under MSP operations, the Indian Government procures wheat, rice and coarse grains from 
farmers at a predetermined price known as MSP.  
The buffer norms of food grains are generally  revised once every five years, the present 
norms having been in force since April 2005.  The food grains covered by the buffer norms 
are rice, wheat and coarse grains.  Stocks to be maintained as per buffer norms vary from quarter to quarter.  This is based on factor s such as the crop season, procurement during the 
particular crop season and the quantum of food grains required for operational requirements 
under the Targeted Public Distribution System  (TPDS) and other welfare schemes during the 
quarter.  
The external reference prices (ERP) are indicated in India's supporting tables 
(G/AG/AGST/IND).  The difference between the ERP and MSP is accounted for in the AMS 
calculation. 
23. Questions by  
(a) the European Union:  What are the re asons behind the important increase of the 
spending under "Public stockholding for food security purposes" in the period 
notified? 
(b) the United States:  The operation of India's buffer stock scheme notified in 
Supporting Tables DS:1 would be very helpful to understand.  The United States 
understands that under India's Public Distribution System, a government agency procures commodities, primarily wheat and rice, at the minimum support price 
and resells these commodities to low-inco me consumers at lower prices to 
promote food security.  Under Annex 2,  paragraph 3, public stockholding 
programmes for food security purposes are a llowed to be notified as Green Box, 
but require that:  "Food purchases by th e government shall be made at current 
market prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less than 
the current domestic market price for the product and quality in question."  The 
United States requests that India provi de details as to why budgetary outlays 
have increased so sharply.  Are these ou tlays associated only with the Public 
Distribution System or do other programmes use the public food stocks? 
The budgetary outlays are associated with the Ta rgeted Public Distribution System and other 
welfare schemes.  These outlays have increased due to the fact that MSP of wheat and rice in the last five years has almost doubled, wherea s the Central Issue Prices at which these are 
being distributed to families covered under Targ eted Public Distribution System and other 
welfare schemes have been constant as from July 2002.  This has resulted in a wide gap, in 
turn resulting in an increase in th e subsidy amount in recent years.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  24. Question by Japan:  Would India kindly provide  information on the purchase prices of 
each product procured under the buffer stock opera tions.  If the purchases by the government 
were made at the market support price and no t the current market price, explain how this 
measure can be classified as "Public stockho lding for food security purposes" provided in 
Annex 2, paragraph 3.  
The MSP in Indian rupee for all the commodities for the period of notification (i.e. 1998-99 to 
2003-04) may be seen at http://agricoop.nic.in/statistics2003/chap8.htm#chap81 . 
(ii) Crop insurance scheme 
25. Questions by  
(a) Canada:  The "Crop insurance scheme" has increased rapidly.  What does the 
monetary value reported here represent, e. g., is it the indemnities paid to 
producers, the government subsidy of premiums, a budgetary item for the operation of the scheme, or some other measurement?  How does India ensure 
that the scheme meets each and every one of the criteria of paragraph 8 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  This includes (but is not limited to) 
ensuring that eligibility for payment is determined by a production loss that 
exceeds 30 per cent as per paragraph 8. 
(b) the European Union:  Could India provide more detailed information on the 
elements of the crop insurance scheme wh ich explain the reasons for notification 
under paragraph 8 of Annex 2? 
(c) the United States:  Crop insurance can be exempted as per Annex 2, 
paragraph 8, but no details have been provided by India in terms of how its 
specific crop insurance programmes operate .  We request India explain how the 
crop insurance scheme in Supporting Tables DS:1 operates in general terms.  
Specifically, how does India implement th is programme consistent with the 
criteria of Annex 2? 
The details of the crop insurance scheme may be seen at web address:  
http://www.aicofindia.com/AICEng/Pag es/Product_Profile/Present_NAIS.aspx   
Liability in case of agriculture insurance schemes arises only in the event of notified crops in 
the notified areas suffering on account of specified natural disasters or calamities.  Therefore, 
government support in the form of bearing loss in excess of premium is covered under 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
(iii) Environmental programmes 
26. Question by the United States:  India lists a "control of shifting cultivation" programme 
under the environmental exemption and cites the Coffee Board as part of the data source.  
Explain how the "control of shifting cultivation" programme operates in general.  Is the 
programme only available to coffee farmers?  How is this programme implemented consistent 
with the criteria of Annex 2?  
The control of shifting cultivation is aimed to settle the tribal farmers to take up economic 
activities such as coffee cultivation to prevent denudation of forest and to protect the environment.  Both technical and financial suppor t is being extended to these tribal farmers to 
improve their economic condition as well as to pr event further denudation of forest cover.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 18 
 
 
  The economic activity thus taken up by these tribal farmers will contribute to the increase in 
coffee production and the protection of forest cover. 
(c) Development programmes 
(i) Repayment of loan dues for coffee plan grants to Government of India 
27. Questions by Canada:  Could India explain on what basis "Repayment of loan dues for 
coffee plan grants to Government of India" wo uld qualify as an investment subsidy generally 
available to agriculture?  
Details of the Coffee Debt Relief Package 201 0 for debt-ridden small coffee growers may be 
seen at http://www.indiacoffee.org/indiacoffee.php?page=Test . 
(ii) "Other input subsidies" 
28. Questions by  
(a) Australia:  Regarding "other input subsidi es", can India explain whether this is 
a single programme which provides support for fertilisers, irrigation, electricity, 
seeds?  Or does this entry include a co llection of separate programmes?  If 
"other input subsidies" is a collection of individual programmes, can India 
provide information on the purpose and design of each programme and the 
spending levels over recent years?  In a ddition, it would be helpful if separate 
programmes are reported individually in the notification to assist review by 
WTO Members. 
(b) Canada:   
- "Other input subsidies" constitutes al most all of the support reported in 
Supporting Table DS:2.  It is said to include support for fertilisers, 
irrigation, electricity, seeds, etc.  Cont rary to what is said in Table DS:1, 
there are no details of these measures.  This absence of detail impedes the 
ability of the Committee to review progress in the implementation of 
commitments, as required by Article 18.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  We ask India to pr ovide a breakdown of the support 
according to the elements fertilizers, irrigation, electricity and seeds, and 
indicate what is included in the residual "etc.".  This would include the 
"name and description of measure" as required by the heading in 
column 2.  It would also include an explanation of how each measure qualifies as "generally available" to  the target group mentioned in 
Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agricu lture.  For each measure, how is 
support measured? 
- If only a portion of subsidies for fertilizers, irrigation and electricity is 
claimed as meeting the criteria of Article 6.2 and reported in Supporting 
Table DS:2, why is the remainder not reported in Supporting Table DS:9?  
(c) the United States:  India has modified the method by which it notifies input 
subsidies in its three domestic support notifications.  In G/AG/N/IND/1, India reported all input subsidies for fertilizer, electricity, irrigation, seeds, and credit 
as non-product-specific Amber Box in Suppo rting Table DS:9.  Provide a further  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  breakdown of specific programmes notified as "other input subsidies" in 
Supporting Table DS:2, similar to the methodology provided in G/AG/N/IND/1. 
(d) Japan:  Would India kindly explain the reason why various subsidy measures 
(for fertilizers, irrigation, electricity and seed ) are, in this notification, notified as 
"Development programmes"?  Were there any legislative changes in these 
subsidy measures since the previous notification? 
"Other input subsidies" is a collection of separate programmes.  The breakdown of amounts 
included in the category "other input subsidies"  in Supporting Table DS:2 has been placed at 
web link http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/At_A_G lance-2007/ch-12/Table%2012.1(a).xls .  
29. Question by the United States:  Explain the method used to account for the subsidy for 
each item (fertilizer, irrigation, electricity, seeds, and credit).  
Public sector outlay in the budgets of the cent ral and state government for providing subsidies 
on these inputs is accounted as input subsidy for these inputs. 
(iii) Definition of low-income, resource-poor farmers 
30. Questions by  
(a) Canada:   
- The note to Supporting Table DS:2 indicat es a large percentage of farm holdings 
being low-income, resource-poor farmers.  What specific questions in the 
agricultural census are the basis for this finding?  What criteria qualify a farmer 
as low-income?  What criteria qualify a farmer as resource-poor?  What percentage of farmers are low-income and not resource-poor?  What percentage 
of farmers are resource-poor and not low- income?  How often is an agricultural 
census undertaken? 
- The information in Supporting Table DS:2  implies that all marginal (less than 
2 hectares) and small (2-4 hectares ) cardamom farmers are low-income, 
resource-poor farmers.  Is it generally th e case that farmers in India with up to 
4 hectares are considered resource-poor?  
- Can it be inferred from the note that Supporting Table DS:2 shows 98.97 per 
cent of all the support provided under the measures reported in section (b)?  If 
so, where is the remaining 1.03 per cent reported?  For example, using India's 
US dollar data in this version of the no tification, this could amount to some 
$90 million in 2003-2004.  
(b) the European Union:  With reference to the "agricultural input subsidies to low-
income or resource-poor producers" no tified in Supporting Table DS:2, could 
India explain what criteria are used to define the low-income or resource-poor 
farmers eligible for such payments? 
(c) the United States:  In G/AG/N/IND/2, India reported a small share of the input 
subsidies as non-product-specific Amber Box and the remainder as special and 
differential treatment.  Apparently, the ra tionale for the change at that time was 
that any farmer with ten hectares or less was considered a low-income or resource-poor farmer.  In its latest notification (G/AG/N/IND/7), India has G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 20 
 
 
  classified all input subsidies as special and differential treatment, claiming that 
98.97 per cent of farm holdings are lo w-income, resource-poor farmers.  India 
has also changed from notifying individual input subsidies to providing one aggregate figure, which lacks the earlier details.  What is the definition used in 
India's agricultural census for lo w-income, resource-poor farmers? 
(d) Japan:  Would India kindly explain in detail the criteria to specify "low-income 
or resource-poor producers" as provided for in Article 6.2? 
The census is undertaken every five years.  The methodology of the agriculture census, 
specific questionnaire and results of all agri culture censuses in In dia can be seen at 
http://agcensus.nic.in . 
The Agriculture Census categorises land holdings as follows: 
i. Marginal - Less than 1 hectare  
ii. Small  - 1.0 to 2.0 hectares 
iii. Semi-Medium - 2.0 to 4.0 hectares  iv. Medium - 4.0 to 10.0 hectares  
v. Large  - 10.0 hectares and above  
 All farmers owning less than 10 hectares of land have been treated by India as low-income 
and resource-poor farmers.  Due to varying situations, different Members use different 
criteria.  Hitherto, even the land holdings wh ich are more than 10 hectares may qualify as 
resource-poor as these are covered by land ceili ng laws and would largely be un-irrigated 
lands.  
31. Questions by the United States   
(a) Did India undertake a specific policy change and abandon the previous "ten-
hectare" criteria for input subsidy eligibility?   
(b) Are all producers or farm holdings eligible for the input subsidies on an equal 
basis?   
(c) Do any larger farm holdings receive input subsidies? 
(d) Why does India conclude that 98.97 per cent of farm holdings receive 98.97 per 
cent of the input subsidies? 
Most input subsidies are in-built in the price of  the input.  Subsidised inputs such as fertilizer, 
electricity and irrigation are available to all farmers.  However, with most of the farm 
holdings in India being owned by low-income, resource-poor farmers holding less than 
10 hectares of land, input subsidies benefit such farmers by and large.  All producers or farm 
holdings were eligible for subsidised input s during the period under review, without any 
discrimination. 
 As 99 per cent holdings are less than 10 hectar es in size and such farmers are treated as low-
income and resource-poor, India believes its input  subsidies are generally available to low-
income and resource-poor farmers.  See also response under paragraph 30.   G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  32. Questions by Australia:  While there was a significant increase in the overall level of 
input subsidies to low-income or resource-poor  producers over the period 1998-2004, there was 
a marked decrease in the 2002/2003 marketing ye ar.  Was there a specific reason for this 
decrease?  Furthermore, can India explain why in the following period the spending rose 
sharply to pre-2002/2003 levels?  
The year 2002/2003 was a very bad drought year with the July-September monsoon being 
19 per cent deficient compared with the normal monsoon.  It led to a lower consumption of 
inputs, especially fertilisers and power.  In 200 3/2004 spending returned to the trend growth 
of pre-2001 levels.  
(d) Table DS:2 notifications 
33. Question by the United States:  In each of the six periods covered by this notification, 
India provides Supporting Table DS:1 for its exem pt (Green Box) measures.  Unfortunately, 
India has not provided any separate notifications to explain how the (green) measures meet the 
Annex 2 criteria.  Table DS:2 notifications are ge nerally due prior to the Table DS:1 notification 
listing the existence of an exempted measure.  When will India provide Table DS:2 notifications 
describing their exempted programmes?  
India is reviewing the need for filing any a dditional notifications that may be required. 
 
(e) Amber Box 
(i) Negative support 
34. Questions by Canada:  India shows a negative value of product-specific AMS for several 
products.  This contradicts the definition of AMS in Article 1(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, under which AMS is support in favour  of the producers, etc.  Negative support is 
not support in favour of producers.  A negativ e result when calculating a product's AMS in 
Supporting Table DS:7 should thus properly be set  to zero and entered as a zero or nil in 
Supporting Table DS:4.  We would thus ask India for a revised notification.  
India has noted Canada's observations. 
(ii) De minimis claims 
35. Questions by Canada   
(a) A de minimis  claim under Article 6.4 requires a comparison between AMS and a 
percentage of value of production.  No value of production is shown in Supporting Table DS:4, which undermines the de minimis  claims for India's 
product-specific AMSs. 
India has noted Canada's observations.  However, at present, there is no requirement 
to notify product-specific values of production and Canada would recall that this issue 
has been discussed in the Co mmittee on Agriculture in th e past.  Several Members do 
not, in fact, indicate their value of production of each product.  India agrees with Canada that a de mimimis  claim requires a comparison between AMS and a 
percentage of value of production and this  should be borne in mind while framing the 
compliance requirements for the Doha Round. G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 22 
 
 
  (b) The note indicates that India has compa red the calculated market price support 
against the de minimis  level.  For each product and year, what is the de minimis  
level, calculated as 10 per cent of the product's value of production? 
Product-specific support is negative so the need for de minimis  calculations does not 
arise.  
(iii) Market price support - Administered price 
36. Question by the United States:  In the ca se of cotton, India appears to support seed 
cotton prices.  The constant ex ternal reference price in Supporting Tables DS:5 is US$1,292.64, 
which is derived by dividing Rs 17,333 in G/ AG/AGST/IND by the exchange rate of Rs 13.409 
per US$.  Upon closer review, however, the ex ternal reference price in G/AG/AGST/IND is for 
cotton on a lint basis, not on a seed cotton basi s.  Therefore, a necessary additional conversion 
factor appears to be missing to ensure that co tton at the same processed stage is uniformly 
calculated.  It seems that the seed cotton basis would be the more appropriate stage as per the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  In such case, the fi xed external reference price would need to be 
adjusted to a seed cotton basis.   
(a) We request that India clarify the correct basis for the applied administered price 
and the external reference price in Supporting Tables DS:5.  The prices of 
US$367 (1998-1999), US$387 (1999-2000), US$378 (2000-2001), US$372 (2001-
2002), US$371 (2002-2003) and US$397 (2003-2004) per tonne are indicated as 
the applied administered prices for "cotton". 
Administered prices have been worked out by taking average MSPs of two varieties 
(separate MSP is declared fo r two varieties- one is F- 414/H-777/J-34 and another is 
H-4) of seed cotton (kapas) for one tonne and converting the same in dollar at the prevalent average exchange rate.  
(b) We request that India confirm these co tton calculation elements including the 
observation that in G/AG/N/IND/7 the same basis for "cotton" is not applied for 
the administered prices and the external reference price.  According to India, 
what conversion rate (cotton lint to seed cotton) should India apply to adjust 
these prices to the same basis? 
India will revert with information.  
37. Questions by  
(a) the United States:  Provide a detailed accounting for the administered prices of 
all commodities included in Supporting Tables DS:5 with their external 
reference prices. 
(b) Canada:  As mentioned more generally for the whole notification, data needs to 
be expressed in rupees in order for the notification to conform with the 
constituent data and methodology requirement.  This becomes particularly salient in Supporting Table DS:5, given that the external reference price and the 
calculations for 1986-1989 in G/AG/AGST/IND are in rupees per tonne (Rs/T).  
What is the nature of the applied administered price for products other than rice?  How is it determined and applied?  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  India has been notifying its domestic support in U.S. dollars since 1995-96 as these provide 
comparable estimates.  The applied administer ed price is the MSP for crops covered under the 
Price Support Scheme (PSS).  MSP is fixed on the basis of factors including actual expenses 
in cash and kind including rent paid for leased -in land and imputed value of wages of family 
labour, rent for owned land and interest on fixed capital.  Though different states have 
different levels of cost of cultivation/pr oduction but the MSP is uniform throughout the 
country.6 
38. Questions by Canada:  What explains the variation across years in the products for 
which an applied administered price is reported?  For example, mustard seed is reported in 
2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 but not in other years. 
Variations in the reported market price support for various cr ops covered under MSP 
operations are on account of variations in the MSP declared and the actual quantities of crops 
procured in the relevant year. 
Mustard seed was not procured under the PSS at MSP during the years 1998/99, 1999/2000 
and 2003/2004, therefore it is not mentioned in the notifications for these years. 
(iv) Market price support - Eligible production 
39. Questions by  
(a) Japan:  What number did India use as "Eligible production" when calculating 
the market price support?  The actual am ount of purchased crops?  Or, the total 
amount of domestic production?  If the actual amount of purchased crops was used and not the total amount of domestic production, explain the reason why. 
(b) the United States:  The United States notes that India used total production in its 
Table DS:1 notification from 17 June 1998 (G/AG/N/IND/1), but switched to another measure of eligible production in G/AG/N/IND/2, and has apparently 
continued the second practice in G/AG/N/IND/7.  The United States understands 
that for periods after those covered by  G/AG/N/IND/7, additional agricultural 
commodities may be designated to receive  minimum support prices.  We request 
that India provide an explanation of how its minimum support price system works (notified as market price suppor t in Supporting Table DS:5).  Explain 
how "eligible production" is defined and measured. 
India used the quantity of purchased production as "eligible production" for calculating the 
market price support. 
 
India administered a Price Support Scheme (PSS)  for specified foodgrains, oilseeds, cotton, 
sugarcane, copra and tobacco crops duri ng the period 1998-2004. Under the Scheme, 
minimum support prices (MSPs) are fixed by the Government following the recommendations 
of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Pr ices (CACP). MSPs are announced before the 
crop season.  There were as many as 24 crops under PSS/MSP operations during the period 
1998-2004.
7  
 
                                                      
6 Further details can be seen at http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ . 
7 Details are available at web-page http://agricoop.nic.in/stati stics2003/chap8.htm#chap81 . G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 24 
 
 
  All production which is actually offered by farm ers (collected as levies from millers in case of 
rice) to the designated government agencies fo r procurement at the MSP is eligible for 
procurement.  Therefore, the "eligible produc tion" is defined as quantity of the production 
procured by designated government agencies at the MSP.  
40. Questions by the United States   
(a) For any of the specified commodities, is all production eligible to receive the 
government's minimum price support? 
Farmers approach government agencies for procurement only when the market price 
falls below the minimum support price.  Therefore, actual quantities procured only 
actually receive support.  
(b) Did India undertake a specific policy chan ge (in the context of the Agreement on 
Agriculture) that appropriately explains how and why India switched in the 
quantity for eligible production from total production to a lesser quantity? 
Except for the year 1995-1996, India has consistently filed its domestic support 
notifications taking actual quantities procur ed under PSS/MSP operations as eligible 
production.  No specific policy change has been undertaken for the notifications filed 
for the year 1999-2004.  
(c) We request India to inform Members if  additional commodities other than the 
ones notified in G/AG/N/IND/7 have beco me eligible for the minimum support 
price and which commodities have been able to benefit from this support 
measure. 
The list of commodities for which MSPs have been announced is available at 
http://agricoop.nic.in/sta tistics2003/chap9.htm#chap91 .  Information for the coverage 
of MSP for the period subsequent to that covered under G/AG/N/IND/7, will also be 
provided in subsequent notifications. 
 
41. Question by the United States:  Was the Mark et Intervention Price programme in effect 
during the time of this notification?  If so, what commodities were eligible? 
Market Intervention Scheme (MIS) was in ope ration during the time (1999-2004) covered 
under this notification.  All perishables not  covered under Minimum Support Price Scheme 
were covered under MIS.  
 
42. Questions by Japan:  What crops were subject to market support price from 1998-1999 
to 2003-2004?  Is there any other crop subject to MSP other than the crops whose market price 
support is listed in this notification?  If other crops were subject to market support price from 
1998-1999 to 2003-2004, explain the reason why India did not notify the market price support of 
such crops?  
Crops subject to market support price  during the period of notification may be seen at  
http://agricoop.nic.in/sta tistics2003/chap8.htm#chap81 .  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  3. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/167 and G/AG/N/JPN/167/Corr.1 
(a) Green Box 
43. Questions by the United States:  The Un ited States appreciates past responses by the 
Government of Japan to questions regardi ng Supporting Table DS:1 – Environmental 
Payments "Payments for conversion from rice production."  The United States understands 
from Japan's responses that the programme is designed to preserve a favourable environment 
for paddy fields by growing crops other th an rice or by adopting other appropriate 
management practices.  The purpose of mainta ining paddy fields according to Japan is 
prevention of floods and soil erosion, cultivation of water resources, and preservation of natural 
environment: 
(a) The United States requests that Japan explain if (and what) production 
techniques must be changed by a farmer growing a crop other than rice, such as 
wheat, barley, or soybeans, to preven t an unfavourable environment for paddy 
fields. 
The objective of the "Payments for conversion from rice production" programme is to 
preserve a favourable environment for paddy fields that are set-aside from rice 
production by planting crops other than rice or by adopting other appropriate management practices. 
When producers grow crops other than rice in  paddy fields, they have to maintain the 
paddy ribbing in order to keep its flood-preventive function.  They also have to work in different soil condition such as moisture c ontent from upland field.  So they need to 
change various production techniques.  Fo r instance, when a farmer grows soybeans 
on paddy fields, drainage improvement is necessary.  Additionally, soil improvement 
and/or adjustment for soybean cultivation and new machines such  as bean harvester 
are occasionally required. 
(b) We request that Japan identify an average  per hectare cost for such changes in 
Japan. 
This programme meets the criteria for "P ayments under environmental programmes" 
and the amount of payment is limited to the loss of income involved in complying 
with the government programme for the preservation of paddy fields in 
environmentally good conditions. 
The exact payment amounts vary depending on the local conditions, on the kinds of 
alternative crops and management practices, but the amount of payment is limited to 
the loss of income, taking into account activities such as preservation of paddy 
ribbing, drainage improvement, plan ting of ornamental plants, etc. 
(c) We request that Japan clarify what "appropriate management practices" 
include. 
The farming activities to achieve the objective described above planting of crops 
other than rice and proper management of paddy fields without planting any crops, 
including the conservation of the environmen tal functions of paddy fields through 
planting of ornamental plants and green manure crops. G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 26 
 
 
  (d) Do these practices require land to remain rea dy to produce rice in the future or 
merely prevent floods, soil erosion, prese rvation of the natural environment, 
etc.?  Identify an average per hectare cost for such management practices. 
The "Payment for conversion from rice production" programme does not require 
farmers, for example, to keep the paddy fields ready to produce rice in the following 
year.  Its objective is to preserve a favourable environment for paddy fields, such as 
their functions of preventing floods or soil erosion, and preserving the natural 
environment. 
See also response in second indent of paragraph 43(b) above.  
(e) We request that Japan confirm if its policy limits such environmental payments 
only to those situations when land is converted from rice production to a different agricultural crop.  Explain why it  is necessary for such environmental 
payments to be restricted to only those si tuations when one particular crop (rice) 
is being converted to any other crop. 
The objective of the "Payments for conversion from rice production" programme is to 
maintain the function of paddy fields, such as prevention of floods or soil erosion, 
cultivation of water resources, and preservation of natural environment.  These functions should normally be maintained as a by-product of rice production activities, 
but in the paddy fields that are set-aside  from rice production, some support measures 
are needed in order to maintain these f unctions.  Thus the government is supporting 
the plantation of crops other than rice and other appropriate management practices of 
paddy fields. 
As a result of the continuous decrease in  demand for rice, the area of paddy fields 
which need to be preserved environmentally has increased.  It in turn gives greater 
importance to the preservation of the paddy fields, and their various environmental 
functions. 
(f) Under this programme do Japan's "payments for conversion from rice 
production" target the full coverage or only some partial costs for "preserving a 
favourable environment for paddy fields"? 
See response in paragraph 43(b) above. 
(b) Amber Box 
(i) General 
44. Questions by Australia:   
(a) Are subsidised loan programmes to mitigate feed costs included in the 
calculation of non-product-specific AMS?  Australia understands that Japan has 
utilized such programmes since 2007. 
Various supports to deal with high feed prices including subsidized loan programmes 
were implemented especially since 2008.  These were included in the support to 
relevant livestock sectors, not in the non-product-specific AMS.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  (b) Do the payments related to sugar produc tion refer to the "Subsidy for sweetener 
resources" for sugar cane producers, or the "Rice and field crop management 
income stabilisation measure for sugar beet producers"?  Or a combination of these?  Are subsidies to sugar millers from ALIC's "Sugar Price Adjustment 
Fund" included in this figure?  If not, are subsidies to Japanese sugar millers 
(and refiners) reported? 
The payment related to sugar production in th e notification is a payment paid to sugar 
cane producers. 
In Article 1(a) of the Agreement on Agricu lture, AMS is defined as "the annual level 
of support, expressed in monetary terms, provided for an agricultural product in 
favour of the producers of the basic agricultural product or non-product-specific support provided in favour of agricultural producers", and paragraph 7 of Annex 3 
provides that "The AMS shall be calculated as close as practicable to the point of first 
sale of the basic agricultural product concer ned.  Measures directed at agricultural 
processors shall be included to the extent th at such measures benefit the producers of 
basic agricultural products". 
The subsidy to sugar millers, which was in troduced separately fro m direct payments 
for farmers when the MPS was abolished in 200 7, is not included in this notification 
because it does not benefit the producers of  the basic agricultural products, but is 
included in Japan's notification to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
(c) Could Japan explain the rationale for maintaining a tax exemption scheme 
which exempts sales of beef cattle in  excess of one million yen (approximately 
US$8,000) from income, corporate and municipal tax?  Does Japan intend to 
abolish this scheme consistent with the strong recommendation by the Japanese 
Ruling Party's Taxation Reform Project Team in October 2010? 
Sales of beef cattle in excess of one milli on yen are not eligible for the tax exemption 
scheme. 
The Diet decided in 2011, as part of the FY2011 Tax Reform, to reduce the extent of 
exemption but extend the implementation of the measure for three years (till 2014), in 
order for the beef cattle management to c ope with serious economic situations, such 
as severe recession and high feed prices. 
(ii) Market price support 
45. Questions by Australia:  Major increases in Jap an's AMS appear to be in the areas of 
market price interventions for livestock products , particularly beef and swine meat.  Between 
fiscal year 2007-2009, market price interven tions increased 23.7 per cent for beef and 
23.9 per cent for swine meat.  To date, price interventions into the beef market by the 
Agriculture and Livestock Industries Corporatio n (ALIC) appear to have been made on a 
discretionary basis, considering that ALIC's inte rventions have only been made when wholesale 
market prices fall below - rather than above - AL IC's target range.  In addition, Japan's 
Government Revitalisation Unit recently recomm ended that ALIC scale back many of its 
market price interventions, following an audit of ALIC's budget by the Government Screening 
Panel.  In light of this: G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 28 
 
 
  (a) Could Japan provide an explanation of the reasons for these recent increases in 
market price interventions in the livestock sector? 
The increase in market price support (MPS) for beef and swine meat in 2007 to 2009 
resulted from: 
(i) The increase in the Standard Stabilization Price in response to higher feed 
prices.  The Standard Stabilization Price is used as the trigger price for the price 
stabilization measures by ALIC, as well as the applied "administered price" in 
the calculation of MPS. 
(ii) The increase in domestic production wh ich is used as "eligible production" in 
the calculation of MPS. 
The Japanese Government Revitaliza tion Unit indeed recommended budget 
reductions for some of the livestock industry promotion measures carried out by 
ALIC which the Revitalization Unit regard s as non-urgent, but it never recommended 
to scale back its price stabilization measures.  
(b) Could Japan explain the "external reference price" for beef and veal used in 
these tables?  What does the "CIF price of Australian beef" refer to?  The 
CIF price of frozen or chilled beef?  To which particular beef cuts?  Is this a weighted average of all frozen and chilled beef imports from Australia? 
(c) If the external reference price is based on the CIF price, how does this figure 
(626,000 yen/tonne) remain constant throughout the three-year period, when the CIF price would have fluctuated in respon se to changes in the exchange rate and 
the supply/demand balance over this period?  
(d) How is the figure of "2.0" for the " quality difference coefficient" between 
Japanese beef and Australian beef calculat ed?  What is the rationale for this 
coefficient? 
Market price support is "calculated using the ga p between a fixed external reference price and 
the applied administered price multiplied by the quantity of production eligible to receive the 
applied administered price", as provided for in paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreement of 
Agriculture.  The external refe rence price is based on the average of the years 1986 to 1988, 
as provided for in paragraph 9 of Annex 3 of the Agreement. 
Accordingly, the external reference price of beef was fixed based on the following: 
(i) the average CIF price of Australian chill ed and frozen beef in the years 1986 to 1988, 
referred to in Japan's trade statisti cs published by the Japanese Government, 
multiplied by 
(ii) the conversion rate from boneless beef to carcass, and 
(iii) the quality difference coefficient, derive d from the gap between the wholesale price of 
Japanese beef and full set price of Australia n beef in accordance with paragraph 9 of 
Annex 3. 
The above calculation method is the result of  the negotiations with Members, including 
Australia, in the Uruguay Round and is provided in Japan's Schedule.   G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  46. Questions by Canada:  From 2007 Japan no longer reports market price support for 
sugar (sugar beet and sugar cane) and starch (p otato and sweet potato).  What policy change 
underlies Japan's claim that an administered price is no longer applied for these products? 
In 2007, the market price support systems for s ugar and starch were replaced by the direct 
payment systems based on a production level.  As  a result, the administered prices for sugar 
and starch were abolished. 
(iii) Direct payments 
47. Questions by Canada:  In Supporting Table DS:6 Japan reports "Payments related to 
volume of production", "Payments related to price", and "Deficiency payments". 
(a) What is the difference between a payment related to price and a deficiency 
payment?  For a payment related to price, how is the size of a producer's payment determined? 
"Payments related to price" refer to the paym ents, the amount of which is  part of the 
difference between the reference price and th e market price, paid when the market 
price falls below the reference price.  The "deficiency payments" refer to the 
payments, the amount of which is the entiret y of the difference be tween the reference 
price and the market price, paid when the market price falls below the reference price.  
(b) For a payment related to volume of production, how is the rate of payment 
determined (such as yen per tonne, i.e., the rate which, when multiplied by the 
producer's volume of production, generates the payment). 
The "payments related to volume" are determined either by yen per kilogram or yen 
per head, depending on the products concerned. 
(c) For payments related to price and paymen ts related to volume of production, do 
any conditions apply to the eligibility of a producer to receive a payment? 
The condition on the eligibility of producers differs according to the payments.  Some 
are targeted to producers whom the local  governments have authorized as efficient 
and stable farmers (core farmers), while others are targeted to designated producer 
groups.  
(d) The earlier 2006 notification reported p ayments related to price for wheat, 
barley and silkworm cocoons as well as payments related to volume of 
production for rice.  What policy chang es underlie the absence of reporting any 
such payments in 2007, 2008 and 2009?  
Those product-specific payments which Cana da refers to were abolished.  The 
payments for wheat and barley were re placed by the new decoupled payment 
introduced in 2007. 
(iv) Non-product-specific AMS 
48. Question by the United States:  Support under the "crop insurance stabilization 
payments" increased sharply between 2007 and 2009 .  Explain how the programme works and 
the reasons for the increase in payments. G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 30 
 
 
  The budget amount for the "crop income stabiliz ation payment" increased from 2007 to 2009 
because it was phased in over the period.  The main part of the payment, which is targeted to 
core farmers, is the compensation payment for 90 per cent of the revenue loss when the sum 
of the revenues from crop production falls be low the predetermine d reference level. 
4. Tonga   G/AG/N/TON/2 
49. Questions by the European Union:  The no tification includes support financed by 
external organizations.  However, according to th e notification, external financing is excluded.  
Could Tonga comment on this notification practi ce aspect.  Could Tonga inform the EU of the 
amounts of external financing from donor count ries and agencies for every Green Box measure 
notified. 
Information on external financing was omitted by inadvertence.  Please refer to the revised 
notification which duly incorporates such information.8 
5. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/9 
50. Question by Japan:  Japan appreciates the wr itten response by Ukraine to its question 
in the last meeting on the external reference price used to calculate the market price support for 
sugar, but is still concerned about this measure's consistency with Article 18.4 as well as about 
its method of calculation.  Will Ukraine revise the calculation method or continue to use the 
same method for its future notifications? 
According to document WT/ACC/SPEC/UKR/1/Rev .12, the external reference price (ERP) 
was fixed in U.S. dollars (column 5 of Supporting Table DS:5).  The ERP for sugar in 2004-2006 was not based on the national customs export st atistics and it did not reflect the level of 
the export price of sugar produced in Ukraine because Ukraine has been and still remains a 
net-importer of sugar.  As per WT/ACC/SPEC /UKR/1/Rev.12, the average fixed ERP for 
sugar in 2004-2006 is US$340/tonne, that is the import price of one tonne of white sugar at 
the Ukrainian border. 
To calculate the Total Base AMS, Ukraine c onverted the fixed ERP for sugar in UAH using 
an exchange rate in the period 2004-2006.  In this period the average official exchange rate 
was 5 UAH per 1 US$.  But in the year of first Ukrainian notification on domestic support, in 2009, devaluation of the national currency against US dollar took place.  The exchange rate in 
2009 was already 7.8 UA Н per 1 US$.  Thus, UA Н depreciated 1.5 times.  In addition, there 
was high inflation in Ukraine after the base period.  The consumer price index (CPI) was 116.6 per cent in 2007, 122.3 per cent in 2008 and 112.3 per cent in 2009.  Taking into 
account the above, Ukraine adjusted the fixed ERP for sugar by the rate of inflation, using a 
consumer price index in each year after the base period. 
In 2009, total market price support for sugar d ecreased considerably co mpared to the base 
period.  This was due to the decrease in the quan tity of eligible producti on.  In 2004-2006, the 
average eligible sugar production was 2 m illion tonnes, while in 2009 it was 1.3 million 
tonnes, a decrease by 40 per cent in comparison to the base period. 
                                                      
8 G/AG/N/TON/2/Rev.1, circulated on 11 January 2012.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  6. United States   G/AG/N/USA /77/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/80 
(a) Green Box 
(i) Crop and revenue insurance 
51. Questions by Australia:  Notification G/AG/N/USA/80 outlines funding provided by the 
Risk Management Agency (RMA) in support of the administration and provision of crop 
insurance.  G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 notes that a revised method for reporting crop insurance 
expenditures has been implemented.  Can th e United States outline the rationale and 
methodology for the revised notification method? 
The United States has historically reported crop insurance expenditures in terms of net 
indemnities:  the difference between producers' premiums (total premium – premium subsidy) 
and indemnities (payout for a crop or revenue lo ss).  The total net indemnities were reported 
as non-product specific support under the AMS.  The new method reports premium subsidies, 
rather than net indemnities, as producer s upport from crop insurance.  This change is 
prompted by a change in legislation for th e crop insurance programme.  The 2008 Farm Act 
mandated the crop insurance programme operate with  an actuarially-sound target loss ratio of 
1.0.  That is, over the long term, premium subsidies should equal ne t indemnities and thus 
should capture the full level of support to producer s.  In addition, a portion of administrative 
and operating expenses and underwriting gains paid  to crop insurance companies are reported 
in the Green Box under General services, simila r to how salaries and expenses are reported 
for other programmes.  
52. Questions by Japan:  Would the United States explain in detail the function of the RMA 
and the system of the listed programme implemented by the RMA?   
In general, the role of USDA's RMA is to he lp producers manage their business risks through 
effective, market-based risk ma nagement solutions. RMA's mission is to promote, support, 
and regulate sound risk management solutions  to preserve and strengthen the economic 
stability of America's agricultural producers.  As part of this mission, RMA operates and 
manages the Federal Crop Insurance Corporatio n (FCIC).  RMA was created in 1996; the 
FCIC was founded in 1938.  
RMA, through FCIC, provides crop insurance to  American producers.  Seventeen private-
sector insurance companies sell and service the po licies.  RMA develops and/or approves the 
premium rate, administers premium and expen se subsidies, approves and supports products, 
and reinsures the companies.  In additi on, RMA sponsors educational and outreach 
programmes and seminars on the general topic of risk manage ment.  Complete information 
can be found at http://www.rma.usda.gov/ .  
 
53. Questions by  
(a) Japan:  Are the programmes implemented by the RMA newly established or 
modified domestic support measures? If  so, explain the reason why the United 
States is not submitting Table DS:2  notifications for these programmes? 
(b) Canada:  Given that the new entries in Supporting Table DS:1 include amounts 
arising from programmes that did not ex ist when the base data for the United 
States were reported, a Table DS:2 notification of the new and modified 
programmes now being claimed as meeting th e Green Box criteria seems to be in 
order.  When will the United States submit such a notification? G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 32 
 
 
  The United States included crop insurance in its original Uruguay Round Schedule and has 
notified support under the crop insurance programme every year since 1995.  The United 
States has modified the way it reports crop insu rance based on a legislated policy change in 
the 2008 Farm Act.  The lack of a DS:2 notifi cation is an oversight.  The United States will 
submit a DS:2 as soon as possible. 
54. Questions by Canada:  A major difference between the original G/AG/N/USA/77 and 
the revised G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 is the reporting of the support provided through the RMA.  
In G/AG/N/USA/77 an amount of about US$4.5 billion was reported in Supporting Table DS:9 for "Indemnities paid to farmers".  In G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 an amount of about 
US$5.7 billion is instead reported for "Premium subsidies to producers", and new entries are 
introduced in Supporting Table DS:1 for the RMA, including the amount of about US$2.5 billion for "Underwriting gains to insurers".  The domestic support provisions of the 
Agreement on Agriculture apply to domestic  support measures in favour of agricultural 
producers. 
(a) Could the United States confirm that the inclusion of the "Underwriting gains to 
insurers" among the measures for whic h exemption is claimed under Annex 2 
implies that this measure, while provi ding underwriting gains to insurance 
companies, in fact through this rout e also provides support in favour of 
agricultural producers?  
The US crop insurance programme is a uni que programme in that crop insurance 
policies are delivered by private companies,  rather than by a government entity.  
Similar to how the United States notifies budgetary outlay for government agencies 
that deliver services to agricultural produ cers, the United States has notified the 
budgetary outlays associated with the deliver y of crop insurance policies.  Premium 
rates are set by the FCIC.  Companies must  use these rates in selling crop insurance 
policies.  Companies are prohibited from providing additional subsidies to producers 
through actions like rebating.  
(b) The amount reported for "Underwriting gains to insurers" in Supporting Table 
DS:1 varies dramatically from year to year:  US$2,541 million in 2008;  
US$810 million in 2009 (G/AG/N/USA/80).  Wh at explains the large year-to-year 
variation? 
The nature of the crop insurance business (random weather events or unpredictable 
price movements) means that gains and losses on underwriting can vary substantially 
year-to-year.  Net underwriting gains to insurers depend on a number of factors, 
including premium levels, participation in  the crop insurance programme, level of 
premiums retained by companies under th e Standard Reinsurance Agreement (the 
agreement between the crop insurance co mpanies and the RMA that govern the 
provision of crop insurance), and actuarial performance for that year (that is, gross 
underwriting gains).  
(c) The notification G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 does not indicate the sub-paragraph of 
paragraph 2 (General services) of Anne x 2 under which "Underwriting gains to 
insurers" is classified.  Under what  sub-paragraph does the United States 
classify this item? 
Outlays under the category "underwriting gain s to insurers" meet the general criteria 
of Annex 2, paragraph 1 (support is provided through a publicly-funded government 
programme and does not involve transfers from consumers, and there is no price  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  support to producers;  additionally, there are no trade-distorting effects or effects on 
production).  In addition, the outlays m eet the general criteria in paragraph 2 
(expenditures (or revenue foregone) in rela tion to programmes which provide services 
or benefits to agriculture or the rural community and are not direct payments to 
producers or processors).  The United Stat es notes that expenditures notified under 
paragraph 2 are not limited to those specifica lly enumerated in sub-paragraphs a – g.  
(d) The notification G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1 do es not indicate an exact data source 
where corresponding data on "Underwriti ng gains to insurers" might be found 
for other years.  Could the United Stat es identify such a source, such as a 
website? 
Data can be found at:  http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutr ma/budget/costsoutlays.html . 
(ii) Direct payments 
55. Question by Brazil:  Regarding Supporting Table DS:1 of document G/AG/N/USA/80, 
could the United States explain why its decoupl ed income support payments increased from 
US$5.7 billion in 2008 (G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1) to US$6.1 billion in 2009. 
Upon further review of US notification fo r 2008 (revised) and 2009, a reporting error for 
direct payments was made.  The United States in advertently used fiscal year data instead of 
marketing year data, which we have used for pr evious notifications of direct payments.  The 
correct figures are $5,086 million for 2008 and $4,858 for 2009.  Thus, decoupled income 
support actually declined.  A correction will be submitted as soon as possible. 
56. Questions by Japan:  Would the United States kindly explain the reason why the 
amount of the "Direct payments" for decoupled  income support in 2008 was reduced from 2007 
considerably and then increased in 2009? 
Payments in 2007 were made under the authority of the 2002 Farm Act, whereas payments in 
2008 and 2009 were under a different authority (t he 2008 Farm Act).  Upon further review of 
our notification for 2008 and 2009, a reporti ng error for direct payments was made as 
explained above.  Thus, direct payments have been declining due to declining enrollment of 
base acres and the participation in the ACRE programme, which stipulates a 20 per cent reduction in direct payments.  Further, the 2008 Farm Act reduced the payment rate on base 
acres from 85 per cent to 83.3 per cent.  
(iii) Domestic food aid 
57. Questions by Brazil:  The notification sh ows a significant increase, in the range of 
US$16 billion, in "Supplemental Nutrition Assi stance Programme" (formerly the "Food Stamp 
Programme") expenditure from 2008 to 2009. 
(a) Can the United States explain why programme expenditure increased so 
dramatically? 
The primary reason for the increase in outla ys is a significant increase in the number 
of people applying and being eligible for the programme, as a result of the on-going 
economic situation in the United States, especially the continuing high level of 
unemployment.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 34 
 
 
  (b) Acknowledging the change outlined above, total "Green Box" expenditure 
increased by approximately US$22 billion fr om 2008 to 2009.  Does this reflect 
changes to seasonal conditions and/or economic conditions, or is this a result of a change to policy?  
The increased level of Green Box outlays reflects mainly the increase in benefits 
under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme (SNAP), and the addition of 
administrative, operating and underwr iting expenses of the crop insurance 
programme, as noted above.  The increase in  SNAP reflects economic conditions and 
the crop insurance payments reflect a change  in reporting to include administrative, 
operating and underwriting expenses.  
(b) Amber Box 
(iv) Product-specific support 
58. Questions by Brazil:  Between the 2008 and 2009 marketing years, total product-specific 
AMS for barley increased from US$118,000 to US$19.53 million, the figure for corn increased 
from US$20.82 million to US$119.066 million, while AMS for cotton decreased from 
US$1.13 billion to US$148.27 million.  Can the Un ited States explain these dramatic shifts in 
product-specific spending from one marketing year to the next? 
Most of the product-specific support for barley, corn, and cotton in 2008 derived from the 
marketing assistance loan programme, which makes payments depending on price levels.  
These payments are detailed in Supporting Tables DS:6 and DS:7.  In 2008, high market prices for barley and corn resulted in minimal payments under the programme.  However, 
cotton prices in 2008 were at low levels that r esulted in larger outlays under the programme.  
In 2009, crop prices for barley, corn and cotton were generally high, r esulting in small outlays 
under the marketing assistance loan programme. 
 
In 2009, the United States notified payments under the Average Crop Revenue Election 
programme (ACRE) for the first time.  Paymen ts under this programme are based on average 
revenue, not prices.  The ACRE payments account for the bulk of the product-specific AMS for barley and corn reported for 2009.  Nevert heless, even with the inclusion of payments 
under ACRE, the AMS was below de minimis  for both products.  Cotton producers as a group 
did not choose to enroll in ACRE, and, as indicated above, high cotton prices in 2009 meant outlays under the marketing assistance loan programme were very small. 
 
59. Questions by Canada:   
(a) In Supporting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/USA/80, Would it be correct, based on 
Articles 1(h)(ii) and 6.4(a) of the Agreement  on Agriculture, to read footnote 2 as 
saying "… inclusion in the Current Total AMS …" instead of "…inclusion in the 
current AMS…"? 
Yes
. 
(b) In Supporting Table DS:6 of G/AG/N/USA/80, it is unclear under what 
legislative authority "Crop assistance payments" were provided for cotton, rice, 
soybeans, and sweet potatoes, as explained in footnote 2.  A search of Public Law 
110-246 failed to reveal any such payments.  Could the United States clarify?  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  The Crop Assistance payments were authori zed under Section 32 of the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act of 1935, a permanent budget authority available to the US 
Department of Agriculture.  
(v) Non-product-specific support 
60. Questions by  
(a) Brazil:  Regarding Supporting Table DS:9 of document G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1, 
could the United States explain the main differences between the method used to 
calculate the benefit to the recipient regarding the programme "Crop and revenue insurance subsidized by the Fe deral Crop Insurance Corporation", in 
the mentioned notification, and the meth od used in previous notifications. 
(b) Japan:  Would the United States explain the reason why Associated fees/levies of 
"Crop and revenue insurance" are no longer reported in these notifications? 
(c) Canada:  The method of calculating the entry in Supporting Table DS:9 for 
"Premium subsidies to producers" seems v ery different from what was done for 
the earlier entry.  Would the United States consider providing a concise guide to 
how this calculation is now done? 
The United States has modified the method for reporting crop insurance, based on a legislated 
policy change in 2008.  The United States has historically reported crop insurance 
expenditures in terms of net indemnities:  the difference between producers' premiums (total 
premium – premium subsidy) and indemnities (payout for a crop or revenue loss).  The total net indemnities were reported as non-product specific support under the AMS.  The new 
method reports premium subsidies, rather than  net indemnities, as producer support from crop 
insurance.  This change is prompted by a change in legislation for the crop insurance 
programme.  The 2008 Farm Act mandated the crop insurance programme operate with an 
actuarially-sound target loss ratio of 1.0.  Th at is, over the long term, premium subsidies 
should equal net indemnities and thus should capture  the full level of support to producers.  
The former method accounted for producer prem iums, which were reported as levies/fees.  
The new method does not need to account for levies/fees. 
In addition, a portion of administrative and ope rating expenses and underwriting gains paid to 
crop insurance companies are reported in the Green Box under General services, similar to 
how salaries and expenses are re ported for other programmes. 
Data on premiums, liabilities, premium subsidies,  and other elements of the programme are 
available at http://www.rma.usda.gov/ . 
61. Questions by Australia:  Did the United St ates previously report the administrative, 
operating and underwriting expenses of crop in surance in the Supporting Table DS:9 as non-
product-specific support? 
No, the United States did not previously report these expenses.  As a result of the reporting 
change made for crop insurance beginning in 2008, as well as questions about these 
expenditures from WTO Members, these expenses are now being included. G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 36 
 
 
  62. Question by Canada:  With G/AG/N/USA/77/ Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/80 data in respect 
of premium subsidies for producers are now availa ble for two years.  Does the United States 
intend to provide revisions also of earlier years'  notifications, incorporating the corresponding 
changes in ST DS:1 and ST DS:9? 
If this question is directed at changes in the reporting of crop insurance, there will not be 
revisions to earlier years, because the change in  method was prompted by a legislated policy 
change in the crop insurance programme, begi nning in 2008, as indicated in the response 
under paragraph 60 above.  
63. Questions by Brazil:  Regarding Supporting Table DS:9 of document 
G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1, could the United States explain why the programme "Supplemental 
Crop Revenue Assurance (SURE)" was not contemplat ed in the first version of the notification 
given the substantial size of the payments related to it (over US$2 billion). 
SURE is a whole-farm crop disaster programme established in the 2008 Farm Bill.  Payments 
are based on the calculation of the difference between a pre-determined guarantee and the 
total crop revenue on the farm (based on the product of USDA national average prices for the 
crops on the farm and harvested production, pl us crop-related government payments).  The 
data requirements are extensive.  The national average price is published at the earliest the 
month after the end of the 12-month crop year.  For example, suppose that corn is the only 
crop on the farm, and that a loss happens in the summer of 2009.  The crop year begins on 
1 September 2009 and ends on 31 August 2010 - and the national average market price for that year would be available at the end of Se ptember 2010.  Thus, payments are received more 
than a year after the time of loss (and even l onger if there are multiple crops on the farm).  
Rice has the longest lag - the crop year is on a 1 August - 31 July basis, but the national average market price is not available until late  January following the end of the crop year.  
 
Due to this calculation methodology, no SURE ou tlay data were available at the time of the 
2008 notification.  The United States chose to submit the 2008 notification without the SURE 
outlay data, rather than delay the submission, and submitted a corrected notification once that 
data became available.  It is expected that th ere will be additional outlays for SURE in 2009, 
and another correction will have to be submitted. 
 
64. Question by the European Union:  What w ere the amounts of countercyclical payments 
which benefited individual products in 2008 and 2009?  The EU would like to request the US to 
include this detailed information in their notifications. 
Countercyclical payments are reported as non- product specific because the payments are 
based on fixed historical area and yields (i.e., production), not current production.  Recipients 
are not required to produce any product to receive payments.  Recipients of a countercyclical payment may have planted another crop on the historical base acres, grazed livestock, or not 
planted a crop at all.  Because any crop can be grown on base acres, payments cannot be ascribed to a specific product.  
65. Questions by Japan:  Would the United States kindly explain the reason why the 
"Biomass Crop Assistance Programme" has been delisted in G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1?  In case 
this measure has been accounted as a meas ure not in 2008 but in 2009 and relisted in 
G/AG/N/USA/80, why is the amount of the payment different from G/AG/N/USA/77 to 
G/AG/N/USA/80? 
The Biomass Crop Assistance Programme was in correctly notified for 2008 and was correctly 
moved to 2009.  The amount notified was re duced because the original 2008 notification  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  incorrectly contained funding that had been  obligated but was not paid because some 
contracts were withdrawn.   In addition, some small paym ents made to non-agricultural 
products (forest products) were incorrectly  included and have now been removed. 
7. Uruguay   G/AG/N/URY/42 
(a) General 
66. Questions by the European Union:  The s upport notified by Uruguay under Green Box, 
special and differential treatment and AMS sh ows a variation over recent years:  support 
decreased in 2009 compared to 2008, and then went up again in 2010.  Could Uruguay explain reasons for these changes? 
The changes were due mainly to modifications  made in respect of technical assistance 
services, assistance for micro-capitalization funds and strategic investments. 
(b) Green Box 
67. Questions by the European Union 
(a) Could Uruguay explain the important in crease in spending on "extension and 
advisory services"? 
In 2010, the budget allocated to the Director ate-General of Rural Development of the 
Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries increased (for the duties assigned to 
the Directorate-General, see Annex 3).  The Directorate-General of Rural 
Development was inaugurated in September 2009.  Its officials began work in 2010 
(until then, only a director had been appoint ed) and for this reason salary, travel and 
operating expenses, etc. increased. 
 
(b) Explain the change in notification of the measure "traceability, animal health 
and food protection" from c) Direct payments to a) General services. 
A Table DS:2 notification under Article 18.3 of the Agreement:  "New or modified 
domestic support measures exempt from reduction" will be circulated shortly.  The 
change has already been incorporated into the notification for the year 2009. 
 The following response was given to a sim ilar question asked by Australia in the 
Committee on Agriculture in 2010: 
 "The measure notified as direct payments to producers' is sub-divided into two 
components:  (i) traceability and (ii) animal health and food protection. 
 The measure provides support for an extens ive campaign 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 design and implementation of in struments and tools used to coordinate 
SIRA databases at national level. 
 Component (ii) supports institutional capacity building at national level with a view to 
the development of procedures for attrac ting, training, supervising and qualifying 
human resources, thus ensuring the availabilit y of professionals to carry out official G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 38 
 
 
  duties relating to animal health control, general animal health  management, and the 
strengthening of procedures that guarantee the safety of food of animal origin. 
 This last measure was mistakenly notified as  'direct payments to producers' when it 
should have been notified as a Green Box measure under General services (items (b), 
(c), (d) and (e))." 
 
(c) Development programmes 
68. Questions by the European Union   
(a) The notification of Uruguay includes support financed by external organizations.  
However, according to the notification external financing is excluded.  Could 
Uruguay comment on this notification practice aspect? 
Uruguay has decided to notify all the support granted by the Rural Uruguay Project, 
even though approximately one third comp rises national budget funds and the other 
two thirds IFAD support, which constitutes part of the country's external debt. 
(b) What are the shares of internal and IFAD financing under special and 
differential treatment - "development programmes" notified. 
For the period 2005-2011, the Rural Uruguay Project was assigned US$21,967,404, 
of which US$14,000,000 is the IFAD contribution, which forms part of the external 
debt, and US$7,967,404 represen ts the local contribution.  
D. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES 
(TABLE  DS:2) 
1. Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/83 
(a) Green Box 
(i) General services 
69. Question by Canada:  The "On-Farm Irri gation Efficiency Programme" modernizes 
on-farm irrigation infrastructure.  The "Irrigated Farm Modernization Project etc." provides 
grants to irrigators for part of the cost of improving on-farm infrastructure, including 
reconfiguring dams and installing water applicat ion systems.  Could Australia explain how 
these two programmes meet the criteria of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
specifically those of paragraph 2 chapeau co ncerning direct payments to producers, and 
paragraph 2(g) concerning on-farm facilities. 
The "On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Programme " is a competitive grants programme which 
provides funding for projects aimed at improving the efficiency and productivity of on-farm 
irrigation water use and management in order to  achieve water savings in the environment.  
The programme provides grants to catchment management authorities and natural resource 
management boards, who subsequently carry out the relevant capital works.  The programme 
does not involve direct payments to producers or processors and the programme's application 
requirements specifically preclude individual producers from applying for funding.   G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  (ii) Direct payments 
70. Questions by 
(a) Canada:  The "Farming Family Shire Rate Assistance" programme provides 
certain concessions to eligible farm fa milies.  Could Australia explain how 
eligibility under this programme is determ ined in terms of also meeting the 30 
per cent loss criterion of paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
(b) the European Union:  What are the e ligibility criteria for farming families to 
participate in the "Farming Family Shire Rate Assistance"? 
(c) Japan:  Would Australia kindly explain in detail the reason why the "Farming 
Family Shire Rate Assistance" is classifi ed as "Payments for relief from natural 
disasters" provided in Annex 2, paragraph 8? 
The "Farming Family Shire Rate Assistance" programme is a Victorian State Government 
initiative. The primary aim of the programme is to  help farmers who operate farms in Victoria 
and who are viable in the long-term, cope with rare and severe events that are outside those 
that a farmer could normally be expected to  manage using responsible farm management 
strategies.  To qualify for "Farming Family Shire Rate Assistance", farmers must be experiencing an event that meets th e following criteria.  The event: 
- must be rare and severe, that is it must not have occurred more than once on average 
in every 20 to 25 years and must be of a significant scale; 
- must result in a rare and severe downtur n in farm income over a prolonged period of 
time (e.g. greater than 12 months) – this ensures that the 30 per cent loss criteria is satisfied; and 
- must not be predictable or part of a process of structural adjustment. 
2. Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/168 
71. Questions by Canada:  Regarding "Measures  to Conserve and Improve Land, Water, 
and the Environment", and given the fact that irrigation water is an input for agricultural production (more water means more production), could Japan explain in more depth how 
"removing silt out of irrigation canals" qualifies as an environmental or conservation 
programme? 
Well-maintained farm land and th e network of irrigation canals in  rural areas of Japan provide 
habitats for wildlife and animals, creating a so -called secondary nature.  In Japan, with its 
high temperature and humidity, if irrigation canals are not maintained properly by removing silt, overgrown moss or weeds and dumped tr ash aggravate water quality and affect the 
environment of the area negatively, though this does not necessarily affect the quantity of 
irrigation water or the volume of production.   Thus, the conservation activities such as 
removing silt out of irrigation canals have benefi cial effects on environmental conservation.  
Moreover, the "Supportive Payment for Collabor ative Activities" meets the criteria for 
"Payments under environmental programmes" as follows:  
(i) The payments are provided only for elig ible rural communities which fulfill the 
requirements prescribed in the Administrativ e Orders for the Measures to Conserve 
and Improve Land, Water, and the Environment; G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 40 
 
 
  (ii) The amount of payments is limited to the extra costs necessary for activities such as 
removing silt out of irrigation canals, weeding of roads shoulders, preservation of 
local biodiversity, and improving rural land scape, and the support is provided through 
a publicly-funded government programme. 
 
72. Question by the European Union:  What are the eligibility criteria for farmers to receive 
the decoupled direct payments? 
Eligible farmers have to be certified by the municipal government as a "core farmer" and to 
have a production record of upland field crops during the base period from 2004 to 2006.  
73. Questions by Canada:  Regarding the two programmes "Direct payment based on the 
historical reference amounts of production" an d "Measures to conserve and improve land, 
water, and the environment", the period of applicat ion of this programme is stated as fiscal year 
2007 only.  However, it appears that support under these programmes is also notified in 
G/AG/N/JPN/167 for 2008 and 2009.  Could Japan explain? 
The period of application of these programm es in the notification should read "2007 －" 
instead of "2007", because these me asures started in 2007 without predetermined end dates of 
the implementation.9 
74. Regarding "Direct payment based on the hist orical reference amounts of production", 
does the 2004-2006 base production apply also for payments made in 2008 and 2009? 
The 2004-2006 base production applies also for payments made in 2008 and 2009.  
75. Question by the European Union:  Rice is no t mentioned among the crops used as a base 
for the amounts of payment.  Could Japan expl ain how rice production is treated in this 
scheme? 
Rice production is not included in the base produc tion for the decoupled payment.  As for 
rice, a different direct payment schem e is implemented as Blue Box support.  
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1,  ES:2  & 
ES:3) 
1. India   G/AG/N/IND/8 
76. Questions by Australia:  The most recent peri od in which India has notified its export 
subsidy commitments (2003/2004), indicates that 637,283.65 tonnes of sugar exports were subsidized.  Noting that export subsidies were  not provided in the years preceding 2003-2004, 
can India provide information on whether sugar subsidies have been provided since 2003-2004? 
Export assistance under Article 9.4 of the Agr eement on Agriculture was provided by the 
Central Government and the State Government  of Maharashtra as per the details below:  
- Schemes of export assistance to sugar mills for export of sugar made between 
21 June 2002 and 18 August 2004:  The Ce ntral Government via its notifications 
dated 21 June 2002 and 19 November 2003 decided to defray the expenditure 
incurred on internal transport and freight charges and payment of neutralization of 
ocean freight charges and handling and ma rketing charges respectively to sugar 
                                                      
9 The corrigendum to this effect has already b een issued (G/AG/N/JPN/168/Corr.1 refers).  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  factories on export shipments of domestically manufactured sugar.  This was effective 
for exports made with effect from 21 June 2002 up to exports made till 
18 August 2004 in pursuance of release or ders issued up to 20 June 2004 with a 
validity of two months.  Ocean freight and handling and marketing charges were 
defrayed as indicated below: 
(i) Ocean freight charges of Rs 350 per MT, admissible to those sugar factories 
who exported their sugar by sea on or after 14 February 2003 and up to 
18 August 2004; 
(ii) Handling and marketing charges of Rs 500 per MT, admissible to those sugar 
factories who exported their sugar by sea on or after 3 October 2003 and up to 
18 August 2004.  
- New scheme of export assistance for export of sugar made between 19 April 2007 and 
30 September 2008:  The Central Government  announced on 19 April 2007, another 
scheme for providing financial assistance to  sugar factories on the export of sugar 
between 19 April 2007 and 18 April 2008 which was later extended up to 
30 September 2008 under Government order dated 28 March 2008.  The rules and 
procedures were notified on 7 November 2007.  The new export assistance scheme 
covered payment of internal transport and freight charges including ocean freight and 
marketing and handling charges at a flat ra te of Rs 1,350 per tonne for sugar mills 
located in coastal states and Rs 1,450 per tonne for sugar mills located in non-coastal 
states.  In the case of export made to  neighbouring countries by rail/road, payment 
was on the basis of actual expenditure on tran sportation up to the destination country, 
subject to above mentioned flat rate ceilings.  
- Scheme of Government of Maharashtra for export assistance on export of sugar 
between 13 April 2007 and 31 March 2009:  Th e State Government of Maharashtra 
vide their resolution dated 27 July 2007, declared financial assistance to sugar 
factories on the export of sugar between 13 April 2007 and 31 March 2008 at a rate of 
Rs 1,000/- per tonne.  This scheme was exte nded up to the financial year 2008-09.  
The assistance from the Maharashtra Govern ment was restricted to the actual 
expenditure incurred on such exports. 
77. Questions by Japan:  According to the noti fication, India provided export subsidies to 
sugar, fresh fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, plants and flowers, cardamom 
and animal products.  Would India kindly name all the items which are comprised in "animal 
products" and "plants and flowers" respectively, and clarify the amount of export subsidies 
provided to each aforementioned item in the marketing years 1995-96 and from 2001-02 to 
2003-04? 
The products eligible for transport assistance are: 
 
- Fresh fruit:  litchis;  pineapples;  bananas;  mangoes and grapes;  other fresh fruits 
(excluding mangoes and grapes) with an  FOB value of Rs 25/kg and above; 
- Fresh vegetables:  fresh vegetables (incl uding organically grown vegetables);  fresh 
mushrooms;  fresh culinary herbs; 
- Processed fruit:  all processed fruit prep arations (excluding squashes, juices and 
pulps);  fruit squash;  fruit juices;  fruit pulps in frozen/ aseptic form;  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 42 
 
 
  - Processed vegetables:  all dried and preserved vegetables (acetic acid/vinegar/brine) 
(including onions in acetic acid and potato flakes/powder but excluding pulses);  
gherkins and cucumbers (prepared/preserved);  pickles/chutneys (of fruits or of vegetables or mixture of fruits and vegeta bles);  mushrooms prepared/preserved;  
ready to eat/cook curries/meals and snack f oods in consumer packs;  all processed 
vegetables in frozen/IQF form; 
- Plants and flowers:  fresh cut flowers/bouque ts;  live plants and bulbs;  tissue culture 
plants;  dried flowers;  medicinal plants; 
- Poultry products:  sheep casings;  hatching e ggs (including SPF e ggs);  table eggs;  
eggs not in shell (dried/cooked)/whole;  egg powder;  egg yolk dried/egg yolk 
powder;  frozen poultry meat and processed poultry products;  frozen (boneless) buffalo meat;   
- Dairy products:  milk powder (whole & ski mmed);  cheese (in all forms) including in 
reefer containers;  UHT milk;  ice-creams (including frozen desserts). 
F. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) 
1. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   G/AG/N/MKD/13 
78. Question by the European Union:  The Euro pean Union would like to seek confirmation 
that the export ban on wheat flour was abolis hed after 15 September 2011 as announced in the 
notification. 
In order to mitigate the consequences of the critical lack of food products which were of 
crucial importance for the food of the populatio n, in accordance with th e Law on Trade, the 
Government of the Republic of Macedonia on 5 April 2011 passed a Decision for restriction 
of the wheat flour export as urgent measure for solving the critical situation in the country.  
By this Decision the export of wheat flour of tariff code 1101 00 as well as wheat and meslin 
of tariff code 1001 was restricted until 15 September 2011. 
 
The Decision restricting the export of wheat flour and wheat is no longer in effect.  No restriction applies to the export of wheat flour and wheat after 15 September 2011, i.e. the 
restriction was abolished as announced in the notification.  
2. Ukraine   G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 
79. Question by the European Union:  Could Uk raine report on the latest state-of-play 
concerning the imposition of export restrictions  and prohibitions on cereals since the last 
Committee meeting in June? 
After the lifting of the export quotas for certain types of crops pursuant to Resolution No. 566 
"On amending the Annex to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 
4 October 2010 No. 938", Ukraine does not mainta in any quantitative export restrictions on 
grain.  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  ANNEX 1  
 
Brazil's PEP— Prêmio para Escoamento de Produto p rogramme 
 
Table 1:  Export subsidies for crop years 2006/2007-2009/20101 
 
 
US$ 
Products Crop year 
2006/2007 Crop year 
2007/2008 Crop year 
2008/2009 Crop year 
2009/2010 
Edible beans 7,182,839 -  1,538,476 -  
Grapes (wine) 1,663,344 -  17,985,350 -  
Rice 5,504,120 1,876,065  - - 
Maize 59,409,339 14,043,862 21,443,110 172,260,105 
Milk - -  1,899,944 - 
Sisal - - - 2,431,642 
Wheat - 45,409,636 263,441,597 12,661,999 
 
1 Provisional data 
 
 
 
Table 2:  Support, production and exports of rice (2006/2007 – 2010/2011)  
 
 
Crop year Benefits under PEP1 Production Exports 
'000 tonnes '000 US$ '000 tonnes '000 US$ '000 tonnes '000 US$ 
2006/2007 114 5,504 11,316 2,348,230 248 54,025  
2007/2008 30 1,876 12,074 3,816,473 285 108,473  
2008/2009 - - 12,603 3,541,383 650 372,324  
2009/2010 - - 11,661 N.A. 514 215,400  
2010/2011 114 5,204 13,613 N.A. 651 275,751  
 
1 Provisional 
N.A. - estimation not available 
 
Note:  The programme for crop year 2010/2011 is still under implementation. 
 
 G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
Page 44 
 
 
  ANNEX 2 
 
G/AG/N/NOR/53 and 56 
 
Norway:  Import and tariff data for selected TRQs 
 
 
 
Imports, 2008 
Tariff 
number Quantity (kg) Value (Nkr) Auction 
fee 
(Nkr/kg) 
Beef 0202.2008 17,068 2,652,179 
50.74 0202.3001 957,397 102,120,503 
0202.3009 13,297 1,728,181 
Sheep meat 0204.4200 91,693 7,646,169 26.52 
0204.4300 106,828 6,109,314 
Imports, 2009 
Tariff 
number Quantity (kg) Value (Nkr) Auction 
fee 
(Nkr/kg) 
Beef 0202 1,070,199 - 16.81 
Sheep meat 0204 185,234 - 21.54 
           Applied tariffs  
  Applied duty 
Tariff 
number In-quota 
(Nkr/kg) Out-of-quota 
(Nkr/kg) 
Beef 0202.1000 9.11 32.28 
0202.2001 9.11 32.28 
0202.2002 9.11 66.40 
0202.2003 9.11 66.40 
0202.2004 9.11 66.40 
0202.2008 18.75 66.40 
0202.3001 33.60 119.01 
0202.3009 33.60 119.01 
Sheep meat 0204.1000 12.23 32.49 
0204.2100 9.09 24.15 
0204.2200 32.10 85.27 
0204.3000 12.23 32.49 
0204.4100 9.09 24.15 
0204.4200 32.10 85.27 
0204.4300 28.97 76.96 
0204.5000 14.01 37.21  G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
  ANNEX 3 
 
G/AG/N/URY/42 
 
Duties of the Directorate-General of Rural Development  
of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of Uruguay  
 
 
The Directorate-General of Rural Development of  the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and 
Fisheries was established pursuant to Law No. 17930 of 9 December 2005.  Article 161 of this Law 
provides as follows: 
 
The programme 07 "Rural Development" shall be  established under Section 07 "Ministry of 
Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries" as of 1 April 2008.  Its executive unit shall be the 
Directorate-General of Rural Development. 
 The executive unit shall ha ve the following duties: 
 
(a) Advise the Minister on the formulation of rural development plans and programmes 
which address, in particular, the situation of the most vulnerable rural sectors, rural 
workers, unemployed persons and small-scale producers. 
(b) Implement plans and programmes aime d at providing maximum assistance and 
support to low-income rural families and coor dinate activities to this end with other 
public and/or private agricultural sector institutions. 
(c) Determine the regions and areas which, due to their location, natural resource 
availability or socio-economic situation,  are considered a priority for the 
implementation of development plans. 
(d) Request the relevant institutes to carry out research when it considers it necessary to 
conduct studies and further analysis, analyse cases or seek alternatives in order to 
guide the development activities in its area of responsibility. 
(e) Ensure and enhance, in a sustainable manner, the target population's access to all 
technical, financial and institutional support services. 
(f) Contribute to strengthening the agricultural sect or institutions that bring together rural 
families, small-scale producers, rural workers and the rural unemployed. 
(g) Contribute to enhancing the human, cultu ral and economic capital of the target 
population and of the institutions into which this population is integrated, through the 
development of social networks. 
(h) Provide an institutional framework fo r activities conducted through the Honorary 
Commission for Rural Youth and by the Honorary Commission for Rural Women. 
(i) Any other duty assigne d to it by the Executive.  
  
__________