   
  
G/AG/W/216  
 
9 December 2021  
(21-9229) Page: 1/375 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETINGS IN 20 20 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised during the four meetings1 of the Committee in 20 20 as well as follow -up comments made 
during the Review Process. The questions raised at those meetings are contained respectively 
in G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  (and G/AG/W/205/Rev.1 /Corr.12), G/AG/W/206, G/AG/W/207 
and G/AG/W/208.  
 
Members with outstanding responses to questions raised in 20 20 are kindly invited to submit them 
to the Secretariat at the earliest.  Members can submit these responses directly through the AG -IMS 
(Q&A Online Submission (wto.org) ). Should you require login credential to access the Q&A function 
of the AG -IMS, please contact the Secretariat by sending an email to  agcd_mailbox@wto.org . For 
the list of outstanding responses, Members are invited to please consult the Secretariat document 
issued regularly in the G/AG/W/204 / series. The AG -IMS also regularly sends automatic reminder 
emails to Members with outstanding responses.  
 
 
  
 
1 The Committee held three regular formal meetings in 2020 on 28 July, 22 -23 September, and 
30 November – 1 December. In addition, a special meeting of the Committee was held on 18 June focusing 
on COVID -19 and agriculture trade policies within the framewor k of the Agreement on Agriculture .  
2 In English only.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEET ING ON 28 JULY 2020  ................................ ................................ ..... 22 
1.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ............. 22 
 Brazil – Public Stockholding programmes  ................................ ................................ ....22 
1.1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93182)  ................................ ...................... 22 
 Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ ................................ .22 
1.1.2.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93043)  ................................ ................................ ..22 
 Brazil's subsidized loans  ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 
1.1.3.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93044)  ................................ ................................ .....23 
 Canada's agriculture support package  ................................ ................................ ........ 23 
1.1.4.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93241)  ................................ ................................ .....23 
 Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ........... 25 
1.1.5.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93048)  ................................ .......................... 25 
1.1.5.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93184)  ................................ .......................... 25 
1.1.5.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93002)  ................................ ......... 26 
1.1.5.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93003)  ................................ ......... 26 
1.1.5.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93247)  ................................ ......... 27 
 Canada's wine sale polic y ................................ ................................ ......................... 27 
1.1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93004)  ................................ ......... 27 
1.1.6.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  ................................ ......... 28 
 Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ........... 29 
1.1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93045)  ................................ ................................ 29 
1.1.7.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93046)  ................................ .......................... 29 
 Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  ................................ .......... 30 
1.1.8.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93047)  ................................ .......................... 30 
 China - China -US Economic and Trade Ag reement  ................................ ....................... 31 
1.1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93049)  ................................ ................................ 31 
1.1.9.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93050)  ................................ ................................ ..31 
 China's stimulus package for corn  ................................ ................................ ............ 33 
1.1.10.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93224)  ................................ ................................ ...33 
 China's agricultural insurance  ................................ ................................ .................. 33 
1.1.11.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93051)  ................................ ................................ 33 
 China - Exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  ................................ ................................ ....34 
1.1.12.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93052)  ................................ ................................ 34 
 China's rice policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 
1.1.13.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93248)  ................................ ........ 34 
 China's state trading enterprises  ................................ ................................ .............. 34 
1.1.14.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93249)  ................................ ........ 34 
 Colombia's sugar fund  ................................ ................................ ............................ 35 
1.1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93183)  ................................ .................... 35 
 Colombia's coffee price stabilization fund  ................................ ................................ ..36 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.16.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93006)  ................................ ........ 36 
 Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program ................................ .............................. 37 
1.1.17.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93042)  ................................ ........ 37 
 Egypt's import license regime  ................................ ................................ .................. 37 
1.1.18.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93054)  ................................ ................................ ...37 
 Egypt's ban on sugar imports  ................................ ................................ .................. 38 
1.1.19.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93185)  ................................ .................... 38 
 Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  ................................ .................... 38 
1.1.20.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93192)  ................................ ................................ ..38 
 EU "From farm to fork" ("F2F") strategy  ................................ ................................ ....39 
1.1.21.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93127) and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 93317)  ........... 39 
 The EU's deforestation and forest degradation strategy ................................ ............... 39 
1.1.22.1    Questio n by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93128)  ................................ .............................. 39 
 EU - Border adjustment mechanism for carbon emissions  ................................ ........... 40 
1.1.23.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93143)  ................................ .............................. 40 
 EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ..................... 41 
1.1.24.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93300), Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93301) and Guatemala 
(AG-IMS ID 93316)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 41 
1.1.24.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93057)  ................................ ........................ 42 
1.1.24.3    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 930 59) and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 93318)  ........... 42 
1.1.24.4    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93238) ................................ .............................. 43 
1.1.24.5    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93060) and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 93319)  ........... 44 
1.1.24.6    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93239) ................................ .............................. 44 
 EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ ....................... 45 
1.1.25.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93242)  ................................ ................................ ...45 
1.1.25.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93243)  ................................ ................................ ...45 
 Italy's support to wine producers  ................................ ................................ ............. 46 
1.1.26.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93225)  ................................ ................................ ...46 
 The EU's coupled payments  ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 
1.1.27.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93055)  ................................ ................................ ...47 
 European Union's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............... 48 
1.1.28.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93231)  ................................ ................................ ...48 
 France – Bpi France Assurance Export  ................................ ................................ ......48 
1.1.29.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93226)  ................................ ................................ ...48 
 India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 
1.1.30.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93058)  ................................ .............................. 49 
1.1.30.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  ................................ ................................ 50 
1.1.30.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93282)  ................................ ................................ 50 
1.1.30.4    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93283)  ................................ ................................ 51 
1.1.30.5    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93067)  ................................ ................ 52 
1.1.30.6    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93229)  ................................ ................ 52 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.1.30.7    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93250)  ................................ ........ 53 
 India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ ...................... 53 
1.1.31.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  ................................ ........ 53 
1.1.31.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93065)  ................................ .............................. 54 
 India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ .............................. 55 
1.1.32.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 9 3001)  ................................ .................... 55 
 India's export subsidies/export credits  ................................ ................................ ......55 
1.1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93007)  ................................ ........ 55 
 India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .56 
1.1.34.1    Question by United States of Americ a (AG -IMS ID 93008)  ................................ ........ 56 
 India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ ................. 57 
1.1.35.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93009)  ................................ ........ 57 
 India's wheat policies  ................................ ................................ ............................. 57 
1.1.36.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93013)  ................................ ........ 57 
 India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ ................ 57 
1.1.37.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93014)  ................................ ........ 57 
1.1.37.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93251)  ................................ ........ 58 
1.1.37.3    Question by United St ates of America (AG -IMS ID 93252)  ................................ ........ 58 
1.1.37.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93253)  ................................ ........ 58 
 India's short -term crop loans  ................................ ................................ ................... 59 
1.1.38.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012)  ................................ ........ 59 
1.1.38.2    Question by Unite d States of America (AG -IMS ID 93254)  ................................ ........ 59 
 India - Dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ................................ 59 
1.1.39.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93011)  ................................ ........ 59 
1.1.39.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93255)  ................................ ........ 59 
 India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  ................................ ................................ ........... 60 
1.1.40.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93256)  ................................ ........ 60 
 Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  ................................ ............................ 60 
1.1.41.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93068)  ................................ ........................ 60 
 Japan - Supplementary budget to addre ss impact of new trade deal  ............................. 61 
1.1.42.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93069)  ................................ .............................. 61 
 Japan's support package  ................................ ................................ ......................... 61 
1.1.43.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93259)  ................................ ................................ ...61 
 Japan's beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG)  ................................ ....62 
1.1.44.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93070)  ................................ ................................ 62 
 Japan - Japan -US Trade Agreement  ................................ ................................ ......... 62 
1.1.45.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93071)  ................................ ................................ 62 
 Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ...63 
1.1.46.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93072)  ................................ ................ 63 
1.1.46.2    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93191)  ................................ ................ 63 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 5 - 
 
  
 Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy imports  ................................ 64 
1.1.47.1    Question by New Z ealand (AG -IMS ID 93073)  ................................ ........................ 64 
1.1.47.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93016)  ................................ .................... 65 
 Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ .......66 
1.1.48.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  ................................ ........ 66 
 Oman's Table DS:2 notification  ................................ ................................ ................ 66 
1.1.49.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93257)  ................................ ........ 66 
 Panama – Non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade during the COVID -19 pandemic  ......... 66 
1.1.50.1    Question by Costa Rica (AG -IMS ID 93314)  ................................ ............................ 66 
 Russia's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ........................ 68 
1.1.51.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93017)  ................................ .................... 68 
 Russian Federation - Subsidies to "certification of agricultural products in foreign 
markets"  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 68 
1.1.52.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93186)  ................................ .................... 68 
 Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of - New system for issuing import licenses  .............................. 69 
1.1.53.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93074)  ................................ ................................ ...69 
 Sri Lanka - Suspension of importation of processed agricultural products  ...................... 70 
1.1.54.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93258)  ................................ ........ 70 
 Chinese Taipei - Rice TRQ tender system  ................................ ................................ ..72 
1.1.55.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93053)  ................................ .............................. 72 
 Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  ................................ ............. 73 
1.1.56.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93305)  ................................ ................................ ..73 
 Thailand's sugar support  ................................ ................................ ......................... 73 
1.1.57.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93203)  ................................ .............................. 73 
1.1.57.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93227)  ................................ ................................ ...74 
 Thailand's "Licence" charge on eggs  ................................ ................................ ......... 75 
1.1.58.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93075)  ................................ ........................ 75 
 Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  ................................ ......................... 76 
1.1.59.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93193)  ................................ ................................ ..76 
 Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  ................................ ................................ ......... 76 
1.1.60.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93019)  ................................ ........ 76 
1.1.60.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93021)  ................................ ........ 77 
 Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  ................................ ........................... 78 
1.1.61.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93018)  ................................ ........ 78 
 United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  ........... 78 
1.1.62.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93076)  ................................ .............................. 78 
 United Kingdom - Policy update resulted from Brexit  ................................ .................. 79 
1.1.63.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93077)  ................................ ................................ 79 
 United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement ................................ ........... 80 
1.1.64.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93078)  ................................ .............................. 80 
1.1.64.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93080)  ................................ ................................ 81 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.1.64.3    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93082)  ................................ ................................ 82 
 U.S. Proposed domestic supp ort measures  ................................ ................................ 83 
1.1.65.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93079)  ................................ .............................. 83 
1.1.65.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93084)  ................................ ................................ 83 
1.1.65.3    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93144)  ................................ .............................. 84 
1.1.65.4    Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93086)  ................................ ................................ .84 
1.1.65.5    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93087)  ................................ ........................ 85 
 United States – Japan - US Trade Agreement  ................................ ............................ 86 
1.1.66.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93081 ) ................................ ................................ 86 
 U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ................................ 86 
1.1.67.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93284)  ................................ ................................ 86 
1.1.67.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93286)  ................................ ................................ 87 
1.1.67.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93245)  ................................ ................................ ...88 
1.1.67.4    Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93299)  ................................ ................................ .89 
1.1.67.5    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93240) ................................ .............................. 90 
 US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  ............... 91 
1.1.68.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93187)  ................................ .................... 91 
 US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  ................................ ..................... 92 
1.1.69.1    Question by  European Union (AG -IMS ID 93188)  ................................ .................... 92 
 U.S. Domestic Support policies and notifications  ................................ ........................ 92 
1.1.70.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93085)  ................................ ................................ ...92 
 U.S. insurance programmes  ................................ ................................ .................... 93 
1.1.71.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93285)  ................................ ................................ 93 
 Viet Nam – Potential Tariff Reductions on Certain Agricultural Products  ......................... 94 
1.1.72.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93083)  ................................ ................................ 94 
1.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  .............................. 94 
 Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  ............................... 94 
1.2.1.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/B RA/55)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 94 
1.2.1.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/247)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 95 
 Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ...95 
1.2.2.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/56)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 95 
1.2.2.2    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/137)  ................................ ................................ .................... 95 
1.2.2.3    Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/64)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 97 
1.2.2.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/50)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 97 
1.2.2.5   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/57)  ................................ ................................ ............ 98 
1.2.2.6    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  ................................ ................................ .....................  101 
1.2.2.7    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/7)  ................................ ................................ ................  101 
1.2.2.8    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/71, G/AG/N/KOR/72, G/AG/N/KOR/73)  ...................  102 
1.2.2.9    Morocco (G/AG/ N/MAR/48, G/AG/N/MAR/48/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/49, G/AG/N/MAR/50, 
G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52)  ................................ ................................ ....................  104 
1.2.2.10    Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/54)  ................................ ................................ ...............  105 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.2.2.11    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/110)  ................................ ................................ ................  106 
1.2.2.12    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/55)  ................................ ................................ .................  107 
1.2.2.13    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  ................................ ................................ .. 107 
1.2.2.14    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/98)  ................................ ................................ ............  107 
1.2.2.15    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/191)  ................................ ................................ .... 108 
1.2.2.16    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/35) ................................ ................................ ..................  108 
1.2.2.17    Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28, G/AG/N/VEN/29, G/AG/N/VEN/30)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 109 
1.2.2.18    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/9, G/AG/N/VNM/10, G/AG/N/VNM/11, G/AG/N/VNM/12)  ..... 110 
 Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 To MA:5)  ................................ ...............  110 
1.2.3.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/251)  ................................ ................................ .....................  110 
1.2.3.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  ................................ ................................ ...... 111 
1.2.3.3    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/183)  ................................ ................................ ...... 111 
1.2.3.4    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/185, G/AG/N/TPKM/187)  ................................ ..........  112 
1.2.3.5    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/130)  ................................ .........................  112 
 Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...........................  113 
1.2.4.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/44, G/AG/N/ARG/45)  ................................ ........................  113 
1.2.4.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  ................................ ................................ ................  114 
1.2.4.3    Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14 to G/AG/N/BOL/26,) ..........................  114 
1.2.4.4    Brazil  (G/AG/N/BRA/58)  ................................ ................................ ......................  115 
1.2.4.5    Burkina Faso (G/AG/N/BFA/18, G/AG/N/BFA/19)  ................................ ....................  117 
1.2.4.6    Cambodia (G/AG/N/KHM/14)  ................................ ................................ ................  118 
1.2.4.7    Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  ................................ ................................ ...............  119 
1.2.4.8    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  ................................ ................................ ..................  119 
1.2.4.9    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/69)  ................................ ................................ .................  121 
1.2.4.10    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/55 and G/AG/N/EU/61)  ................................ ............  123 
1.2.4.11    Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  ................................ ................................ .................  128 
1.2.4.12    Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/19)  ................................ ................................ .................  128 
1.2.4.13    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/64)  ................................ ................................ .............  129 
1.2.4.14    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ......................  130 
1.2.4.15    India (G/AG/N/IND/19)  ................................ ................................ ......................  142 
1.2.4.16    Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/67)  ................................ ................................ ...............  143 
1.2.4.17    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/74)  ................................ ................................ .....................  144 
1.2.4.18    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/60/CORR.1, G/AG/N/KOR/63/CORR.1)  ..................  147 
1.2.4.19    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/61, G/AG/N/KOR/62, G/AG/N/KOR/63)  .................  147 
1.2.4.20    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  ................................ ................................ ..................  148 
1.2.4.21    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/108, G/AG/N/NOR/108/Corr.1 and G/AG/N/NOR/108/Corr.2)  . 148 
1.2.4.22    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  ................................ ................................ .................  150 
1.2.4.23    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/67, G/A G/N/PHL/68, G/AG/N/PHL/69)  ..............................  151 
1.2.4.24    Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/18)  ................................ .........................  151 
1.2.4.25    Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/34)  ................................ ................................ ..............  152 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.2.4.26    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  ................................ ................................ .... 153 
1.2.4.27    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ ..................  153 
1.2.4.28    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36 - G/AG/N/TUR/39)  ................................ .........................  154 
1.2.4.29    United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/16, G/AG/N/ARE/17)  ................................ ...... 164 
1.2.4.30    Vanuatu (G/AG/N/VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  ................................ ..........................  165 
 New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) ................................ ..........  165 
1.2.5.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/19)  ................................ ................................ .......................  165 
1.2.5.2    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/1)  ................................ ................................ .........  166 
1.2.5.3    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/134)  ................................ .........................  167 
 Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ........  168 
1.2.6.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42)  ...............................  168 
1.2.6.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/5 4) ................................ ................................ ......................  169 
1.2.6.3    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/135)  ................................ ................................ ..................  170 
1.2.6.4    Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/46, G/AG/N/MAR/44, G/AG/N/MAR/47)  ................................  171 
1.2.6.5    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/40 to G/AG/N/TUR/43)  ................................ .........................  171 
 Export prohibitions and restrictions ( Table ER:1)  ................................ .......................  172 
1.2.7.1    Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/21)  ................................ ................................ .................  172 
 Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  ................................ ... 172 
1.2.8.1    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/74, G/AG/N/KOR/74)  ................................ ...........  172 
1.3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QU ESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ..............  173 
 Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...........................  173 
1.3.1.1    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10, G/AG/N/BHR/11, 
G/AG/N/BHR/14)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  173 
1.3.1.2    Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/32)  ................................ ................................ ................  174 
1.3.1.3    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ ....................  175 
 Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ .......................  176 
1.3.2.1    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  ................................ ................................ .........  176 
1.4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  177 
 China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  177 
 Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  177 
 European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 177 
 India ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  178 
 Kenya  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  179 
 Korea, Republic of ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 179 
 Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  179 
 South Af rica ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  180 
 United States of America  ................................ ................................ ........................  180 
1.5   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  181 
 China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  181 
 Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  181 
 Myanmar  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  182 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
 Russian Federation ................................ ................................ ................................ . 182 
 Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  182 
 Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  183 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE SPECIAL MEETING ON 18 JUNE 2020  ................................ ....................  184  
2.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION  OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ...........  184 
 Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  ................................ ...............  184 
2.1.1.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94034)  ................................ ................................  184 
2.1.1.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94048)  ................................ ....................  185 
2.1.1.3    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 94033)  ................................ ..............................  185 
2.1.1.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94049)  ................................ ....... 186 
 Cambodia's prohibition of rice exports  ................................ ................................ ...... 186 
2.1.2.1    Question  by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94002)  ................................ ................................ .. 186 
 Canada's agriculture support package  ................................ ................................ ...... 186 
2.1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94001)  ................................ ..............................  186 
 Canada's dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  187 
2.1.4.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94003)  ................................ ..............................  187 
2.1.4.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94004)  ................................ ........................  188 
 Canada - Farm Credit Canada  ................................ ................................ .................  189 
2.1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94053)  ................................ ....... 189 
 China's measures to ensure agricultural inputs suppl ies ................................ ..............  189 
2.1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94054)  ................................ ....... 189 
 Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  ................................ ...................  190 
2.1.7.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94005)  ................................ ................................ .. 190 
2.1.7.2    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94006)  ................................ ..........................  190 
 El Salvador's export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  ................................  190 
2.1.8.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94007)  ................................ ................................ .. 190 
 EU's private storage aid  ................................ ................................ ..........................  191 
2.1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94008)  ................................ ..............................  191 
 EU's aid to the potato sector ................................ ................................ ..................  192 
2.1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94009)  ................................ ............................  192 
 EU- Czech guarantee scheme  ................................ ................................ ................  193 
2.1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94010)  ................................ ............................  193 
 EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ .....................  193 
2.1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94011)  ................................ ............................  193 
2.1.12.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94042)  ................................ ................................ . 194 
2.1.12.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94035)  ................................ ..............................  195 
2.1.12.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94012)  ................................ ......................  195 
2.1.12.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94055)  ................................ ...... 196 
2.1.12.6    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94056)  ................................ ...... 197 
 Romania's export prohibition on agricultural products  ................................ ...............  198 
2.1.13.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94041)  ................................ ................................  198 
2.1.13.2    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94013)  ................................ ........................  198 
 Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  ................................ . 198 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.1.14.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94014)  ................................ ................................  198 
 India's COVID -19 stimulus package  ................................ ................................ ........  199 
2.1.15.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94036)  ................................ ..............................  199 
 Japan's beef support  ................................ ................................ ............................  200 
2.1.16.1    Quest ion by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94015)  ................................ ............................  200 
2.1.16.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94058)  ................................ ...... 200 
 Japan's support package  ................................ ................................ .......................  200 
2.1.17.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94044)  ................................ ................................ . 200 
2.1.17.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94037)  ................................ ..............................  201 
2.1.17.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94057)  ................................ ...... 202 
 Japan's transportation support  ................................ ................................ ...............  203 
2.1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94059)  ................................ ...... 203 
 Kazakhstan's export prohibition measures on c ertain food products  ............................  203 
2.1.19.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94016)  ................................ ................................  203 
2.1.19.2    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94017)  ................................ ........................  203 
 Myanmar's export quota on rice  ................................ ................................ .............  204 
2.1.20.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94018)  ................................ ................................  204 
 New Zealand's International Air Freight Capacity Scheme  ................................ .........  205 
2.1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94038)  ................................ ..............................  205 
2.1.21.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94050)  ................................ ..................  206 
2.1.21.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94051)  ................................ ...... 207 
 Russian Federation's export quota  ................................ ................................ ..........  208 
2.1.22.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94043)  ................................ ................................ . 208 
2.1.22.2    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94019)  ................................ ................................  209 
2.1.22.3    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94020)  ................................ ........................  209 
 Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  ................................ ...........  210 
2.1.23.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94021)  ................................ ................................  210 
 Turkey's Treasury - Backed loans  ................................ ................................ ...........  210 
2.1.24.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94022)  ................................ ............................  210 
 Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  ................................ .......................  211 
2.1.25.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94023)  ................................ ................................  211 
2.1.25.2    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94024)  ................................ ........................  211 
 U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ..............................  212 
2.1.26.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94025)  ................................ ............................  212 
2.1.26.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94045)  ................................ ................................ . 212 
2.1.26.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94039)  ................................ ..............................  214 
2.1.26.4    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94052)  ................................ ..................  214 
2.1.26.5    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94026)  ................................ ......................  215 
 US - Paycheck Protection Program  ................................ ................................ .........  215 
2.1.27.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94047)  ................................ ..................  215 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 12 - 
 
  
 Viet Nam's export restriction measures on rice  ................................ ........................  216 
2.1.28.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94046)  ................................ ................................ . 216 
2.1.28.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94040)  ................................ ..............................  217 
2.1.28.3    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94027)  ................................ ................................  217 
2.1.28.4    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94028)  ................................ ........................  218 
2.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATION S ............................  218 
 Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ .......................  218 
2.2.1.1    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  ................................ ................................ .........  218 
2.2.1.2    North Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/26)  ................................ ................................ ...... 219 
2.2.1.3    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/107, G/AG/N/THA/107/Add.1)  ................................ .............  220 
2.2.1.4    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/37)  ................................ ................................ ...................  220 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 22 -23 SEPTEMBER 2020  ................................ ..................  222  
3.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ...........  222 
 Australia's  International Fr eight Assistance Mechanism  ................................ ...............  222 
3.1.1.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95041)  ................................ ................................  222 
3.1.1.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95042)  ................................ ................................  222 
3.1.1.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95008)  ................................ ................................ ... 222 
 Brazil's subsidized loans  ................................ ................................ .........................  223 
3.1.2.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95009)  ................................ ................................ ... 223 
 Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ ...............................  224 
3.1.3.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95010)  ................................ ................................ ... 224 
 Canada - Farm Credit Canada  ................................ ................................ .................  225 
3.1.4.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95011)  ................................ ................................ ... 225 
 Canada's new milk ingredient class  ................................ ................................ ..........  226 
3.1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95005)  ................................ ....... 226 
3.1.5.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95006)  ................................ ....... 226 
3.1.5.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95146)  ................................ ....... 227 
 Canada's TRQ consultation process  ................................ ................................ ..........  227 
3.1.6.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95043)  ................................ ........................  227 
 China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ .....................  228 
3.1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95044)  ................................ ..............................  228 
 China - Measures adopted at the border  to avoid the transmission of COVID -19 ............  229 
3.1.8.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95045)  ................................ ..............................  229 
 China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  ................................ ..............  230 
3.1.9.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95023)  ................................ ....... 230 
3.1.9.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95024)  ................................ ....... 230 
3.1.9.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95025)  ................................ ....... 230 
 EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ .....................  231 
3.1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95046)  ................................ ............................  231 
3.1.10.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95047)  ................................ ............................  231 
 European Union - EU-US tariff reduction  agreement  ................................ .................  232 
3.1.11.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95048)  ................................ ................................ . 232 
 EU - national state aid programmes in response to COVID -19 ................................ ... 233 
3.1.12.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95049)  ................................ ......................  233 
 EU - France and Italy's  support for t he wine sector  ................................ ..................  234 
3.1.13.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95050)  ................................ ......................  234 
 EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ...................  235 
3.1.14.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 95116) and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 95098)  ...........  235 
3.1.14.2    Questio n by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 95097) ................................ ............................  236 
 EU's intervention policy  ................................ ................................ ........................  237 
3.1.15.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95026)  ................................ ...... 237 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.1.15.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95027)  ................................ ...... 238 
3.1.15.3    Question by United St ates of America (AG -IMS ID 95028)  ................................ ...... 239 
3.1.15.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95029)  ................................ ...... 239 
 EU's variable import levies for cereals  ................................ ................................ ..... 239 
3.1.16.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95001)  ................................ ................................ . 239 
 India's Transport and Marketing Assistanc e (TMA)  ................................ ....................  240 
3.1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95051)  ................................ ............................  240 
 India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............................  241 
3.1.18.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95053)  ................................ ............................  241 
 India- Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund  ................................ ....... 243 
3.1.19.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95054)  ................................ ............................  243 
 India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  ................................ ................................ .... 243 
3.1.20.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95055)  ................................ ............................  243 
 India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  243 
3.1.21.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95052)  ................................ ............................  243 
3.1.21.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95056 ) ................................ ..............................  244 
3.1.21.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 95057)  ................................ ..............  245 
 India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products  ....................  246 
3.1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95033)  ................................ ...... 246 
 India's  DS:1 notification ................................ ................................ ........................  246 
3.1.23.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95030)  ................................ ...... 246 
3.1.23.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95031)  ................................ ...... 246 
3.1.23.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95032)  ................................ ...... 247 
 Indonesia - Import permission for rice  ................................ ................................ .... 247 
3.1.24.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95058)  ................................ ................................  247 
 Japan's support package  ................................ ................................ .......................  248 
3.1.25.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95059)  ................................ ............................  248 
 Mongolia's quota regime for importati on ................................ ................................ . 248 
3.1.26.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 95060)  ................................ ..............  248 
 Nepal's import ban  ................................ ................................ ...............................  249 
3.1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95034)  ................................ ...... 249 
 New Zealand's International Air Freight Capacity Scheme  ................................ .........  250 
3.1.28.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95061)  ................................ ..............................  250 
 Nigeria's DS notifications  ................................ ................................ ......................  251 
3.1.29.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95062)  ................................ ............................  251 
 Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy and co rn imports  ................  251 
3.1.30.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95035)  ................................ ...... 251 
 Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ ..... 253 
3.1.31.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95064)  ................................ ............................  253 
 Norway's proposed changes to its goods schedule XIV  ................................ ..............  253 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.1.32.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95065)  ................................ ......................  253 
 Russian Federation's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ..... 254 
3.1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95036)  ................................ ...... 254 
3.1.33.2    Quest ion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95037)  ................................ ...... 255 
 Russian Federation's grain subsidy programme  ................................ ........................  256 
3.1.34.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95040)  ................................ ...... 256 
 Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104)  .........................  256 
3.1.35.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95068)  ................................ ...... 256 
 Russia's import restrictions in response to COVID -19................................ ................  257 
3.1.36.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95066)  ................................ ............................  257 
 Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  ................................ .........  258 
3.1.37.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 95067)  ................................ ..................  258 
 Russian Federation's export quota  ................................ ................................ ..........  258 
3.1.38.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95012)  ................................ ................................ . 258 
 Thailand's sugar support  ................................ ................................ .......................  259 
3.1.39.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95069)  ................................ ............................  259 
 Turkey's applied tariffs  ................................ ................................ .........................  259 
3.1.40.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95070)  ................................ ................................  259 
 Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  ................................ ................................ ....... 260 
3.1.41.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95038)  ................................ ...... 260 
 Turkey - Inward Processing Regime Verification  ................................ .......................  261 
3.1.42.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95039)  ................................ ...... 261 
 UK's border control during the Brexit transition period  ................................ ..............  263 
3.1.43.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95002)  ................................ ................................ . 263 
 United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement ................................ .........  264 
3.1.44.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95071)  ................................ ............................  264 
 United States - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  ................................ ....................  265 
3.1.45.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95073)  ................................ ................................ . 265 
 U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ..............................  265 
3.1.46.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95014)  ................................ ................................ . 265 
3.1.46.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95074)  ................................ ......................  266 
 U.S. DS:1 notifications  ................................ ................................ .........................  267 
3.1.47.1    Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 95075)  ................................ ......................  267 
 U.S. direct payments to farmers  ................................ ................................ ............  267 
3.1.48.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95072)  ................................ ..............................  267 
 U.S. domestic  support polices  ................................ ................................ ................  268 
3.1.49.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95015)  ................................ ................................ . 268 
3.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ............................  269 
 Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ . 269 
3.2.1.1    Australia (G/AG/ N/AUS/135)  ................................ ................................ ................  269 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.2.1.2    Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/36)  ................................ ................................ .. 270 
3.2.1.3    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  ................................ ................................ .....................  270 
 Special safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ................................  271 
3.2.2.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/62)  ................................ ................................ ..........  271 
 Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...........................  271 
3.2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  ................................ ................................ ................  271 
3.2.3.2    Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/43)  ................................ ................................ .. 272 
3.2.3.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61, G/AG/N/EU/55)  ................................ ...................  273 
3.2.3.4    Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/23)  ................................ ................................ ...................  276 
3.2.3.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ .......................  276 
3.2.3.6    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  ................................ ................................ .....................  293 
3.2.3.7    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  ................................ ................................ ...................  295 
3.2.3.8    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  ................................ ................................ ... 295 
3.2.3.9    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/37)  ................................ ............................  298 
3.2.3.10    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/123)  ................................ ........................  300 
3.2.3.11    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/135)  ................................ ........................  301 
 New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) ................................ ..........  303 
3.2.4.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/130)  ................................ ................................ ................  303 
3.2.4.2    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/118)  ................................ ................................ ..........  304 
 Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ........  305 
3.2.5.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/127)  ................................ ................................ ................  305 
 Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ .......................  305 
3.2.6.1    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  ................................ ................................ .........  305 
3.2.6.2    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/13)  ................................ ................................ .................  305 
 Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  ................................ ... 306 
3.3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  306 
 Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  306 
 Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  306 
3.4   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  307 
 Argentina ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  307 
 Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  309 
 Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  311 
 China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  311 
 Colombia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  312 
 European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 313 
 India ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  315 
 Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  316 
 Israel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  316 
 New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 316 
 Norway  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  317 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 17 - 
 
  
 Pakista n ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  318 
 Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ...............................  318 
 Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  319 
 United States of America  ................................ ................................ ......................  320 
 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  ................................ ................................ ...........  321 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 30 NOVEMBER 2020 AND 1 DECEMBER 2020  ...................  322  
4.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ...........  322 
 Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector  ................................ ............  322 
4.1.1.1    Question b y India (AG -IMS ID 96021)  ................................ ................................ ... 322 
 Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  ................................ ...............  323 
4.1.2.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96022)  ................................ ................................ ... 323 
 Canada's new milk ingredient class  ................................ ................................ ..........  324 
4.1.3.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96040)  ................................ ........................  324 
4.1.3.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96082)  
and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96004)  ................................ ................................  325 
4.1.3.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96083)  
and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96005)  ................................ ................................  326 
4.1.3.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96084)  
and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96011)  ................................ ................................  326 
 Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ .........  327 
4.1.4.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96023)  ................................ ................................ ... 327 
4.1.4.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96041)  ................................ ........................  327 
4.1.4.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9601 2) 
and by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96085)  ................................ ................................ ............  328 
 Canada's Dairy Direct Payment Program  ................................ ................................ ... 328 
4.1.5.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96042)  ................................ ........................  328 
 China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ .....................  329 
4.1.6.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96043)  ................................ ..............................  329 
 China's cotton policies  ................................ ................................ ............................  330 
4.1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96044)  ................................ ..............................  330 
4.1.7.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96045)  ................................ ..............................  330 
 China's responses to Canada's questions  ................................ ................................ .. 332 
4.1.8.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96075)  ................................ ................................  332 
 Côte d'Ivoire – Tax on imported spirits  ................................ ................................ ..... 332 
4.1.9.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96046)  ................................ ....................  332 
 Egypt – Sugar import ban/restrictions  ................................ ................................ .... 332 
4.1.10.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96047)  ................................ ..................  332 
 EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ .....................  333 
4.1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96048)  ................................ ............................  333 
4.1.11.2    Questio n by India (AG -IMS ID 96027)  ................................ ................................ . 334 
 European Union - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  .........  335 
4.1.12.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96 049) ................................ ......................  335 
 EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ...................  336 
4.1.13.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 96007) ................................ ............................  336 
 Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  ................................ . 337 
4.1.14.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96050)  ................................ ................................  337 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 19 - 
 
  
 India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  ................................ ................................ .... 337 
4.1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96051)  ................................ ............................  337 
 India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  338 
4.1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96052)  ................................ ............................  338 
4.1.16.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96076)  ................................ ..............................  339 
4.1.16 .3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96056)  ................................ ..............  340 
 India's PM -KISAN income guarantee scheme  ................................ ...........................  341 
4.1.17.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96077)  ................................ ..............................  341 
 India's transparency with Green Box measures  ................................ ........................  341 
4.1.18.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96078)  ................................ ..............................  341 
 India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  ................................ ..........................  342 
4.1.19.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96053)  ................................ ..................  342 
4.1.19.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96055)  ................................ ......................  343 
4.1.19.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96013)  ................................ ...... 343 
 India's export prohibition on onions  ................................ ................................ ........  344 
4.1.20.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96054)  ................................ ................................  344 
 Indonesia - Import permission for rice  ................................ ................................ .... 344 
4.1.21.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96057)  ................................ ................................  344 
 Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ . 346 
4.1.22.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96058)  ................................ ..............  346 
 Nigeria's DS notifications  ................................ ................................ ......................  346 
4.1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96059)  ................................ ............................  346 
 Nigeria's border closures  ................................ ................................ .......................  347 
4.1.24.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96014)  ................................ ...... 347 
 Philippines - Market Access Volume (MAV) utilization for corn  ................................ .... 347 
4.1.25.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96016)  ................................ ...... 347 
 Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits .................  348 
4.1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96015)  ................................ ...... 348 
 Russian Federation - Support for exported agricultural products  ................................  349 
4.1.27.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96060)  ................................ ..................  349 
 Russian Federation - Proposed elimination of beef TRQ  ................................ .............  349 
4.1.28.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 96081) ................................ ............................  349 
 Russian Federation – draft resolution on export duties  ................................ ..............  350 
4.1.29.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96017)  ................................ ...... 350 
 Russian Federation's export quota  ................................ ................................ ..........  350 
4.1.30.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96036)  ................................ ................................ . 350 
 Russian Federation's export restrictions  ................................ ................................ .. 350 
4.1.31.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96018)  ................................ ...... 350 
 Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  ................................ .........  351 
4.1.32.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96019)  ................................ ...... 351 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 20 - 
 
  
 Sri Lanka - Temporary suspensions and restrictions  on imports of products  .................  352 
4.1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96020)  ................................ ...... 352 
 Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  ................................ ...........  352 
4.1.34.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96061)  ................................ ................................  352 
 United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  .........  353 
4.1.35.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96062)  ................................ ......................  353 
 U.S. domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ........  355 
4.1.36.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96080)  ................................ ..............................  355 
4.1.36.2    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 96031)  ................................ ................................ . 355 
4.1.36.3    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96063)  ................................ ..................  356 
4.1.36.4    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96064)  ................................ ..................  356 
4.1.36.5    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96025)  ................................ ................................ . 357 
4.1.36.6    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96065)  ................................ ......................  357 
4.1.36.7    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96066)  ................................ ......................  358 
 U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ..............................  359 
4.1.37.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96026)  ................................ ................................ . 359 
4.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ............................  359 
 Imports un der tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ . 359 
4.2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/138)  ................................ ................................ ..................  359 
4.2.1.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  ................................ ................................ .....................  361 
4.2.1.3    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/77)  ................................ ................................ .... 361 
4.2.1.4    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/103)  ................................ ................................ ............  362 
4.2.1.5    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/112)  ................................ ................................ .................  363 
 Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...........................  363 
4.2.2.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52, G/AG/N/BRA/58)  ................................ ..............................  363 
4.2.2.2    Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/37 - G/AG/N/DOM/43)  ................................ ....... 364 
4.2.2.3    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ .......................  366 
4.2.2.4    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/80)  ................................ ................................ .......................  367 
4.2.2.5    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  ................................ ................................ .....................  367 
4.2.2.6    Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/15)  ................................ ................................ .................  368 
4.2.2.7    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/37, G/AG/N/TUR/38)  ................................ ............................  368 
4.2.2.8    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/48 - G/AG/N/TUR/50)  ................................ ...........................  369 
 New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) ................................ ..........  370 
4.2.3.1    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/122)  ................................ ................................ ..........  370 
 Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ........  371 
4.2.4.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/60)  ................................ ................................ ......................  371 
4.3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ..............  371 
 Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...........................  371 
4.3.1.1    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  ................................ ................................ ... 371 
4.4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  372 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 21 - 
 
  
 Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  372 
 European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 373 
4.5   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  373 
 India ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  373 
 New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  374 
 United States of America  ................................ ................................ ........................  374 
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 2 8 JULY 2020  
1.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
Brazil – Public Stockholding programmes  
1.1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93182)  
During the special COVID -19 meeting on 18 June, in one of its interventions Brazil indicated that it 
has used Public Stockholding programmes in relation to COVID -19.  
 
a. Can Brazil explain in detail the operation of such programmes, notably the products 
concerned and the amount of expenditure.  
b. Would Brazil consider including such programmes in an ad hoc  report on its COVID -19 
measures?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Brazil would like to clarify that it stated during the CoA COVID -19 session that, in a broad 
sense, Brazil has opted to provide additional funding to existing programs that are already 
usually notified either as PSH or food aid. Thus, we referred to the broad framework of 
Brazilian policies.  
Then, we specified the support being provided as food aid, not as PSH.  
 
The main su pport aspect will be through the "Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos" (PAA) (Food 
Acquisition Program), which received and additional budgetary allocation of BRL 500 million.  
 
Of this total, BRL 370 million is being spent on the purchase of food produced b y family farmers and 
their cooperatives, through the "PAA Compra com Doação Simultânea" ("PAA Purchase with 
Simultaneous Donation") modality. Donation is being made for people at food and nutritional risk.  
 
The remaining BRL 130 million was allocated to th e "PAA Leite" (PAA Milk) modality, which allows 
for the purchase of "in natura" milk from either dairies or dairy family farmers from the semi -arid 
region for the subsequent distribution to charitable entities and socially vulnerable families.  
 
b. Brazil is v ery keen on furthering transparency in domestic support, especially during these 
challenging times in which many Members have been adopting new domestic support 
policies or strengthening existing ones.  
We are currently engaged with the proponents of WT/GC/ 218/Rev.1 (G/AG/31/Rev.1) to advance 
the Declaration's transparency commitments to which we subscribed,  and we plan to give full 
transparency on the measures mentioned above. Therefore, while we do not discard including such 
programmes in an ad hoc  report like the EU has done, we are still assessing how to do it.  
 
Brazil's wheat quota  
1.1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93043)  
Canada appreciates Brazil's response to its question during the 30 October  2019 meeting 
(AG‑IMS ID 92046) relating to the implementation o f its 750,000 metric tonnes duty -free tariff rate 
quota (TRQ) for wheat. Brazil indicated in its response in October that the executive branch of Brazil's 
Foreign Trade Chamber (CAMEX) approved the establishment of the wheat TRQ, but that it needed 
a CAMEX  resolution and a Presidential Decree revoking Decree No.  1.892/96.  
 
Could Brazil provide an update its internal process to make this wheat TRQ operational?  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 23 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil  
 
Brazil appreciates Canada's interest in  better understanding the operation of Brazil's wheat TRQ. 
Through CAMEX  Resolution no. 10, from 12 November 2019, Brazil has included wheat 
(MERCOSUR'S  common nomenclature - NCM 1001.19.00 and 1001.99.00) in Brazil's list of  
exceptions to the common external tariff and established  a duty -free annual  750,000 tonnes wheat 
TRQ, according to Brazil's UR schedule of concession. The  TRQ will be consolidated by a presidential 
decree, soon to be published.  
 
Operationalization and distribution of the  quota is regulated by Portaria SECEX no . 44, of 
18 November 2019, which  establishes the criteria for the allocation of the TRQ between 11/18/19 
and 11/17/2020. Full text is available at 
http://www.mdic.gov.br/images/REPOSITORIO/secex/gab/portarias_secex_2019/Portaria_SECEX_
044_2019.pdf . The presidential  decree has not yet been published.  
 
Brazil's subsidized loans  
1.1.3.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93044)  
As per the FAO, Brazil's Agriculture Ministry plans to increase funds available to finance the farm 
sector through subsidized loans in 2018-2019 noting that a decline in inflation has allowed the 
government to boost funding in a country that already is the  world's largest exporter of staples like 
soybeans and coffee. [Source: http://www.fao.org/in -action/agronoticias/detail/en/c/1116679/ ] 
In this regard, response to the following  is requested:  
 
a. Whether this information has been notified in Brazil's domestic support notification for 
year 2018 which has been recently submitted with the WTO?  
b. If not, how much has been spent under this initiative till now? India requests Brazil to 
elucidate the provision under the Agreement on Agriculture under which the programme 
is intended to be notified?  
c. What are the eligibility criteria for availing such loans?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. The link provided in the question refers to information on availabl e funds for financing 
through Plano Safra ("Harvest Plan"). Plano Safra is an umbrella program that involves 
many elements of Brazilian agricultural policy. Only a fraction of the program's funds are 
deemed domestic support according to the Agreement on Ag riculture. The volume of 
available financing does not necessarily correspond to a subsidy actually being granted. 
Firstly, not all of the available financing is actually disbursed; and most importantly, for 
the amount actually disbursed, only a fraction - for example, the difference between the 
interest rate of each of the specific programs and the reference market rate in the case of 
credit programs - is actually a subsidy. The subsidy component of the referred program 
was duly notified for year 2018.  
b. All forms  of subsidies granted by Brazil have been duly notified since 1995 in each of the 
appropriate categories defined in document G/AG/2.  
c. As explained, Plano Safra is an overarching plan. Each specific program has its own 
eligibility criteria. Detailed i nformation is available at https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt -
br/plano -safra. 
Canada's agriculture support package  
1.1.4.1   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 93241)  
The Prime Minister of Canada, H.E. Mr. J ustin Trudeau has announced a $252 million federal 
programme to support Canadian farmers during the COVID -19 pandemic. Under the programme, 
the government plans to create a $77.5 million Emergency Fund to allow food producers to access G/AG/W/216  
 
- 24 - 
 
  personal protective equipment (PPE), a $125 million program to help support the beef and pork 
producers adapt to the crisis due to the pandemic, and a price -support surplus food purchase 
programme of $50 million, aimed at redistributing existing and unsold inventories, includ ing products 
such as potatoes and poultry to local food organizations who are serving vulnerable Canadians.  
India requests Canada to provide more details regarding the following points:  
 
a. Is there any update on the product list identified by Canada in their response to the 
question asked by Australia in question AG-IMS ID 94001?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria to qualify as a beneficiary under the programme?  
c. What is the payment mechanism  to be used to assist beneficiary 
organizations/producers/processors?  
d. Who would undertake the procurement and distribution aspects under the Surplus Food 
Purchase programme?  
e. How does Canada plan to notify this programme in its agricultural notifications?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The list includes the same commodities noted in the answer to the question from  Australia, 
which includes several products that are in surplus, falling under  horticulture, livestock, 
and fish and seafood and supply -managed commodities.  However, the Surplus Food 
Rescue Program list  remains evergreen in nature, as circumstances with Canada 's 
producers and  processors continue to evolve and unfold. In other words, the surplus 
product  situation is very fluid and the list of surpl us commodities will be updated as  more 
data becomes available.  
b. Eligibility criteria  differ for each program and  initiatives that is part of the measures 
investing over  $252 million to support  farmers and food processors.  
Surplus Food Rescue Program  
 
Eligible applicants consist of not -for-profit and for -profit organizations and include:  
• Community  or charitable organizations ; 
• Indigenous group s; 
• Cooperatives ; 
• Regional and municipal governments and agencies . 
 
Applicants must  be a legal entity capable of enter ing into a legally -binding agreement. The  program 
will award contributions to organizations who have a turn -key approach  to managing surplus food 
and who:  
 
• can acquire and move  the most surplus product (must identify amount to be moved);  
• use the most  cost-effective approach for acquiring food (acquiring product at or below  the cost 
of production and through donations as applicable);  
• use the most  cost-effective approach for processing (only process if cannot be  distributed 
otherwise and at minimal cost);  
• are most efficient,  from wholesale purchase to food serving agencies (drawing down on surplus  
quickly);  
• can make sure food  reaches the most vulnerable and remote communities, (target of 10% for  
northern communities); and  
• have partnerships  already established along the supply chain including food serving  agencies.  
  
Smaller  organizations proposing to handle smaller amounts of surplus may be funded if  they are 
serving a specific vulnerable region with the surplus food, not  otherwise well -served, and  use 
innovative methods to deal with the surplus.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Emergency Processing Program  
 
The basic  eligibility criteria are specified on the National Program 's website 
(https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/agricultural -programs -and-services/emergency -processing -fund/ ). 
 
Eligible  recipients are:  
• For-profit organizations,  
• Cooperatives  
• or Indigenous groups  
  
Applicants  must be legal entities capable of entering into a legal ly binding agreement,  have been in 
operation for at least two (2) years and are involved in food  production (manufacturing, processing 
or greenhouse conversion) in Canada.  
 
Applicants  requesting less than $100,000 in contribution assistance must submit the ir requests to 
the four regional delivery organizations. Contact information for  these delivery organizations are 
available in the Program Applicant Guide  indicated on the department 's website.  
 
AgriRecovery  
 
Each initiative under the AgriRecovery Framewor k is delivered by the province. The  individual 
eligibility criteria for each initiative is established within each  of the different jurisdictions, and agreed 
upon as part of the Contribution  Agreements ' terms and conditions.   
 
c. The payment mechanism for all  COVID -19 measures and  initiatives is a contribution 
(transfer payment).  
d. The Surplus Food Rescue Program is managed by Agriculture and Agri -Food 
Canada.  Applicants will submit an  application for review and decision. Successful 
applicants will sign a  contribution agreement with the department and receive payment.  
e. Canada  is committed to be transparent about its agricultural COVID -19 domestic support  
measures and intends to circulate an ad hoc  report outlining the details and  pertinent  
information on them shortly. These measures will also be  notified and classified in the 
relevant annual notifications to the Committee  on Agriculture.  
Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.1.5.1   Question by New Zealand ( AG-IMS ID 93048)  
New Zealand understands the ratification process for the Canada -United States -Mexico (CUSMA) 
agreement is now underway. Can Canada advise what steps it is taking to eliminate milk classes 6 
and 7, including their associated milk class pric es, within six months of this preferential trade 
agreement entering into force?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada's CUSMA implementing legislation was granted Royal Assent on 13 March 2020. Several 
steps must still be completed to bring the agreement into force. Canada is committed to working 
with our CUSMA partners to complete the important trilateral work that is required to bring the 
Agreement into force and provide predictability and stability for businesses and workers in all three 
countries. With respect to the CUSMA obligation for Canada to ensure the elimination of milk 
classes  6 and 7, Canadian industry and provincial governments are working to comply with the terms 
of CUSMA in accordance with the required timelines specified in the Agreement.  
 
1.1.5.2   Question by  New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93184)  
New Zealand has previously expressed interest in this committee in Canada 's milk classes 6 and  7 
and their consistency with the Agriculture Agreement.  We understand that, as a result of the 
Canada -United States -Mexico Agreeme nt (CUSMA) entering into force on 1 July 2020, Canada is G/AG/W/216  
 
- 26 - 
 
  moving to eliminate these milk classes.  Can Canada please advise how it will ensure the elimination 
of milk classes 6 and 7 within the specified timelines?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada is able to inform  New Zealand as well as other Members that, on 1 June, the Canadian dairy 
industry eliminated milk classes 6 and 7, which is a requirement under CUSMA. These changes were 
done in advance of the January 2021 deadline specified in the text.  
 
1.1.5.3   Question by Unit ed States of America (AG -IMS ID 93002)  
In AG -IMS ID 92002, regarding data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales, Canada stated 
that it "has been working towards updating the reporting system in order to be as transparent as 
possible."  
 
a. Please confirm if data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales will be made 
publicly available once verifications to ensure accuracy are complete.  
b. If so, please provide an update on when and where this information will become available.  
Answer b y Canada  
 
a. Yes, as previously stated, several verifications to ensure accuracy of the data are required. 
Once completed, information will be provided in a more relevant format.  
b. As previously stated, Canada does not have a timeline to provide for the release of any 
data related to milk class prices, utilization and sales. Several verifications to ensure 
accuracy of the data are required. Canada is committed to ensuring that any in formation 
published accurately reflects the data that has been entrusted to the federal government 
by industry.  
1.1.5.4   Question by United  States of America (AG -IMS ID 93003)  
In AG -IMS ID 87015, Canada stated: "Federal authority for the marketing of dairy product s is 
delegated to provincial milk marketing boards or provincial agencies for interprovincial and export 
trade of dairy products pursuant to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act and the Agricultural Products 
Marketing Act. This would also include the power in  respect of pricing. Provincial boards and agencies 
are also delegated provincial authority for pricing based on provincial legislation and statute. Under 
the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) and federal -provincial agreements, 
these entiti es coordinate the exercise of their delegated federal and provincial authorities. Although 
responsibilities vary from province to province, boards and agencies generally license producers, 
allocate milk quotas, and establish or negotiate the prices or acco unting values charged to 
processors, according to the milk's end use" .  
 
a. Please confirm that the setting of milk class prices, and determination of which products 
are eligible for each milk class price, are the exercise of federal and provincial authority.  
According to media reports, Canada's Agriculture Minister Bibeau in Feb ruary publicly 
commented on Canadian government compensation for dairy farmers affected by the 
Canada -EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the Comprehensive and 
Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific Partnership, adding that, "The compensatio n for 
the new -NAFTA will come soon as well" .  
b. Please elaborate on the anticipated timeline and method for the compensation related to 
the U.S. -Mexico -Canada Agreement.  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The delineation between federal and provincial authorities with respe ct to the marketing 
of milk in Canada is complex. This is why provincial milk marketing boards or provincial 
agencies possess all the authorities required to market milk in Canada. As previously G/AG/W/216  
 
- 27 - 
 
  stated, when a question arises as to whether a law enacted by  Parliament or a provincial 
legislature comes within their respective constitutional powers, an authoritative answer 
can come only from the courts. The federal government has not deemed it necessary to 
seek this clarification from the courts as provincial milk marketing boards have the 
necessary authority to market milk in Canada. For more information on the division of 
powers between Parliament and provincial legislatures, please refer to Canada 's previous 
response to AG -IMS ID 92002, part C.  
b. The governme nt of Canada is committed to concluding the work related to full and fair 
compensation for recent trade agreements, including CUSMA.  
1.1.5.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93247)  
Milk Class Pricing Transparency  In AG -IMS ID 93002, Canada stated t hat "Canada does not have a 
timeline to provide for the release of any data related to milk class prices, utilization and sales," and 
"Once completed, information will be provided in a more relevant format.  "Has Canada developed a 
timeline to provide this data?  Could Canada describe the format that the data will take when 
released?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada has been working hard to verify the accuracy of the data and to publish this information in 
a more relevant format. These efforts are reflective of Cana da's ongoing commitment to 
transparency. At this time, Canada is pleased to announce that we currently intend to publish this 
information by 1  January 2021. The data will contain milk utilization by milk class and by month, 
including quantities sold, price s, and revenues for milk and each milk component.  
 
Canada's wine sale policy  
1.1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93004)  
Canada has not yet responded to the following questions posed by the United States 
in AG‑IMS IDs 92003, 91137, 90040, 85012,  86034, 87016, 88096, and 89021 regarding wine. As 
such, the United  States repeats its previous questions.   
 
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising product s that are continuously 
available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO Wines category".  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order to be 
sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vinta ges Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have been 
distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single au thorization that permits the 
operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine boutique 
inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?   
c. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product cal l that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002, which specifies different retail price parameters and 
size parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the category of existing Ontario bag 
in box wine?  (http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box %20T
ender.pdf ) G/AG/W/216  
 
- 28 - 
 
  d. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to four stock keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores, while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between importe d and Ontario 
products.  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Vintages Essentials is a small component of all wines listed by the Liquor Control Board of 
Ontario  (LCBO) making up approximately 3% of all active LCBO wine listings. As previously 
indicated, interested suppliers are encouraged to contact the LCBO Wines category team 
directly if they would like to move their wines into the LCBO Wine category and join the 
other wine SKUs that are listed in grocery stores.  
b. As of 26 April 2021, 69 supplementary wine authorizations for  wine boutiques have been 
issued.   
c. In 2016, the LCBO expanded the number of products in the bag -in-box format.  The new 
import and domestic brands in the bag -in-box format were subject to the same retail price 
and size parameters.  The product call for exist ing brands only resulted in one product 
being listed.  By comparison, 4 new foreign brands and 4 new domestic brands were listed.   
d. LCBO currently lists 55 bag -in-box wine products, including two products from California, 
one from Italy, one from Spain, and seven VQA Ontario products.  The remaining products 
are International Domestic Blend (IDB) products, which can contain up to 75% imported 
wine content (including wine content from the United States).   
1.1.6.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  
According to the 6 June 2019 public backgrounder issued by Ontario 
(https://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2019/06/more -choice -convenience -and-fairness -for-beer-and-
wine-consumers.html :  
 
"Eighty -seven grocers will be selected to sell imported and domestic beer, cider and 
wine under unrestricted authorizations."  
"And for the 35 existing grocers that have restricted authorizations, most of thei r initial 
restrictions will be lifted and they will be able to expand their assortments to a larger 
selection of wine starting in October 2019."  
a. Have 87 additional grocers been authorized to sell imported and domestic beer, cider and 
wine under unrestricte d authorizations?  
b. For the 35 grocers referred to in the backgrounder, what restrictions have been lifted?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The 87 additional grocers referenced in the 6 June 2019 backgrounder issued by Ontario 
have been authorized to sell imported and dom estic beer, cider and wine under 
unrestricted authorizations.  
b. All the 35 restricted authorizations referenced in the 6 June 2019 backgrounder issued by 
Ontario converted to unrestricted authorizations by the end of August 2020. Once a 
restricted authorization has converted to an unrestricted authorization, all the restrictions 
that are specifically attached to the restricted authorizations are lifted.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 29 - 
 
  
Canada's review of the TRQ system  
1.1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93045)  
Australia refers to Canada 's Comprehensive Review of Tariff Rate Quotas and thanks Canada for 
confirming subsequently that the second phase of the Review is underway and that the final policies 
for each TRQ should be published in September of this year.  
 
Australia appreciates  the opportunity to engage in the second phase of the Review and will direct 
substantive questions on the policy options developed by Canada through the Review process. 
However,  Australia would like to raise some high -level questions with respect to Canada 's policy 
options as detailed on the government of Canada website - https://www.international.gc.ca/trade -
commerce/consultations/TRQ -CT/instructi ons.aspx?lang=eng   
 
a. What was the methodology for establishing the specific options detailed on the 
government of Canada 's website?  
b. How is Canada planning on making its final policy decisions, for example:  
i. Will the final policy decision be made based on ma jority vote/support for a particular 
policy option?  
c. Where a final policy option further protects Canada 's supply managed sectors, does 
Canada plan on implementing other liberalising trade policy changes as offsets to ensure 
the overall effect of the new po licies are in line with the long -term objective enshrined in 
the Agreement on Agriculture for substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support 
and protection?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada 's Minister of  Small Business, Export Promotion and Internation al Trade has temporarily 
suspended the Comprehensive Review of  the Allocation and Administration of Tariff Rate 
Quotas  (TRQs) for Dairy,  Poultry and Egg Products - Phase II  (the Review).  
 
This temporary  suspension recognizes the impact the COVID -19 situat ion is having on  stakeholders 
and allows them to focus on other pressing issues and operational  requirements.   
 
The Review, including  stakeholder consultations, will resume in the future at an appropriate time.  
 
Canada will notify its trading partners upon  resumption of the Review.  
 
Questions may  be addressed to: TRQConsultation.ConsultationCT@international.gc.ca   
 
a. Canada 's proposed policy options were guided by  obligations and commitments within our 
trade agreements, domestic legislation  and feedback received during the Comprehensive 
Review, as well as previous  consultations.  
b. Once the  Comprehensive Review resumes, Canada will continue its outreach and 
engagement  with the provinces, domestic stakeholders, and international trading  
partners.  Officials will review all feedback and submit recommendations  to the Minister of 
Small Business, Export Promotion and International  Trade for decision.  
c. While we  cannot prejudge the resul ts of the Comprehensive Review and the Minister 's 
decisions, as always, Canada will be guided by our international trade  obligations and 
commitments, including those in the Agreement on Agriculture.   
1.1.7.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93046)  
New Zealand ac knowledges that Canada is currently undertaking Phase II of its comprehensive 
review of the allocation and administration of tariff rate quotas for supply -managed products. Noting 
that some of Canada's TRQs suffer from chronic underfill, such as dry whey a nd powdered buttermilk, G/AG/W/216  
 
- 30 - 
 
  can Canada advise how the current consultation process will remove restrictive measures, and 
enable 100% quota fill?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada 's Minister of  Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade has temporarily 
suspended the Comprehensive Review of  the Allocation and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas 
(TRQs) for Dairy,  Poultry and Egg Products - Phase II  (the Review).  
 
This temporary  suspension recognizes the impact the COVID -19 situation is having on  stakeholde rs 
and allows them to focus on other pressing issues and operational  requirements.  
 
The Review, including  stakeholder consultations, will resume in the future at an appropriate time.  
 
Canada will notify its trading partners upon resumption of the Review.  
 
Canada does not  share New Zealand 's position that the allocation policies established for the  
referenced TRQs are impacting the fill rate.   
 
Questions may  be addressed to: TRQConsultation.ConsultationCT@international.gc.ca   
 
Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  
1.1.8.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93047)  
New Zealand refers to Canada's responses to similar questions asked at the October 2019 Committee 
on Agriculture (AG -IMS 92075). Since there is a consistent lag in Canada's notifications, its response 
last time that the CAD 345 million paid directly to dairy farmers based on the size of  their production 
quotas, would "be notified as appropriate in Canada's 2019 Domestic Support notification" raises 
the concern for New Zealand that this and other, similar payments can be made with a lack of 
transparency. In 2019, Canada submitted notifica tions for the 2016 year. On this basis Members will 
have to wait at least three years to see how this trade - and production -distorting support is notified, 
and review it accordingly.  
 
a. Can Canada provide an indication of how it intends to notify the CAD 34 5 million in direct 
payments to dairy farmers based on the size of their production quotas? i.e. whether it 
will be notified in due course as AMS.  
b. Can Canada confirm that the compensation packages paid in 2019 to farmers and 
producers in supply -managed se ctors impacted by trade agreements was a one -time 
payment, or does Canada expect to make similar compensatory payments in 2020?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada refutes New Zealand's allegations regarding Canada's lack of transparency. 
Agriculture in Canada is a  shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the 
provincial/territorial governments. The process of preparing the domestic support 
notification requires a collaborative effort whereby, program information and expenditures 
is collected, verified and new programs are classified. Canada's preparation of the 
domestic support notification is a thorough process. Canada's long -standing practice in its 
annual domestic support notification is to provide the information as per G/AG/2 as well 
as on a volunt ary basis additional information that improves the transparency of its 
domestic support notification such as product -specific value of production. Canada has 
recognized delays regarding its annual domestic support notification. Canada has reviewed 
its inte rnal processes and taken concrete steps to facilitate the collection and verification 
of data required for the annual domestic support notification in order to reduce the 
timelines for its annual domestic support notifications. The 2019 Dairy Direct Paymen t 
Program will be notified in the appropriate category of support in Canada's 2019 Domestic 
Support notification. Finally, we would like to reassure our New Zealand colleagues who 
have taken a disproportionate interest into Canada's dairy policy that Canad a's 
WTO domestic support obligations are a core consideration of Canada agriculture policy G/AG/W/216  
 
- 31 - 
 
  design and that the 2019 Dairy Direct Payment Program will be consistent with Canada's 
WTO domestic support commitment.  
b. In August 2019 the government of Canada anno unced it will make available $1.75 billion 
over eight years for Canada's dairy farmers. Of this amount, $345 million is being 
distributed in  2019-2020 through the Dairy Direct Payment Program. The remaining 
$1.405 billion will be available in subsequent ye ars and the details are still being 
determined.  
China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93049)  
Australia welcomes Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of 
America and the People's R epublic of China. This is a positive step forward in resolving existing trade 
tensions and will provide a greater level of certainty to help lift global economic confidence during 
what is a challenging time.  
 
With respect to the commitments made by China under the Agreement in relation to agriculture, we 
welcome China's assurances that it will implement the measures in a fully WTO -consistent and 
non-discriminatory  manner. We appreciate this with respect to the provisions that concern this 
Committee, but al so with respect to the provisions concerning other agriculture -related aspects of 
the WTO Agreement, for example on the SPS commitments in the US -China Agreement.  
 
We would welcome if China can provide further advice on how it plans to do this, for exampl e:  
 
a. Is China planning on changes to applied MFN tariffs to facilitate the purchase and import 
of at least US D 80 billion in agricultural goods over the next two years?  
b. Does China intend on reallocating unused or returned wheat, rice and corn TRQ amounts 
pursuant to a particular mechanism? i. For example, the mechanism established under 
Annex A of the Bali Ministerial Decision on tariff -rate quota (TRQ) Administration.  
c. We would further welcome China advise the Membership on how it plans to implement the 
obligations of Chapter 6, Article 6.2: Trade Opportunities, paragraph 5, whereby 
"…purchases will be made at market prices based on commercial considerations…".  
Answer by China  
 
a. China will adhere to the basic policy of opening -up so as to promote reform, d evelopment 
and innovation and will continuously advance  the opening -up to a higher level. When China 
makes adjustment to its MFN tariff rates, relevant information will be published on the 
website of the Ministry of Finance ( http://www.mof.gov.cn ).  
b. According to the relevant WTO rules and China 's accession commitments, Chinese 
government requires enterprises to return unfinished TRQ quantities for wheat, rice and 
corn by 15 September. The returned quantities will be re-allocated to end users that have 
fully imported the quantities allocated or new entrants.  
c. Commercial consideration is a principle agreed upon by China and the US. The Chinese 
enterprises which are engaged in imports from the US will follow the principle  of 
marketization and the WTO  rules. Whether to purchase and the amount of each purchase 
will be decided by the enterprises concerned on the basis of market conditions.  
1.1.9.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93050)  
The recently signed Economic and Trade Agreement B etween the government of the United States 
of America and the government of the People's Republic of China includes a requirement in 
paragraph 1 (b) of Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultural Products for the minimum purchase of 
agricultural goods by the  People's Republic of China. Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultural 
Products —paragraph 1 b. "For the category of agricultural goods identified in Annex 6.1, no less G/AG/W/216  
 
- 32 - 
 
  than $12.5 billion above the corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and importe d into 
China from the United States in calendar year 2020, and no less than $19.5 billion above the 
corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the United States 
in calendar year 2021."  
 
a. Could China provide the value of 2017 imports from the United States for the following 
commodities: i. beef; ii. pork; iii. wheat; iv. canola; v. soybeans.  
b. Could China elaborate if there is a commitment to purchase specific volumes of particular 
agricultu ral products?  
c. Could China please elaborate if private companies, state -owned enterprises or state 
trading enterprises will be given direction to purchase specific volumes of a given 
commodity in order to meet these value targets?  
d. What role will the gover nment of the People's Republic of China play in potentially 
"matching" US exporters of agricultural products identified in Annex 6.1 with importers in 
China?  
e. Paragraph 5 "The Parties acknowledge that purchases will be made at market prices based 
on commer cial considerations and that market conditions, particularly in the case of 
agricultural goods, may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year." Could 
China elaborate how "commercial considerations" will be taken into account when there is 
a defined value commitment for the purchase of agricultural goods from the United States?  
f. Could China elaborate as to how it ensures that these new purchase requirements will not 
displace existing commercial relationships?  
Answer by China  
 
a. In 2017, the value of China's import from the U.S. for beef is USD  25 million, for pork is 
USD 286 million, for wheat is USD 389 million, for canola is USD 210,000 and for soybean 
is USD  13.9 billion.   
b. Commercial consideration is a principle agreed upon by China and the US. The Chinese 
enterprises which are engaged in imports from the US will follow the principle of 
marketization and the WTO  rules. Whether to purchase and the amount of each purchase 
will be decided by the enterprises concerned on the basis of market condition s. 
c. Commercial consideration is a principle agreed upon by China and the US. The Chinese 
enterprises which are engaged in imports from the US will follow the principle of 
marketization and the WTO  rules. Whether to purchase and the amount of each purchase 
will be decided by the enterprises concerned on the basis of market conditions.  
d. The purchase will be made by the enterprises concerned on their own decisions. The 
Chinese government will not make any instruction in this regard.  
e. Commercial consideration is a  principle agreed upon by China and the US. The Chinese 
enterprises which are engaged in imports from the US will follow the principle of 
marketization and the WTO  rules. Whether to purchase and the amount of each purchase 
will be decided by the enterprise s concerned on the basis of market conditions.  
f. Commercial consideration is a principle agreed upon by China and the US. The Chinese 
enterprises which are engaged in imports from the US will follow the principle of 
marketization and the WTO  rules. Whether t o purchase and the amount of each purchase 
will be decided by the enterprises concerned on the basis of market conditions. As a nation 
with a population of 1.4 billion and with huge market potential, China is willing to 
strengthen the economic cooperation and trade relationship with all countries around the 
world.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 33 - 
 
  
China's stimulus package for corn  
1.1.10.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93224)  
It has come to Brazil's attention, that, on 15 April 2020,  China has launched a stimulus package to 
overturn a recent  reduct ion trend on corn -planted area.  
 
Nonetheless, on December 2018, China has submitted  notification G/AG/N/CHN/49 (Table DS:2) 
regarding its "Corn  Producer Subsidy System", under Article 6, paragraph 5 (a) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
 
In the light of the  above, could China provide the following  information on:  
 
a. The termination of the "Corn Producer Subsidy System" on  2018, as per G/AG/N/CHN/49, 
and on its substitution by  another corn -specific policy.  
b. The evolution of corn planted area and on the value of  corn production since 2014 (the 
base year for the "Corn  Producer Subsidy System").  
c. The legislation that established the stimulus package launched last April (if possible, could 
China provide a copy  of said legislation?).  
d. The stimulus package budget and if it relies on  price-support, direct payments or other 
forms of subsidies.  
Answer by China  
 
The policy framework of the Corn Producer Subsidy has remained unchanged since its introduction 
in 2016.   
 
China's agricultural insurance  
1.1.11.1   Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 93051)  
In October 2019, the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China Banking 
and Insurance Regulatory Commission and State Administration of Forestry and Grassland released 
a document called "Guiding options on accel erating the quality of development of agricultural 
insurance ". Canada understands that the document aims to promote and standardize the 
development of agricultural insurance.  
  
a. Could China provide an update on the development of agricultural insurance pro ducts?  
b. Would agricultural insurance cover livestock and crops?  
c. Will the cost of premiums be shared between government(s) and producers? If so, what 
will be the respective contributions?  
d. Will the agricultural insurance products be actuarially sound i.e.,  will the premiums cover 
the cost of indemnities?  
Answer by China  
 
a. and b. Chinese government encourages the development of agricultural insurance with 
the aim of insuring producers against losses caused by natural disasters, accidents, 
epidemics, diseases  and other accidents as agreed in the insurance policies. At present, 
agricultural insurance mainly covers rice, wheat, corn and other major grain crops, as well 
as hogs and vegetables.   
c. At present, the central government provides premium support for certa in bulk 
commodities covered by the insurance programs. Such insurances only cover the loss G/AG/W/216  
 
- 34 - 
 
  caused by natural disasters, and the indemnity will be paid on the basis of direct materials 
cost, such as the costs of seed and fertilizers.   
d. In general, the premiu ms can cover the indemnity costs.   
China - Exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  
1.1.12.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93052)  
On 18 February 2020, China announced that it will allow importers to apply for exemptions to the 
retaliatory tariffs imposed against the Unit ed States on 697 product lines including farm products 
such as soybeans, pork and beef. The exemption will have to undergo an approval process and would 
only be effective for one year. Importers could apply for the tariff exemptions starting 2 March 2020.  
 
a. Could China indicate if there is a limit on the number of entities that are eligible for this 
exemption and if so how many?  
b. Could China confirm if both State -Owned Enterprises and private companies can apply for 
these tariff exemptions?  
c. Could China provide an estimate as to the value of this exemption?  
Answer by China  
 
The process is ongoing. Relevant information or data is n ot available at present.   
 
China's rice policies  
1.1.13.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93248)  
In China's response to the U.S. question AG -IMS ID 91133, China notes that "bidding rules", and 
other relevant information in the document including "th e trading announcement" is published on 
the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, the National Food and 
Strategic Reserves Administration.   
  
a. Please provide links to these announcements specifically related to the recent rice  
auctions.  
b. Do the auction procedures have any requirements related to exportation of the rice?  
c. Of the recently auctioned rice, what quantities remained in China and what quantities have 
been exported?  
The United States repeats its questions in AG -IMS ID 91 133: 
d. Is COFCO the main exporter of this rice?  
e. Are other STEs exporting rice?  
Answer by China  
 
Please refer to the reply to Question AG -IMS ID 92005.  
 
China's state trading enterprises  
1.1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93249)  
In response to China 's answer to AG -IMS ID 91115, the United States provides the link to a 
Bloomberg news article ( https://www.bloomb erg.com/news/articles/2019 -05-07/china -is-said-to-
plan-overhaul -of-state-agriculture -giants ). Based on the linked article, the United States G/AG/W/216  
 
- 35 - 
 
  understands that the government of China plans to transfer the trading assets of Sinograin, which 
includes its stoc kpiles and oilseed crushing capacity, to COFCO Corporation.   
 
a. Please explain the rationale behind its restructuring of assets for its agricultural state 
trading enterprises.  
In reference to #115 on page 192 of G/C/W/701 dated 14 August 2014:  
b. Please provide an overview of operations of the China Grain Reserves Corp. (Sinograin).   
c. Please explain the differences in grain activities or roles carried out between Sinograin and 
COFCO.  
d. Please explain whether or not Sinograin can influence through their purchases or sales the 
level or direction of imports or exports.  
Answer by China  
 
We haven 't heard of the news on the reported restructuring of assets.  
 
Colombia's sugar fund  
1.1.15.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93183)  
Colombia – Sugar Fund  Colombia has established a sugar fund, which grants support for sugar 
exported from Co lombia.  
 
For the three latest marketing years, 2017, 2018 and 2019, can Colombia indicate:  
 
a. Total production of sugar  
b. Total quantity exported, and how much benefited  from subsidies from the sugar fund  
c. Total payments made from the sugar fund for the export of sugar  
d. The average amount per tonne of sugar paid into the fund from sugar sold on the 
Colombian market.   
Answer by Colombia  
 
The Price Stabilization Funds (FEPs), created by Law No. 101 of 1993, are intended to guarantee 
producers' incomes, regul ate domestic production, and prevent price speculation, in addition to 
promoting agricultural exports These are made up of charges levied on producers which remain 
outside the national budget and are reinvested by the private sector in programmes of benefi t to 
the activity from which they are sourced. Therefore, as these are private funds and do not constitute 
State support.  
 
Based on the foregoing, the Price Stabilization Fund for centrifugal sugars, molasses obtained by 
extracting or refining sugar, and sugar syrups (FEPA), organized for the sugar sector by virtue of 
Decree No. 569 of 2000, does not grant direct support to Colombia's sugar exports, nor does it 
record total payments to exports or to domestic sales of the product. The FEPA has an autonomous , 
private set -up, with its management board, in which the national government participates through 
the Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Development and Commerce, Industry and Tourism. It 
operates with a Technical Secretariat, its own accounts and its ow n oversight body. The Association 
of Sugar Cane Growers of Colombia (Asocaña) manages the Fund's resources.  
 
Sugar production and export data for 2017, 2018 and 2019  
 
Production:  
2017: 2,233,831 tonnes  
2018: 2,335,419 tonnes  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 36 - 
 
  2019: 2,203,982 tonnes  
 
Exports:  
2017: 705,965 tonnes  
2018: 747,718 tonnes  
2019: 700,033 tonnes  
 
Source: https://www.asocana.org/modules/documentos/5528.aspx  
 
Colombia's coffee price stabilization fund  
1.1.16.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93006)  
The United States notes a new programme, the Coffee Price Stabilization Fund signed into law 
in July 2019, which provides subsidies to coffee growers when the price of coffee falls below 
production cos ts.  
 
Can Colombia please provide:  
 
a. The measure and any other relevant implementing regulations; and  
b. A description of how the measure operates including:  
i. eligibility criteria;  
ii. how support prices and production costs are determined;  
iii. whether there are limits on the quantity of product receiving the subsidy;  
iv. whether there are mechanisms in place to reduce production costs; and  
v. any other information on how the programme operates.  
Answer by Colombia  
 
a. The Coffee Price Stabilization Fund  (FEPC), which provides mechanisms to help stabilize 
the income of Colombian coffee producers, was established under Law No. 1969 of July 
2019  
(https://dapre.presidencia.gov.co/normativa/normativa/LEY%201969%20DEL%2011%20DE%20J
ULIO%20DE%202019.pdf). It op erates in accordance with Law No. 101 of 1993 : 
https://www.minagricultura.gov.co/Normatividad/Leyes/Ley%20101%20de%201993.pdf .  
  
All the details concerning the FEPC were added to the Single Regulatory Decree on the Agricultural, 
Fisheries and Rural Development Sector by means of Decree No. 2228 of December 2019 : 
https://www.minagricultura.gov.co/Normatividad/Decretos/Decreto%202228%20de%202019.pdf . 
  
b. The FEPC became operational on 19 February 2020. Its aim is to ensure better protection 
for Colombian coffee growers against fluctuations in international coffee bea n prices, which 
often fail to reflect the effort involved in producing coffee sustainably.  
At its opening session, the National FEPC Committee, comprising the Ministers of Finance and Public 
Credit; Agriculture and Rural Development; and Trade, Industry a nd Tourism, the Director of 
National Planning, and 15 senior trade association representatives, approved the Fund's regulations, 
including those concerning the functioning of its governing body and the responsibilities of the 
Technical Secretariat.  
  
Pursuant to Article 14 of Law No. 1969 of 2019, the National Government is to regulate aspects 
pertaining to: (1) mechanisms for assigning subsidies to producers; (2) the role of the FEPC 
administrator as production and producer certifier; and (3) the producer 's obligations in relation to 
domestic marketing and exports.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 37 - 
 
    
The document entitled ABC FONDO DE ESTABILIZACIÓN DE PRECIOS (FEPC) explains all the various 
aspects and elements of the FEPC ( https://federaciondecafeteros.org/app/uploads/2020/03/ABC -
FEC-1columna.pdf ). In order to address the concerns raised, we will describe several of these 
aspects and elements below. However, it should be made clear that the FEPC Te chnical Secretariat 
is currently in the process of being appointed and set up.  
  
• Beneficiaries and eligibility criteria: Coffee producers duly registered in the Coffee Growers 
Information System (SICA). Transactions between traders or intermediaries will n ot benefit 
from any of the Fund's stabilization mechanisms. Every Colombian coffee producer may 
benefit from the stabilization mechanisms for up to 70% of their productive capacity, in 
accordance with information provided by the Colombian Coffee Growers Fe deration (FNC).  
 
• Determination of prices and production costs: The prices subject to stabilization are the 
domestic prices of coffee produced in Colombia, denominated in Colombian pesos and 
published by the FNC.  
 
• Production costs will be determined using m ethodologies appropriate to the specific 
conditions in Colombia's various coffee -growing regions.  
 
• Resources: The Fund will begin operating with a budget of 218 billion pesos. It envisages 
other sources of financing, such as contributions from industrial t hird parties interested in 
the sustainability of Colombian coffee growing, and national royalties.  
 
• Administration: The Fund will be administered by the FNC, which will indicate the applicable 
terms and conditions.  
  
A contract will set out the responsibilities of the parties (the FNC and the government) in terms of 
the structure, auditing and implement ation of the stabilization mechanisms.  
 
Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  
1.1.17.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93042)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91138, the United States has seen press reports that the government 
of Egypt settled judi cial cases for overdue export subsidies administered by the Egyptian Export 
Development Fund (ESF), to promote several economic sectors, including agricultural companies.  
 
a. Please provide the legislation and/or decisions that made this export subsidy available, 
including an explanation of eligibility criteria and how payment rates are determined for 
the export of agricultural products.  
b. Please explain how the settlement agree ments reached on export subsidies with 
agricultural companies impacts the provision of support under this measure.  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt's import license regime  
1.1.18.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93054)  
a. Is the import of agriculture goods, such as poultry mea t, live animals and corned -beef, 
subject to an import license regime?  
b. If positive, could Egypt provide details on the administration of this import license regime 
(criteria for granting the license; economic agents who can request; existence of import 
limits, among others)?  
c. Are decisions on the granting of licenses made available to the public?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Answer by Egypt  
 
a. The General Authority for veterinary Services is the authority entrusted with obtaining 
import approvals for live animals and products of animal o rigin according to the 
epidemiological situation upon importation.  
b. As for the requirements for importing live animals, poultry, and products of animal origin 
including corn beef from Brazil, they are subject to constant updating and discussions with 
the Br azilian side through periodic review of the veterinary certificates that accompany 
the consignments, including but not limited to: approval of certificates for export of live 
animals between the two countries, approval of health certificates for the export  of whole 
frozen poultry and their products between both countries, and for exporting bovine semen 
and intestines health certificates are being studied.  
c. Companies wishing to import poultry and their products from all over the world must 
submit import reque sts to the General Authority for Veterinary Services, indicating the 
quantity and the country of origin, where the general Authority for Veterinary Services 
studies those requests and provides its decision.  
Egypt's ban on sugar imports  
1.1.19.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93185)  
Egypt – Ban on sugar imports  
 
On 4 June Egypt announced a ban on all imports of sugar. Can Egypt explain how it sees this measure 
respecting the requirements of the GATT Article XI :2(c).   
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Due to the shar p decline in oil prices particularly this year, sugar prices have dropped by almost  30% 
since the beginning of the year. This has boosted the inventories of sugar creating a temporary 
surplus.  
 
Hence, it was necessary to impose this temporary import restri ction to remove the temporary 
surplus, in accordance with article xi.2(c).2 of the GATT.  
 
 Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  
1.1.20.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93192)  
At the Committee on Agriculture meeting held on 18 June 2020, Japan asked Eg ypt to provide the 
reason why required notification concerning its export prohibitions on leguminous vegetables and 
products thereof had not been made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement of Agriculture. 
In Egypt 's response to the said question, Egypt explained that it would be exempt from the 
notification requirement as Egypt is a net importer of the food stuffs concerned. However, according 
to the statistical data such as FAOSTAT, Japan recognizes that Egypt is a net exporter of the foodstuff 
concerned. Japan would appreciate if Egypt could provide the clarification by providing such data as 
to well support that Egypt is a net importer of the foodstuff concerned.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
We thank Japan for the continued interest in this decree.  
 
As for the notification to the Committee on Agriculture, according to the ITC trademap data for the 
period 2015 -2018 -sourced from the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics, 
Egypt is not a net food exporter of the concerned foodstuffs . 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 39 - 
 
  
EU "From farm to fork " ("F2F") strategy  
1.1.21.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93127)  and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 93317)  
On 17 February 2020, the European Commission published a communication concerning its "Farm 
to Fork" ("F2F") strategy. In that document, it st ated the following: "The strategy will set out relevant 
ambitions and actions to stimulate sustainable food production and to create new business models 
for food producers to thrive in a sustainable food system. The strategy will include measures to 
signif icantly reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides, as well as the use of fertilizers and 
antibiotics. These actions will go hand in hand with actions seeking an improvement of animal 
welfare. The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Pol icy will be instrumental in 
implementing the Farm to Fork Strategy. The Common Agriculture Policy funded National Strategic 
Plans will have to reflect the ambition of the Green Deal."  
 
a. How will food security and the effective control of pests and diseases  be guaranteed 
worldwide if the EU proceeds to substantially reduce the use of pesticides in third 
countries? Are there any alternative methods authorized in the EU that are affordable for 
farmers?  
b. How does the EU plan to reduce the use of pesticides? By eliminating a number of 
authorized substances? If so, how does the EU reconcile this objective with the fact that 
good agricultural practices recommend the rotation and combining of agrochemicals, 
precisely to ensure soil sustainability? How  does the EU expect to encourage this type of 
crop practice if it is constantly eliminating substances that form part of the 
farmer's  "toolbox"?  
c. How can the EU guarantee that active substances already freely circulating in the market 
(generic products) wi ll remain in the system, if leading producers do not have the 
economic incentive to conduct and submit the scientific studies requested by the EU to 
ensure the safety of the active substances? This is particularly relevant in the EU, where 
the precautionar y principle is applied when there is a lack of information due to the 
absence of studies. We ask the same question in relation to minor crops.  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU considers these questions fall within the scope of the WTO SPS committee (and p erhaps the 
TBT committee if some elements are of TBT relevance) rather than the Committee on Agriculture, 
and the EU will be ready to answer the questions if raised in those committees. More generally, 
the EU can offer only a very general and provisional r eply to these questions until it adopts a final 
version of the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy. The essential intention of the F2F Strategy with regard 
to pesticides is to reduce the negative impacts of pesticide use in the EU without significant negative 
consequences for food production. The objective of the strategy is to drive significant change over 
a period of 10 years. Achieving this will involve further development and wider application of relevant 
knowledge, technology and nature -based solutions, includ ing in terms of integrated pest 
management. The Commission anticipates that a range of active substances will still be needed for 
the foreseeable future and will continue to circulate in the EU market.  
 
The EU's deforestation and forest degradation strate gy 
1.1.22.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93128)  
On 5 February 2020, the European Commission announced an impact assessment for the strategy 
"Deforestation and forest degradation – reducing the impact of products placed on the EU market". 
In the document concerne d, the EU stated the following: "There are many drivers of deforestation, 
but the expansion of agriculture is the most important one. Some studies estimate that 80% of 
global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion, a phenomenon which has roots i n the global 
demand for products such as palm oil, soya and beef."  
 
a. The community authorities recognize that there are many reasons for deforestation and 
that these reasons are based on very different realities depending on the country in which 
the phenom enon takes place. In Colombia, 75% of deforestation is linked to unlawful G/AG/W/216  
 
- 40 - 
 
  activities or practices (illicit crops, illegal mining activities, land grabbing). Will the EU take 
into account these situations in order to avoid unfairly punishing countries like Colombia 
that face specific situations? In other words, how does the EU plan to ensure that "the 
innocent do not pay for the sins of the guilty" and that each country receives appropriate 
technical assistance and support? "There is a market and regulatory failure reflected in 
the lack of level playing field between companies that act responsibly towards 
deforestation and those who do not; and information asymmetries, derived from the lack 
of common standards and reliable information in the hands of consumer s. The EU already 
has in place measures related to fighting deforestation, such as the Forest Law 
Enforcement Governance and Trade  (FLEGT) Action Plan to tackle illegal logging and the 
Renewable Energy Directive which includes EU  sustainability criteria fo r biofuels and 
bioliquids. However, while the EU FLEGT Action Plan tackles illegal logging, it does not 
address deforestation caused by agricultural expansion. The recast Renewable Energy 
Directive for the period post 2020 extends the obligation to fulfil the EU  sustainability 
criteria from biofuels to all bioenergy end uses (including heating/cooling and electricity), 
but it only covers raw material used for bioenergy production." (a) The RED II and the 
Delegated Act on biofuels completely exclude, for the  fulfilment of the renewable energy 
target, biofuels that are produced using sustainable palm oil, as this raw material is 
considered to pose a high risk of indirect land use change (ILUC). How does the EU plan 
to encourage the production of sustainable pa lm oil, if it does not allow member States to 
consider this product to be renewable energy?  
b. The additional costs that new measures could generate for European entrepreneurs and 
consumers are clear. However, no reference is made to the cost of traceability  and 
transparency for farmers, since it is mistakenly assumed that this cost will be transmitted 
to other actors in the chain. How does the EU plan to ensure that these additional 
requirements to test the sustainability of agricultural products will not be  assumed by the 
weakest actors in the chain, namely third country farmers? Are there any plans to take 
into account the special situation of farmers in post conflict zones or in areas marked by 
the production of illicit crops who are trying to move ahead w ith new activities?  
Answer by European Union  
 
These questions cover very general environmental issues and are not about agricultural or agri -trade 
policies. Thus, the EU does not see them as falling within the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture 
or this  Committee. Such questions should be raised in the relevant committee, which would seem 
to be the Committee on Trade and the Environment. The EU would be ready to have a discussion on 
such matters in that committee.  
 
EU - Border adjustment mechanism for carbon emissions  
1.1.23.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93143)  
"Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism": in a communication published on 4 March 2020, the EU 
stated that in addition to general public consultation, dialogue with third countries would tak e place 
through the WTO and other channels.  
 
a. Could the EU please elaborate on the way in which it will conduct consultations with third 
countries, whether it plans to submit notifications to the multilateral bodies on time, and 
how it will ensure that our  comments are properly taken into account?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU has launched a public hearing on the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is open 
to all. It can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better -regulation/have -your-
say/initiatives/12228 -Carbon -Border -Adjustment -Mechanism . Further information on the process on 
the EU decision making on the Gre en Deal can also be also be found on that site.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 41 - 
 
  
EU's environmental policies  
1.1.24.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93300) , Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93301)  and 
Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 93316)  
a. On 11  December  2019, the European Union (EU) launched the European Green Deal.3 
Colombia and Paraguay note that, in order to meet the objectives of the Deal, the EU has 
adopted a number of strategies – including the Biodiversity and Farm to Fork Strategies – 
that provide for, inter alia, the granting of direct payments to agri cultural producers who 
deliver on the green ambition.4 
Colombia and Paraguay also note that these direct payments will be granted within the framework 
of a new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2021 ‑2027 based on conditionality, i.e., compliance with 
climate/environment ‑related requirements in order to receive direct payments.5 Furthermore, 
provision is made for the adoption of "eco ‑schemes" that seek to recompense farmers who 
voluntarily implement certain agricultural practices.6 
 
In regard to this matter:  
  
i. In what amounts would these direct payments be granted?  
ii. What are the requirements for accessing these direct payments?  
iii. How many agricultural producers will benefit from these direct payments?  
iv. When would these direct payments  enter into effect?  
v. According to the Farm to Fork Strategy, in 2017, CAP subsidies, with the exception of 
investment support, represented 57% of net farm income in the EU.7 With the 
introduction of these additional direct payments, by how much will the su bsidized 
percentage of net farm income in the EU increase?  
vi. Does the EU consider the subsidization of around two thirds of net farm income in the 
EU to reflect "sustainable" agriculture?  
vii. How do these direct payments differ from the "greening payments"8 already provided 
by the EU under Regulation (EU) No.  1307/2013, Delegated Regulation 
(EU) No. 639/2014, and Implementing Regulation (EU) No.  641/2014? Will they apply 
alternatively or cumulatively?  
b. Please confirm that these direct payments would fall into the  amber box within the 
meaning of Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
3 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities -2019-2024/european -green -deal_en .  
4 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system, pages 8, 11. See 
also: COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, TH E COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, EU Biodiversity 
Strategy for 2030, Bringing nature back into our lives, page 7.  
5 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system, pages 8, 11. See 
also: COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, EU Biodiversity 
Strategy for 2030, Bringing nature back into our lives, page 7, a nd 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -fisheries/key_policies/docu ments/cap -post-2020-
environ -benefits -simplification_en.pdf, page 5 . 
6 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system, pages 10 -11. 
See also: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -fisheries/key_policies/documents/cap -post-
2020-environ -benefits -simplification_en.pdf . 
7 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system, footnote 23.  
8 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food -farming -fisheries/key -policies/common -agricultural -
policy/income -support/greening_en . G/AG/W/216  
 
- 42 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
The CAP reform and related Farm to Fork proposals are currently being discussed between the EU's 
co-legislators, the Council and the European Pa rliament. The details of any eventual agreement are 
not yet known, so it is not possible at this stage to explain specific measures in any detail. Any new 
legal text would replace Regulation (EU) 1307/2013. In the original Commission proposal 
(COM(2018) 39 2), Article 10 and Annex II show how certain support schemes in the Commission 
proposal could potentially be categorised in the Green or Blue Boxes. Of course, such schemes and 
their categorisation may be amended during discussions between the co -legislato rs. Once agreement 
on the proposals is reached and the relevant legal texts has been adopted, the EU will submit the 
necessary DS:2 notification for Green and Blue Box measures, for review in the Committee. All 
measures, Green, Blue or Amber Box, will natu rally be included in the EU's annual DS:1 notifications 
for the years concerned.  
 
Follow -up: While acknowledging that the EU was not in a position to give a detailed reply as ongoing 
discussions were taking place among the co -legislators, the Council and t he European Parliament, 
Paraguay asked the EU to share a copy of the proposal to the commission (COM(2018) 392). 
Paraguay invited the EU to respond to all the questions and encouraged it to notify its DS:2 
notification as quickly as possible.  
 
1.1.24.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93057)  
New Zealand welcomes the EU's focus on reducing the environmental impact and climate effects of 
its agricultural production in the next CAP. New Zealand also notes that a key feature of the 
current  CAP reform is th e introduction of national strategic plans.  
 
a. How does the EU propose to ensure that the devolution of CAP responsibilities to member 
States does not result in an increase of trade distorting AMS and Blue Box Support, 
particularly in light of their environ mental impacts of these forms of support?  
b. What are the reasons for delay in the notification?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The European Commission has to approve the Strategic Plans of the member States. As can be seen 
from Articles 10, 99 and Annex II of t he draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council establishing rules on support for strategic plans in document COM (2019) 392 final, member 
States in their Strategic Plans have to indicate how the proposed measures listed in Annex II fulfi l 
the relevant criteria of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture. Therefore, the Commission will be 
able to ensure that the national implementation through the Strategic Plans respects WTO  rules. 
Further, the Plans will include requirements to demonstrat e the environmental/climate mitigating 
effects and relevant indicators to measures this effect during implementation. The EU again would 
repeat its reply to question AG -IMS ID 91053 "the current wording of the Green Box, in fact leads 
to some measures whic h can be extremely beneficial for the environment or climate mitigation 
having to be notified as Amber Box support". Therefore, an increase in use of AMS does not 
necessarily imply less environmentally friendly impacts of the agricultural policy in questio n.  
 
1.1.24.3   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93059)  and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 93318)  
European Union – Green Deal:  
On 11 December 2019, the European Union made an announcement on the European Green Deal. 
The Green Deal is an ambitious programme which, according to the European Union, aims to 
transform the EU into a fully sustainable economy, creating a change in the EU's social and economic 
model, while providing the economic resources required for a fair transition, and which will turn the 
EU into a carbon -free eco nomy by 2050. As a consequence of the Green Deal and to prevent potential 
"carbon leakage", the EU is reportedly considering a "carbon border adjustment mechanism", which 
is viewed by many as a future de facto import tax. In view of this situation, could t he EU:  
 
a. confirm its plan to introduce this "adjustment mechanism";  
b. explain how the mechanism would be consistent with the EU's WTO commitments and 
obligations, including national treatment;  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 43 - 
 
  c. state whether there are plans to provide "carbon credit" for pr oducts from countries whose 
carbon footprint is lower than that of EU countries;  
d. provide further information on the EU strategies which will be developed as part of the 
Green Deal, and which will have implications for the EU's agricultural production; and   
e. provide further information on the implications of the "Just Transition Fund" for European 
agriculture, specifically with regard to the subsidies to be granted, the types of 
programmes and the amounts awarded.  
Answer by European Union  
 
During the recent EU TPR several Members asked questions on this subject. The EU would like to 
refer Paraguay to the replies given to the following questions: Argentina Q5 ; Australia Q48 -50; 
Canada Q11 ; Japan Q1 ; Korea , Republic of  Q8; Singapore Q13 ; Chine se Taipei Q27 -28; 
Thailand  Q13; Turkey Q1 and US Q99 ; which can all be found in WTO document RD/TPR/1140.  
 
Follow -up: El Paraguay tomó nota de que la UE no podía facilitar respuestas detalladas por la razón 
que se exponía en las respuestas y de que la med ida solo se notificaría cuando estuviera ultimada. 
Pidió a la UE que indicara cuándo podría proporcionar alguna información sobre el proceso legislativo. 
El Paraguay también invitó a la UE a que respondiera a todas sus preguntas.  
 
1.1.24.4   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93238)  
EU: Carbon adjustment tax  
 
The Republic of Paraguay is submitting this question as a follow ‑up to the EU's reply to question 
AG-IMS ID 93059. We thank the EU for referring us to the replies provided concerning this matter 
within the framework of its trade policy review process. These replies do not, however, cover all our 
questions and we therefore request the EU to provide replies  to the following questions:  
 
a. Which selected sectors may be subject to a carbon tax? More specifically, do they include 
the agricultural sector?  
b. Is the EU planning to establish "carbon credit" for products from Members with lower 
carbon emissions than th e EU?  
c. How will the "Just Transition Fund" work for European agriculture, in particular with regard 
to (1) subsidies granted, (2) types of programmes and (3)  amounts disbursed?  
Answer by European Union  
 
For the moment, no formal decision has been taken to introduce a carbon tax. While the concept of 
a carbon tax is included in the Commission communication on the Green Deal (COM(2019) 640  final), 
no legal proposal has yet been made. Therefore, the EU is no t in a position to elaborate further on 
the very detailed questions from Paraguay, which could only be answered if and when a formal 
proposal is adopted and agreed by the EU co -legislators - the Council and the European Parliament.  
 
As regards the Just Tr ansition Fund, the headline budget amount was only agreed by the European 
Council on 21 July 2020. The final details and legal texts on allowances to be granted, programme 
types and amounts to be paid are still to be decided, and the questions asked can th erefore not be 
answered at this stage.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay took note that the EU could not provide detailed responses for the reason stated 
in the replies and that the measure would only be notified when it is finalized. It asked the EU to 
give a timefram e for when it may be able to provide some information on the legislative process. 
Paraguay also invited the EU to respond to all of its questions.  
 
 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 44 - 
 
  1.1.24.5   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93060)  and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 93319)  
European Union – Production subsid ies for the implementation of EU SPS measures for the 
elimination of the use of certain plant protection products: Following the announcement on the 
prohibition of the use of several plant protection products in the European Union as a consequence 
of the i mplementation of SPS measures, European producers from various EU member States, such 
as France, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands, have protested against the measures in view of 
the repercussions that they would have for agricultural production. In res ponse to these protests, 
several European politicians have announced the introduction of new subsidies to assist farmers. A 
recently introduced subsidy to compensate farmers for the loss of plant protection products was 
announced on 16 January in Luxembour g. In order to better understand the purpose and scope of 
these subsidies, and their compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture, Paraguay requests the 
European Union to provide information on:  
 
a. the number of EU members that have already officially annou nced the establishment of 
this type of programme;  
b. the quantity, scope of application and amounts planned for these new subsidy programmes 
for producers;  
c. the configuration of these new programmes within the framework of the new Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP); and  
d. the expectations for the official notification of these programmes: date of notification and 
box in which they will be notified.  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU is not able to answer the questions raised until Paraguay gives more precise information 
regarding which measures is referred to in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland. As for 
the measure in Luxembourg, this is part of the programme to the Rural development 
programmes2014 -2020 that was covered by the EU DS:2 notification on the 2013 CAP reform 
document G/AG/N/EU/35. The latest version on the full Rural development programme for 
Luxembourg is available on the following web -site: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food -farming -
fisheries/key -policies/common -agricultural -policy/rural -development/country/luxembour g_en The 
last modification can be found in European Commission Decision of 20/1/2020, C(2020) 361 final.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay sought the following information from the EU: (1) the total amount of subsidies 
that had been received and the average subsidies per capita; (2) an indicative list of products that 
benefit from the subsides. The EU was also asked to confirm if the second reply implies that similar 
subsidies have not been introduced in the other 26 EU member States.  
 
1.1.24.6   Question by Paraguay (AG-IMS ID 93239)  
The Republic of Paraguay is submitting this question following the EU's reply to 
question  AG‑IMS ID 93060.  
 
We thank the EU for its partial reply to our question. According to press reports published in January, 
592 of the 1,005 agricultu ral producers in Luxembourg have voluntarily signed up to receive 
subsidies to stop using glyphosate. We note that, in accordance with the individual notification 
(DS:2,  G/AG/N/EU/35), in the reply given to our original question, payments for rural develop ment 
include agri ‑environment payments and that the exact content of these measures is decided by 
member States and regions.   
 
It is also our understanding, from this notification, that the EU considers all these measures to come 
under the Green Box and th at it views them as consistent with paragraph 12 of Annex  12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. In the case of Luxembourg and the rural development programme, 
priority  4, we note that according to the website indicated by the EU in its reply, the most recent  
version of this programme involves costs totalling EUR 110.121.138. Unfortunately, we have been 
unable to find document 20/01/2020 C(2020) 361 final on the EU website and would be grateful if 
the EU could provide us with a copy of the document or a hyperl ink that would enable us to access 
it. In this light, we request the EU to:   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 45 - 
 
   
• indicate the total amount to be received by producers as a subsidy for no longer using this 
plant protection product, disaggregated by producer and product affected; and  
• we reit erate our question as to whether any other EU member has introduced or is planning 
to introduce similar subsidies to help its farmers, as, according to press reports, this type of 
assistance has been promised to European farmers in other countries, followi ng protests by 
European producers in late 2019 and early 2020.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
A copy of the implementing decision C(2020) 361 has been provided to the Paraguayan delegation, 
although as Paraguay will note, it is merely a formal approval address ed to the member State without 
details of the measures concerned.  
 
The EU is not able to answer the first question as it does hold data at such a level of detail.  
 
Concerning the second question, as already said in the reply to question AG -IMS ID 93060, th e EU 
is not able to answer the questions raised until more precise information from Paraguay as to the 
specific measures referred to.  
 
EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
1.1.25.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93242)  
In the wake of the COVID -19 pandemic, t he European Union has promised to support the economy 
of its members by increasing the temporary state -aid limit to a maximum of EUR 100,000 per farmer 
and EUR 800,000 for food processing and marketing companies, under the Temporary Framework 
for state -aid Measures.  
 
In this context, India requests the European Union to provide the following details:  
 
a. How many European Union members have availed of this increased flexibility that is being 
provided in terms of the state aid rules?  
b. On the basis of what factors has the maximum state -aid per beneficiary been determined?  
Answer by European Union  
 
Almost all EU member States have made use of the Temporary Framework. A list of all decisions is 
available on the dedicated website, available here : 
https://ec.europa.e u/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/covid_19.html   
 
A list of the schemes implemented in connection with the COVID -19 pandemic can be found in the 
EU ad hoc  report document G/ AG/GEN/159 submitted before the Regular CoA meeting on 18  June 
and its update sub mitted before this meeting.  
 
Further details of the implementation of the schemes will be included in the yearly Export 
Competition Questionnaire once the data becomes available.  
 
1.1.25.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93243)  
Pursuant to the European Union's Ad hoc  Report on measures taken during the COVID -19 pandemic 
(G/AG/GEN/159), India notes that the Netherlands instituted the 'compensation for damages caused 
by COVID -19 outbreak to horticulture, floriculture and potato sectors' amounting to EUR 650 million.  
 
With regards to this, India requests the European Union to provide the following information:  
 
a. What is the nature of these payments and how will they be notified under the AoA?   
b. Please provide the details regarding eligibility for receiving these payments, t he method 
of calculation of damages for farmers and traders and the ceiling limit for damages 
(if any)?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 46 - 
 
  India notes that a few European Union members such as Belgium, Denmark, France, and the 
Netherlands have instituted export financing schemes. The Europe an Union, in their ad hoc  report 
in document G/AG/GEN/159, states that these schemes are general and non -agriculture specific.   
 
The document further mentions that 'all agriculture -specific or agricultural part of general schemes 
are required to respect th e Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.  
 
With regards to these schemes, India requests the European Union to respond to the following:  
 
c. Please provide details regarding the export financing measures being adopted by these 
EU members.  
d. What is the estimated expenditure/outlay for these measures?  
e. What are the eligibility requirements under these export financing schemes?  
f. How will these schemes be notified under the Agreement on Agriculture?   
g. How is it proposed to comply with the statement included in the above document regarding 
respecting the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. Have any further 
guidelines been issu ed in this context?  
Answer by European Union  
 
Ad NL support programmes  
 
These measures will be included in the EU notification for marketing 2019/20.  
 
These measures will be notified as Amber Box.  
 
The NL scheme concerning the compensation for damages ca used by COVID -19 outbreak to 
horticulture, floriculture and potato sectors, was adopted by the Commission on the basis of 
Article  107(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU which stipulates that the member States 
are entitled to grant compensatio n for damages suffered as a consequence of an exceptional 
occurrence. The nature of the scheme is therefore compensation for damages suffered as a 
consequence of the COVID -19 outbreak. A copy of the Commission decision is available here:  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_57217 . 
  
Ad Export credit schemes  
 
The EU export credit schemes has been included in G/ AG/GEN/159 and its update forwarded to the 
Regular CoA meeting 28 July.  
 
As mentioned in the EU ad hoc report document G/ AG/GEN/159, all the new export credit schemes 
or changes to existing schemes that EU member States implemented in connection with the 
COVID -19 pandemic, are required to fully respect the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition including tenor length and self -financing. This was also mentioned by the EU explicitly 
during the special COVID -19 CoA meeting on 18 June.  
 
Data on the actual  use of the schemes in question will be included once it becomes available, under 
the standard procedure of the yearly Questionnaire on Export Competition.   
 
Italy's su pport to wine producers  
1.1.26.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93225)  
On 19th May Italy has announced, within the framework of its "Decreto Rilancio" that the amount of 
100 million euros has been set aside for the year 2020, to be allocated to wine -growing enterprises 
that commit themselves to the voluntary reduction of the production of grapes d estined for wines 
with denomination of origin and geographical indication through the practice of the partial green 
harvest to be carried out in the current campaign.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 47 - 
 
   
Since the reduction in the production of grapes destined for winemaking cannot be less than 1 5% 
compared to the average value of the quantities produced in the last 5 years, it could be understood 
that the program was crafted to be compatible with Article 6.5 of the AoA. Nonetheless, the UE has 
not submitted a DS:2 notification so far.  
 
Could the UE inform if it plans to notify Italy's domestic support program for the wine sector as a 
blue box program?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU has always notified green harvesting under the wine support programmes as Amber Box and 
they are inclu ded in supporting table 6. The Italian aid will also be included in supporting table DS:6; 
it is not a Blue Box scheme.   
 
The EU's coupled payments  
1.1.27.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93055)  
Brazil understands that the Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 has 
introduced a significant relaxation of the conditions that member States need to meet to gain 
approval for their voluntary coupled support (VCS) schemes, which should lead to the deletion of 
paragraph 5 of Article 52 of Regulation 1307/2 013 (Regulation 1307/2013 was notified in 2017 - 
G/AG/N/EU/35).  
  
a. Does the EU intend to provide a DS2 notification regarding the Omnibus Agricultural 
Provisions Regulation (EU) 2017/2393?  
b. Could the EU explain the impact of the Omnibus Agricultural Provis ions Regulation on its 
blue box domestic support programmes?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The EU does not intend to make a new DS:2 notification following the changes made to 
the legislation covering voluntary coupled support (VCS) schemes following the Omnib us 
Regulation. These changes are relatively minor and technical. As was the case prior to the 
changes, VCS remains a production -limiting scheme, with payments granted on the basis 
of fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals (paragraph 6 of Ar ticle 52 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013). The amended wording clearly spells out the member 
States' obligation to respect the financial ceiling of each support measure. Further, the 
maximum budgetary share that member States may allocate to VCS, and the s cope 
(i.e., the potentially eligible sectors) also remain unchanged.  
b. The changes introduced by the Omnibus Regulation were essentially made in order to 
clarify responsibilities of the member States and to eliminate some red tape in their 
administrative imp lementation by member States and farmers.  
Follow -up: While thanking the European Union for its reassurance that changes were minor and 
technical, Brazil considered it glaring that the original constraint in Article 52(5) of the Direct 
Payments Regulation,  that coupled support could only be "granted to the extent necessary to create 
an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the sectors or regions concerned", was 
replaced by a simple indication that "Coupled support is a production -limiting sc heme" in 
Article  52(6) of the Direct Payments Regulation.  
 
Since the Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation came into force in 1 January 2018 and 
document G/AG/N/EU/61 covers the marketing year 2017/2018, Brazil looks forward to the future 
DS:1 notific ation by the EU.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 48 - 
 
  
European Union's sugar policies  
1.1.28.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93231)  
In its reform of the sugar sector since 2006, a temporary scheme was established to restructure the 
sugar industry. In 2015, a voluntary coupled support for sugar beet was further introduced. 
Paragraph 11.  (d) of the Annex 2 of the AoA requires that structural adjustment assistance "shall be 
given only for the period of time necessary for the realization of the investment in respect of which 
they are provided ". Acco rding to the notification of the EU (G/AG/N/EEC/65), the Separate Sugar 
Payment and Restructuring scheme would last 4 years and terminated in 2010. However, both 
measures have been implemented longer than the planned timeframe, with the Restructuring 
schem e still effective in EU 's latest notification (G/AG/N/EU/61).  
 
a. Could the EU explain the rationale for extending the two schemes?  
b. What's the impact of the voluntary coupled support on the income of beet growers, 
comparing with the former minimum support pri ce? It would be highly appreciated if the 
EU could provide further information on this important reform.  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The EU temporary restructuring scheme has ended as provided for in the legal text and 
described in the EU DS:2 notification G /AG/N/EEC/65. All projects to be supported were 
selected before the end of the four years implementation period. However, some payments 
was made later due to implementation delays and requirements for control and verification 
which take place after complet ion of projects. The EU will submit a correction to the DS:1 
notification, since it has omitted to delete the reference to restructuring of the sugar 
industry in point 11 of the Green Box measures in the notifications covering [2015, 2016 
and 2017]. No pay ments in relation to sugar restructuring took place during those years.   
b. Sugar was included in the list of products for which that could be benefit from the voluntary 
coupled support, as explained in detail the EU DS:2 notification of the 2013 CAP reform i n 
document G/AG/N/EU/35 on p age 6.  
France – Bpi France Assurance Export  
1.1.29.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93226)  
The French government has announced that for SMEs and  mid-tier companies, and for the entire 
duration of the  COVID -19 pandemic, Bpifrance Assuranc e Export can now cover its insurees (credit 
institutions) for up to 90% of issued and  declared guarantee commitments (export guarantee 
insurance)  or pre -financing that has been set up (pre -financing  guarantee)? compared to 80% 
previously. For other  busines ses, insurees may be covered for up to 70% as against  50% in the 
past. 
 
Since Bpifrance Assurance Export was mentioned on France's  last answer to the Export Competition 
questionnaire  (G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.2), could France/the EU clarify if:  
 
a. These new con ditions apply to agricultural products  exports;  
b. The program is still self -financing and covers its  long-term operating costs and losses.  
Answer by European Union  
 
As mentioned in the EU ad hoc  report document G/ AG/GEN/159, all new or modified export credit  
schemes that EU member States have implemented in connection with the COVID -19 pandemic, are 
required to fully respect the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition including tenor length 
and self -financing. This was also mentioned by the EU duri ng the EU intervention in the 
special  COVID -19 CoA meeting on 18 June.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 49 - 
 
  
India's pulses policies  
1.1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93058)  
Australia's concerns with respect to India's trade -restricting measures on pulses are very well known 
to Members. Australia has raised its concerns in this and every other relevant Committee for over 
two years, with a particular focus on the quantitative r estrictions (QRs) set on a range of pulses. 
Unfortunately, India continues to implement these measures, which are having a detrimental impact 
on the global pulses market, including producers in developed and developing countries, with traders 
and with cons umers.  
 
Australia was disappointed that in addition to the continued extension of these measures – which 
cannot be considered 'temporary' given they have been in place for over two years – India has 
recently implemented even more trade -restrictive measure s.  
 
For example, in December 2019, India announced that the 150,000 tonnes QR on peas would be 
subject to additional restrictions, whereby imports would need to meet a minimum import price of 
Rs 200/kg and would only be allowed through one specific port (Kolkata sea port). Additionally, while 
India expanded the QR on Urad (black gram beans) from 150,000 tonnes to 400,000 tonnes, the 
additional tonnage (250,000 tonnes) would be limited to Indian millers and refiners and applications 
to import  under the QR could only be submitted between 20 December and 31 December 2019 
(12 days), with imports having to occur by no later that 31 March 2020.  
 
With respect to India's QRs on pulses and these additional measures:  
 
a. Can India explain why it restric ted pea imports to only one specific port?  
b. Can India provide a justification for the minimum import price for peas?  
c. Can India explain why it restricted the additional imports of Urad to Indian millers and 
refiners?  
d. Can India explain why it gave such a l imited period for applications to be submitted for 
Urad?  
e. Can India explain how the additional measures identified are consistent with India's 
WTO obligations and the WTO basis for the measures?  
f. Can India provide advice on the amount of imports for each Q R during the current quota 
year?  
g. Can India confirm whether it will continue to apply the QRs on pulses after 31  March  2020 
(i.e., for the fiscal year 2020/21 commencing on 1 April)?  
Answer by India  
 
We thank Australia for their questions.  
 
For question n umbers (a) to (e), we request Australia to refer to India's statements on this issue, 
as delivered in the meeting of the Committee on Trade in Goods that was held on 11 June 2020.  
 
The answer to question (f) is as follows:  
 
During the current quota year (2 019-2020), the total imports for peas were at six hundred, sixty-six 
thousand, six hundred and ninety -xix metric tonnes (666,696 metric tonnes).   
 
The total imports for moong were at three hundred, twelve thousand and seventy -nine metric tonnes 
(312,079 me tric tonnes).  
 
The total imports for urad were at sixty-nine thousand, four hundred and thirty -nine metric tonnes 
(69,439 metric tonnes).  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 50 - 
 
   
The total imports for pigeon peas were at four hundred, forty-nine thousand, seven hundred and 
seventy -seven metric tonnes (449,777 metric tonnes) . 
 
And a total of twenty -one thousand, nine hundred and twenty -nine metric tonnes of split and other 
versions of the above -named pulses were imported.  
 
The import data with the HS  code of each type of pulses will also be provided in India's written 
response.  
 
The response to question (g) is that India has extended the Q R on certain varieties of pulses 
beyond  31 March 2020.  
 
1.1.30.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  
On 18 December 2020, the government of India notified an amendment to its import policy for dried 
peas under HS code 0713 1000 (Gazette of India No. 37/2015 -2020).  According to this amendment, 
in addition to the quantitative restriction of 150,000 MT already in place, imports of dried peas will 
be subject to a minimum import price of Rs. 200/CIF (Cost, Insurance & Freight) per kg and imports 
will only be allowed thr ough Kolkata seaport. Indian importers have reported that this minimum 
import price of Rs. 200 per Kg is around six times the price imported dried peas have traditionally 
been traded (around Rs. 30 to 35 per Kg).  
  
a. Could India provide more information as to why it amended its quantitative restriction 
policy to include a minimum import price on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide detailed information as to how this minimum import price works? 
Especially please provide information on the implementation of this policy and the relevant 
documents that explain how this the minimum import price is being applied.  
c. Could India explain how it determined the level of this minimum import price, and why it 
was set at such a prohibitive level?  
d. Could India explain how this minimum import price is consistent with Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture? 5. Could India explain how a minimum import price 
requirement is consistent with GATT Article XI?  
e. Could India explain how the single port of entry requirement is consistent  with GATT 
Article  XI?  
f. Please indicate whether the quota will be maintained after 31 March 2020, and please 
indicate whether the minimum import price and the single port of entry requirements will 
also be maintained after 31 March 2020.  
Answer by India  
 
We thank Canada for their questions.  
 
The issues raised in questions (a) to (f) have been addressed in India's statement in the Committee 
on Trade in Goods that was held on 11 June 2020. We request Canada to refer to that statement.  
 
Regarding question (g)  - India has extended the QRs as well as the MIP and single port entry 
requirement on certain varieties of pulses beyond 31 March 2020.  
 
1.1.30.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93282)  
On 28  March  2020, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India notified Notifica tion No. 
S.O.1225 (E) which extended its quantitative restriction for dried peas under HS code 071310 for 
the fiscal year 2020 -21. The notice specifies that the quantitative restriction for dried peas are set 
at 150,000 MT for the 2020 -21 fiscal year, and that the import policy conditions such as Minimum 
Import Price (MIP) of Rs.200/ and a port restriction through Kolkata sea port only for all peas. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 51 - 
 
  Imported dried peas have traditionally been traded on India's domestic market at Rs. 30 to 35 per  kg 
so this minimum import price of Rs. 200 per Kg is around six times higher than market prices.   
 
a. Could India provide more information as to why it has put and place and continues to 
apply a minimum import price on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide detailed information as to how this minimum import price works? 
In particular provide information on the implementation of this policy and the relevant 
documents that explain how this the minimum import price is being applied at the port of 
entry.  
c. Could India expla in how it has determined the level of this minimum import price, and 
why it was set at such a prohibitive level?  
d. Could India explain how this minimum import price is consistent with Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
e. Could India explain how a mini mum import price requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article XI?  
f. Could India explain how the single port of entry requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article  XI? 
Answer by India  
 
We thank Canada for their questions.  
 
The issues raised in questions (a) to ( f) have already been addressed in India's statement in the 
Committee on Trade in Goods that was held on 11 June 2020. We request Canada to refer to that 
statement.  
 
1.1.30.4   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93283)  
On 16 April 2020, India's Ministry of Commerce and Ind ustry issued a trade notice (S.O. 1260(E)) 
in the Gazette of India which fixed the quantity of peas by type that can be imported under the 
quantitative restriction for fiscal year 2020 -2021 (1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021) previously 
announced in trade noti ce S.O.1225 (E).  Of the 150,000 metric tonnes (MT) announced, 75,000 MT 
is allocated to green peas, and 75,000 MT to "other" peas. The quota for yellow peas is explicitly set 
to 0 MT, which effectively bans its importation for this fiscal year.  
 
a. Could Indi a explain its rationale to ban the import of yellow peas for fiscal year 2020?  
b. Could India indicate which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements is being used to 
support this import ban?  
c. Could India indicate when it will inform, and in which relevant comm ittee it will provide 
the relevant provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements it believes supports this import 
ban of yellow peas?  
Answer by India  
 
We'd like to clarify that with effect from 1st January 2020,  separate HS codes were notified for peas, 
namely, Green, Yellow and others. The quota of 1.5 Lakh MT for peas is the same this year as it was 
last year.  
 
For the other issues raised in these questions, we request Canada to refer to the state ment made 
by India in the meeting of the CTG that was held on 11 June 2020.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 52 - 
 
  1.1.30.5   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93067)  
In March 2019 India issued a notification establishing a new quota of 150 000 MT for the period from 
1 April 2019 until 31 March 2020. However, according to the Trade notice No. 32/2019 -2020 after 
seven months of this quota application India completely prohibited the import of pulses to its 
territory from 31 October 2019. According to Notification No. 38/2015 -2020 dated 1st of 
January  2020 in addition to quantitative restrictions for peas remained in force India have introduced 
minimum import price requirement for yellow and green peas. Ports of entry for yellow and green 
peas are also limited to only one seaport Kolkata.  
 
a. Could India provide the reasons for tightening restrictive policy in relation to imports of 
pulses?  
b. Could India describe the administration of yellow peas import? Could India clarify how the 
minimum import price on yellow peas is applied?  
c. Could India explai n how quantitative restrictions, import prohibition, recently introduced 
minimum import prices requirement and limitation of ports of entry for pulses to only one 
port are consistent with the WTO rules, including Article 4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture ?  
Answer by India  
 
We thank the Russian Federation for their questions. We will answer questions number 
AG-IMS IDs 93067 and 93229 together. And our response to these questions is as follows:  
 
With effect from 1st January 2020,  separate HS codes were noti fied for peas, namely, Green, Yellow 
and others.  
 
The quota of 1.5 Lakh MT for peas is the same this year as it was last year.  
 
As per available information, the Wholesale Price Index of pulses during April 2019 to June  2020 
ranged from 138.1 to 159.2.  
 
For the other issues raised in these questions, we request the Russian Federation to refer to India's 
statement in the meeting of the Committee on Trade in Goods that was held on 11 June 2020.  
 
1.1.30.6   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93229)  
a. In March 2020 , India established new import quota on yellow peas with volume of 
150 thousand ton nes allowed for import up to 31 March 2021. This quota is subdivided by 
three sub -quotas: 75,000 ton nes for green peas, other types of peas – 75,000 ton nes, 
while allowed vo lume for import of yellow peas equals zero. Could India please clarify 
whether zero for sub -quota volume means that import of yellow peas is prohibited even 
under the quota in question? If yes, what are the reasons behind the introduction of import 
prohibi tion on yellow peas? How do these import prohibition and restrictions correlate with 
Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI of the GATT?   
b. In January 2020, India introduced minimum import price requirement for peas (200  Rs/kg 
and abo ve). What are the reasons and the purpose of introducing minimum import price 
requirement in addition to existing quantitative restrictions? What is the methodology for 
the minimum import price calculation? Please, provide the dynamic of domestic prices fo r 
yellow peas since April 2019. In what way is the introduction of minimum import price 
consistent with Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?   
c. Number of ports of import for peas were also limited to only one (seaport Kolkata). What 
are the reaso ns and goals for introducing restrictions on ports of entry? Why is it necessary 
to import peas exactly through the port of Kolkata? How does it comply with India's WTO 
commitments? How does restricting ports of entry correlate with Article 4.2 of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture?  d. When in April 2018 quotas were introduced, India 
announced that this measure was temporary. However, two years later, import restrictions G/AG/W/216  
 
- 53 - 
 
  not only continue to operate, but have been expanded. What are the estimated time 
frames during which restrictive measures (quotas, minimum import price, restriction on 
ports of entry) will be in force?  
Answer by India  
 
We thank the Russian Federation for their questions. We will answer questions 
number  AG-IMS IDs 93067 and 93229 together. And  our response to these questions is as follows:  
With effect from 1st January 2020,  separate HS codes were notified for peas, namely, Green, Yellow 
and others.  
 
The quota of 1.5 Lakh MT for peas is the same this year as it was last year.  
 
As per available information, the Wholesale Price Index of pulses during April 2019 to June 2020 
ranged from 138.1 to 159.2.  
 
For the other issues raised in these questions, we request the Russian Fe deration to refer to India's 
statement in the meeting of the Committee on Trade in Goods that was held on 11 June 2020.   
 
1.1.30.7   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93250)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92008, India stated that its quantitative restrictions  on mung beans, peas, 
black gram lentils, and pigeon peas are temporary, yet India again notified quantitative restrictions 
on these products in March 2020 that will be in effect through March 2021. By the end of this latest 
extension, these quantitative r estrictions will have been in place for three years.  India states the 
measures will be further extended or removed based on "market situation."  Please describe what 
market situation is necessary for the permanent removal of these restrictions.  
 
Answer by I ndia 
 
We thank the United States for their question.  
 
Our response is as follows:  
 
Farmers are one of the most important stakeholders in matters relating to the import and export of 
agricultural goods, and the government is required to strike a balance between the interest of 
domestic producers and importers.   
 
India is  the largest producer and consumer of pulses in the world, and these measures have been 
taken to manage the supply situation of pulses in India . This situation is assessed continuo usly on 
the basis of production data, prices and farmer distress among other factors.  
 
In the present context, the government is also monitoring the implementation of these measures in 
light of hardships faced by the farmer community on account of the COV ID-19 pandemic.  
 
Follow -up: In light of the specific questions it posed at this Committee, Canada asked India to 
provide responses to those questions in the AGIMS rather than referring to the statements made at 
the CTG. India agreed to do so. Ukraine share d the concern on India's pulses policies. In its view, 
India's measures posed destructive effects on the pulses market. Ukraine noted that, according to 
WTO rules, quantitative restrictions should be justified and applied temporarily, and that India 
should  guarantee Members appropriate and predictable trade opportunities to access its domestic 
market. Ukraine called on India to bring its trade distorting measures in line with the 
WTO agreement, specifically Article 4 of the AoA and Article XI of the GATT.  
 
India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
1.1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  
Noting the introduction of the Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) scheme by India in 
March  2019, India has stated in response to AG -IMS ID 92095 that the measure complies with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition regarding Article 9 .4 export subsidies. The G/AG/W/216  
 
- 54 - 
 
  measure covers a wide variety of products and lists eligible export destinations including West Africa, 
South America, ASEAN, Oceana, and several other regions.  
 
a. Given the broad scope of this measure, how does India analyze this p rogramme in the 
context of paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, regarding not 
raising the level of export subsidy use, and paragraph 11 of the Decision, regarding having 
at most minimal trade distorting effects and not displacing  or impeding the exports of 
another Member?  
b. Can exporters benefit from the IES for agricultural products through at least March 2020 
and from TMA (or other export subsidy measures) for the same agricultural products?  
c. If products do benefit concurrently f rom these measures, please describe what steps are 
taken by India to ensure that the export does not benefit from the measures in excess of 
what is permitted under Article 9.4.  
Answer by India  
 
As per Para 8 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export C ompetition, developing Members continue 
to benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture until the end of 2023. 
Article 9.4 of the AoA allows developing Members to provide export subsidies under Article 9.1  (d) 
& (e). The "Tran sport and Marketing Assistance" (TMA), introduced in March 2019, aims to  provide 
assistance for the international component of freight and marketing of agricultural produce and 
complies with the Nairobi decision. Details about the product coverage under th e TMA scheme can 
be accessed at https://dgft.gov.in/CP/Details  about the product coverage under the Interest 
Equalization Scheme can be accessed at:  
https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/257IE85A5E419354C4226B855C5C7E949DF9F.P
DF. 
 
1.1.31.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93065)  
Australia refers to its questions to India at 91th CoA ( AG-IMS ID 91006) and 92th CoA 
(AG-IMS ID 92095) with respect to its Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) scheme. Australia 
acknowledges that as per Paragraph 8 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, 
developing country Members shall continue to benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture until the end of 2023. Article 9.4 of the AoA allows developing country 
Members to provide export subsidies under Article 9.1 (d) & (e). However, Paragraphs 9 through 11  
establish clear obligations on India with respect to the implementation of export subsidies. Australia 
therefore requests India provide specific details on:  
 
a. The average level of export subsidies provided for those products covered by the TMA for 
the pas t five years?  
b. What steps and assessment India have undertaken in the development of the TMA to 
ensure it is consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decision and has at most, a 
minimal trade distorting effect on other Members?  
If it is the case that I ndia does not believe Paragraphs 9 through 11 apply to it, Australia 
would further request India:  
c. Explain under what grounds it has made the decision to not apply the commitments and 
provisions of Paragraphs 9 through 11 of the Nairobi Decision in the dev elopment of 
the TMA scheme?  
Answer by India  
 
The Nairobi Decision on Export Competition allows developing countries to provide export subsidies 
under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture until the end of year 2023. Article 9.4 of the AoA 
allows dev eloping Members to provide export subsidies under Article 9.1 (d) & (e). The "Transport 
and Marketing Assistance" (TMA),  introduced in March 2019 aims to provide assistance for the G/AG/W/216  
 
- 55 - 
 
  international component of freight and marketing of agricultural produce an d is compliant with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
 
India's sugar policies  
1.1.32.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93001)  
Follow -up question to AG -IMS ID 92007:  
  
a. Can India indicate for the five years 2011 to 2015 prior to the Nairobi Ministerial meeting 
the following:  
• Total export of sugar from India per year;  
• Quantity of this which had received export subsidy (federal or state) and the amount 
spend on these subsidies annually 2011 to 2015.  
b. Can India explain how it sees the increasing subsidy level and increasing quantity of sugar 
exports to be subsidised to be in line with Nairobi Ministerial Decision paragraphs 9, 10 
and 11? In particular how does India see the 2019/20 export programme as respecting 
paragraph 10: Members shall seek no t to raise their export subsidies beyond the average 
level of the past five years on a product basis "? 
Answer by India  
 
We thank the European Union for their question.  
 
India's export data regarding sugar can be accessed from the web -link: https://commerce -
app.gov.in/eidb . 
 
Other requisite information will be submitted in India's ES:1 notification, which will be submitted in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand sought clarification as regards whether India int ended to address the point 
on the standstill commitment of the Nairobi Decision.  
 
India's export subsidies/export credits  
1.1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93007)  
India stated in AG-IMS ID 89045 that the Interest Equalisation Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment 
Rupee Export Credit (IES) "is in the nature of working capital support, which is WTO compatible." 
The United States notes that Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) notices refer to IES as being an export 
credit program and not a working capital support program. However, the United States also notes 
in RBI notices DBR.Dir.BC.No 62/04.02.001/2015 -16 dated 4 December 2015 and 
DCBR.CO.SCB.Cir.No 1/13.05.000/2015 -16 dated 11 February 2016 explain a pr ocedure for Indian 
banks to pass on the benefit of IES by reducing the interest rate charged to the eligible exporters 
upfront. The notices also describe how banks submit claims to RBI for reimbursement.  
 
a. Please explain in detail why India does not believ e IES is an interest rate support 
programme as covered under paragraph 13 (a) direct financing support of the Nairobi 
Decision.  
b. Please explain how RBI's premiums are charged and how RBI's financial 
contribution/claims are recovered under the IES.  
Per DBR .Dir.BC.  No 09/04.02.001/ 2018-2019 dated 29 November 2018 and DBR.Dir.BC.  
No 22/04.02.001/ 2018-2019 dated 11 January 2019, the United States notes that India's 
IES rate of interest equalization has increased from 3 % to 5% for Micro, Small & Medium 
Enterpri ses (MSME), and that since 2019 the scheme has expanded to allow large 
merchant/corporate exporters to participate at an interest equalization rate of 3%.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 56 - 
 
  c. Please explain the reasoning for increasing the export financing support and allowing large 
merchants to participate in the IES.  
The United States understands that since inception in 2015 to July 2018, the RBI has spent 
₹4,829 crore (US$679 million) on th e export support scheme for all eligible manufacture 
and agricultural products. The notice instructs RBI to keep records and send a monthly 
report to India's Dept. of Commerce and Directorate of General of Foreign Trade  (DGFT) 
indicating reimbursements mad e, on both a commodity and bank basis.  
d. Please provide the total agricultural product -specific export support spent under the 
scheme and the total value of agricultural products benefited up to the present day.  
Answer by India  
 
We thank the United States for their question.   
 
Our response is as follows:   
 
Under the Reserve Bank of India's Master Circular, titled - 'Rupee /Foreign Currency Export Credit 
and Customer Service to Exporters' issued  vide DBR.No.DIR.BC.14 /04.02.002/2015 -16 
dated  1 July 2015, the t erms Pre -shipment and post -shipment export credit have been defined to 
mean credit that is provided by the bank to an eligible exporter for financing expenses which are in 
the nature of working capital expenses. As the Nairobi Decision on Export Competitio n, pursuant to 
footnote 7 to Para. 13, permits working capital financing to suppliers, the Interest Equalization 
Scheme is compatible with the Nairobi Decision.  
 
The Reserve Bank of India does not make any financial contribution under the Interest Equaliza tion 
Scheme. Under the scheme, banks are required to pass on the benefit of interest equalisation, as 
applicable, to the eligible exporters upfront and submit the claims to the Reserve Bank of India for 
reimbursement. These claims are duly certified by an external auditor.  The reimbursement of the 
interest equalisation claim is made as and when funds are received from the government of India.   
 
The government of India,  vide notification no. 01/94/180/37/AM16/PC4/1215 dated 
2 November  2018, decided to increa se the interest equalization rate from 3 to 5% for exports by 
MSME manufacturers, with effect from November 2018. More detailed information regarding this 
may be seen from the Reserve Bank of India's circular number 
DBR.Dir.BC.No.09 /04.02.001/ 2018-2019 dated 29 November 2018.  
 
The government of India, through notification No. 01/94/180/330/AM19/PC4 dated 
10 January  2019, decided to include merchant exporters under the ongoing Interest Equalisation 
Scheme for Pre and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit with effect from. 2nd January 2019. 
Information in this regard can be accessed in Circular no. DBR.Dir.BC.No.22 /04.02.001/ 2018-2019 
dated 11 January 2019.  
 
India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.1.34.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93008)  
India Export Subsidies /Export Credits  
  
As a response to AG -IMS ID 89026, India stated that MSMEs exporting dairy products are eligible 
for exports under the IES based on RBI's list of allowable agricultural products (see list per annex 
https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/NT322AN120216_1.pdf )  
  
Please confirm or clarify if the list is inclusive of all agricultural products covered under the scheme 
or please provide an up-to-date annex.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The Interest Equalization  Scheme for Pre and Post shipment export credit is available to exports 
under  416 tariff lines [at ITC (HS) code of 4 digits], merchant exporters under the  416 tariff lines 
and exports by MSMEs across all ITC (HS) codes. The details of  all agricultural products covered G/AG/W/216  
 
- 57 - 
 
  under the scheme are mentioned in  the annex of the document which is available at the web -link: 
https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/NT322AN120216_1.pdf . 
 
India's support to rice exports  
1.1.35.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93009)  
Export Subsidies and Transparency  
 
The United States understands that India has decided not to w ithdraw prohibited export subsidies 
as recommended by a WTO panel on October 2019 and that MEIS for non -Basmati rice, and other 
products, will possibly be extended beyond 31 March 2020.  
 
a. Please explain if this export subsidy scheme still includes agricult ural products and whether 
the export subsidy benefits were increased in 2019 and/or in 2020.  
b. Please provide India's government notices for the extensions and increases in 2019 and 
2020 if applicable.  
c. Does India provide any other forms of export subsidies  to non -Basmati rice? If so, please 
describe those programmes.  
Answer by India  
 
India had sought recourse to an appellate review of the panel report in October 2019, prior to the 
Appellate Body being rendered paralysed due to the block by a single WTO Mem ber. We would also 
like to clarify that India does not grant any subsidy to non -Basmati rice under the MEIS scheme.  
 
India's wheat policies  
1.1.36.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93013)  
It is the understanding of the United States from press artic les that India has recently sought to 
export wheat to other governments through tenders for purchase.  
 
a. Is this process stipulated in any government measures? If so, please provide those 
measures.  
b. What is India 's process for determining a price at which I ndia sells stock to foreign entities?  
c. What steps does India take to ensure that exports of stocks do not distort trade?  
Answer by India  
 
We would like to clarify  that no such proposal is under consideration.   
 
India's wheat public stockpiling  
1.1.37.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93014)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009, India stated with regards to sale of its wheat stocks that "[f]or 
price stabilization, some wheat may also be released for sale in domestic market with the stipulation 
that the same would not be used for exports."  
 
a. Is the process stipulated in any government measure? If so, please provide those 
measures.  
b. Per India's response to AG -IMS ID 92009, how does India ensure that wheat stocks 
released for sale in the domestic ma rket are not exported?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
Exports are not allowed from the stocks sold under the Open Market Sales Scheme (OMSS -D). 
Guidelines  issued in this regard stipulate that the wheat purchased from the Food Corporation of 
India (FCI) under the Open M arket Sales Scheme will be utilised domestically and will not be 
exported by the bidder. These guidelines may be accessed at the FCI website on the web -link: 
http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224  
 
1.1.37.2   Questio n by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93251)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 92009 regarding state bonuses, India  responded that no state announced 
a bonus for wheat in the marketing season  2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19.  However, Madhya 
Pradesh announced a bon us for both marketing years 2017/18 and 2018/19.  The Minister of 
Agriculture  in Madhya Pradesh is quoted stating "This means the state will pay Rs. 2,000  per quintal 
for acquisition of wheat. " This was greater than the  announced MSP of Rs. 1,840 per quinta l. 
 
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the  announced MSP for wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 through the  current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other India  states and territories as 
well as for oth er commodities.  
Answer by India  
 
The information requested under this question will be  submitted in due course.  
 
1.1.37.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93252)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 92009 regarding a request for current,  historical and pre-determined 
targets levels of wheat since 2010, India did not  provide the quantitative levels of each, but rather 
indicated only that  "procurement of wheat is done based on the assessment made with regard to 
the requirements under various food security programs. " a. Please provide the annual quantitative 
levels for  current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat since 2010.b. Please indicate any 
report, publication or website that  contains the assessments referenced in India 's previous response.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The information requested under this question will be submitted in due course.   
 
1.1.37.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93253)  
In response to AG -IMS ID  92009 regarding steps taken to ensure record stockpiles of wheat do not 
impact  global markets and do not distort markets, India stated that "some wheat may  also be 
released for sale in domestic market in the stipulation that the same  would not be used for exports. " 
 
a. Please indicate what the specific stipulation states  and wher e this stipulation can be found 
in any regulation or other  official government document related to governing the sales of 
public  stocks in the domestic market.  
Answer by India  
 
Exports are not allowed from the stocks sold under the Open Market Sales Scheme  (OMSS -D). The 
guidelines for empanelment and registration under the Open Market Sales Scheme stipulates that 
the wheat so purchased from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) under this scheme will be utilised 
domestically and will not be exported by the bi dder. These guidelines are available at the following 
web-link: http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 . 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 59 - 
 
  
India's short -term crop loans  
1.1.38.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012)  
In response to AG ‑IMS ID  91147, India referred the United States to http://agricoop.nic.in/  with 
regards to information regarding the Interest Subvention Scheme.  
 
a. Please provide data, direct responses, or a more specifi c website location regarding how 
the measure is implemented, including the value of loans covered in 2016/17 
and 2017/18.  
b. Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domestic support 
notification. If so, where? If not, on what basis?  
Answer by India  
 
As required under the Agreement on Agriculture, India has notified support in the nature of interest 
subsidies as non -product specific support in our DS:1 Notification for 2018 -2019.  
 
1.1.38.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93254)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 92010, as India has not provided a written response:  
 
In response to AG -IMS-ID 91147, India referred the United States to http://www.agricoop.nic.in .  
 
Please provide data or a more specific website location for the value of loans covered by the 
measures in 2016/17.Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domestic support 
notification. If so, where? If not, on what basis?  
 
Answer by India  
 
As required under the Agreement on Agriculture, India has notified support in the nature of interest 
subsidies as non -product specific support in our DS:1 Notification for 2018 -2019. 
 
India - Dairy Loans  
1.1.39.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93011)  
In AG -IMS ID 92011, India responded to some, but not all, of the U.S. questions regarding "soft 
loans" administered by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). To follow up on some of 
those unanswered questions:  
 
a. Is export performance a requirement for coopera tives to receive an NDDB loan?  
b. Is there a grace period for these loans?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Export performance is not a requirement for cooperatives to receive an NDDB loan.  
b. There is no grace period for these loans.  
1.1.39.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93255)  
The United States thanks  India for its response to AG -IMS ID 92011 and seeks further clarification 
on whether these loans under the "Supporting Dairy Cooperatives and Farmer  Producer 
Organizations engaged in dairy activities" scheme are contingent  upon export performance as this 
was not addressed in India 's response to part b . of the question.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 60 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
Export performance is not a requirement for cooperatives to receive an  NDDB loan.   
 
India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  
1.1.40.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93256)  
The United States notes  that in response to AG -IMS ID 88107 and 92012, India stated it will submit 
a Table DS:2 notification on its NDP I measure in due course, however, India has  not notified this 
measure in G/AG/N/IND/19 nor is the measure identified in  G/AG/N/IND/18.  
 
a. When will India be making a Table DS:2 notification for  this measure?  
b. Within Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/18, the NDP  I has not been identified.  Please 
confirm the measure is in cluded in  the Table DS:1 notification.  
c. If the measure is included, please indicate the  monetary value of NDP I in 2018/19 and 
under which measure type this  measure is notified.  
d. Please provide details of what measures will be  implemented following the concl usion of 
Phase I.  Please confirm  whether India plans to submit any applicable DS:2 notifications 
for those  measures and whether India will identify such measures specifically within  
Supporting Table DS:1.  
Answer by India  
 
India's notification for the marke ting year 2018 -2019, notifies a sum of USD 46.4 million for the 
National Dairy Plan.  This has been notified under the General Services of Annex 2 of Agreement on 
Agriculture. The relevant DS: 2 notification, as required, will be submitted in due course.  
 
Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  
1.1.41.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93068)  
New Zealand would like to acknowledge the steps that have been taken by Indonesia towards 
compliance to date in the WT/DS/477.  
 
a. Can Indonesia provide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to 
remove outstanding issues within measures 1 -17, an explanation of the steps that need 
to be taken to remove the outstanding issues, and the expected dates for the comple tion 
of those steps. In particular, can Indonesia provide these details in respect of the following 
measures:  
• Limited application windows and validity periods;  
• Import restrictions based on cold storage capacity;  
• Domestic sufficiency legislation . 
 
b. Can Indo nesia provide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to 
remove measure 18, an explanation of the steps that need to be taken to remove 
measure  18, and the expected dates for the completion of those steps.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
a. Regarding measure 1 -17 and in order to further facilitate import procedures, Indonesia 
has issued the MoA Regulation No. 2/2020, which amends the MoA Regulation No. 39/2019 
concerning Recommendations for Importation of Horticultural Products. Indonesia is now 
in the process of amending the MoT No.44/2019 to be in line with the amended MoA 
regulation.   
b. With respect to measure 18, Indonesia would like to draw New Zealand 's attention that 
the draft amendment of the relevant laws has been transmitted by the government of G/AG/W/216  
 
- 61 - 
 
  Indonesia to the Parliament. The government is currently waiting for a joint discussion 
with the Parliament.  
Japan - Supplementary budget to address impact of new trade deal  
1.1.42.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93069)  
Australia understands the Japan ese government plans on securing around 355 billion yen in the 
FY2019 Supplementary Budget for measures to support and protect its agricultural sector from the 
impact of the Japan -United States Trade Agreement signed in October 2019.  
 
a. Can Japan provide de tailed information on the types of support measures it is planning to 
implement through this additional budgetary expenditure? Including, if these will be new 
measures, or expansion of existing measures?  
b. How will Japan ensure that these measures do not ne gatively impact third countries' 
exports to Japan, either directly or indirectly?  
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan is taking measures as "Enhancement of Robustness " and "Stabilization of management " to 
accommodate with the entry into force of TPP -11 and Japan -EU EP A. In order to stimulate the 
agricultural sector, those measures having been in place were strengthened (instead of introduction 
of new measure), such as support of productivity improvement through development and extension 
of smart technologies and block resizing of farmland among others in the FY 2019 Supplementary 
Budget. Japan will notify such measures adequately in accordance with Agreement of Agriculture.  
 
Japan's support package  
1.1.43.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93259)  
While  thanking Japan for the expla nations provided to  question 94044 during the  last CoA Meeting, 
Brazil would  appreciate if Japan could give more information on the  allocation of the  First 
Complementary Budget Law, approved  on 30 April 2020.  
 
It has come to Brazil's attention that some of  the resources  (approximately JPY  14.7 billion) will 
reportedly  be allocated towards stimulating the export of agricultural  products.  
 
Apparently, those subsidies aim at expanding  Japanese exports of agricultural products and at 
gaining  "market  share" in f oreign markets that are considered promising.  
 
As far as Brazil knows, the policy includes, among others, subsidies designed  at improving the frozen 
food production infrastructure for export, including  the acquisition or  modernization of 
low-temperature pr oduction line  and conservation equipment; and subsidies to promote the 
export  of rice and rice -based processed products, including  improvements in storage  infrastructure.  
 
Taking into account that these subsidies could be understood  as falling  within the scope of AoA's 
Article  9, could  Japan provide further details on the export promotion  portion of the  economic 
measures adopted by Japan to cope  with the COVID -19 pandemic?  
 
Answer by Japan  
  
The programs in question are implemented as emergency measures to address the COVID -19 
pandemic issues.  
  
They do not fall within the scope of Article 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as not provided 
contingent on export performance. The programs include the following:  
• Financial support to entitie s which intend to improve their facilities and have plans to introduce 
hygienic management including the prevention measures of COVID -19, and manufacturers of 
rice and rice processed products who intend to improve their facilities, in response to the G/AG/W/216  
 
- 62 - 
 
  deman d shift in domestic and oversea markets such as from eating -out to eating at home due 
to the COVID -19 pandemic.  
• Financial support to business fairs and marketing promotions to develop new and promising 
markets in Japan and overseas.  
Follow -up: Brazil appre ciates Japan's explanation on its policies. Nonetheless, Brazil's concern did 
not relate to Article 9.1(a) of the AoA, which regulates policies contingent on export performance. 
Rather, Brazil had in mind the consistency of the First Complementary Budget L aw with Article  9.1(d) 
of the AoA, which encompasses the provision of subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing exports 
of agricultural products (other than widely available export promotion and advisory services) 
including handling, upgrading and other p rocessing costs, and the costs of international transport 
and freight. Brazil acknowledges that Japan's recovery policies are multi -faceted and many of its 
axes do not seem to breach the AoA. However, precisely because it has many elements and 
instruments,  further information would be appreciated.  
 
Japan's beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG)  
1.1.44.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93070)  
On 20 December 2019, the government of Japan announced that as of 1 April 2020, it will no longer 
apply its beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG) to imported products from 
WTO Members. Japan will retain its WTO pork special safeguard (SSG). It is Canada's understanding 
that the elimination of these safeguards in April would result in Japan's non -econom ic partnership 
agreement (EPA) trading partners being able to export beef and pork products to Japan with fewer 
volume -based safeguards whereas Japan's EPA's partners, including Canada, continue to be subject 
to volume -based  safeguards under their respecti ve trade agreements for a number of years before 
they are eliminated.  
 
Could Japan explain why non -EPA members are being treated more favourably than its EPA partners 
including Canada, with the elimination of the WTO beef (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG) bef ore the 
beef and pork safeguards in some of Japan's EPAs?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
Canada is more favourably treated than non -EPA partners. In the case in 2020, without the 
safeguard measure triggered, 25.8% and 1.7% apply to beef and pork, respectively; with th e 
safeguard measure triggered, 38.5% and 4.0 %. These rates are always not higher than the 
MFN rates, which are 38.5% and 4.0 %. In addition, the rates of custom duties on beef and pork 
under Japan 's EPAs or their safeguards measures applied shall be further  reduced from the level set 
out in annual stages after the date of entry into force of each Agreement for Japan, with which its 
EPAs members are being treated more favourably than non -EPAs partners.  
 
Japan - Japan -US Trade Agreement  
1.1.45.1   Question by Canada (A G-IMS ID 93071)  
On 7 October 2019, Japan and the United States signed the United States — Japan Trade Agreement. 
At the time, reports indicated that there would be further negotiations to achieve a comprehensive 
agreement to address outstanding tariff and non-tariff issues.  
 
a. What are the timelines for the second round of negotiations between Japan and the United 
States?  
b. Would the scope of this second round include additional commitments on agriculture such 
as purchase commitments?  
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan would be prepared to address issues concerning the Japan -U.S. Trade Agreement in a more 
befitting venue for transparency, including Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 63 - 
 
  
Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.1.46.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93072)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID s 87094, 88104, 90027, 91011 and 92098: In 2013 Mongolia 
established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, including wheat 
flour and liquid milk. In August 2019 the government of  Mongolia issued a new Resolution describing 
the system of importation of agricultural products under quota regime. Mongolia did not open the 
quotas for import of wheat flour and liquid milk for 2020. However, Mongolia did not exclude these 
products from t he list of agricultural products subject to quota regime either. The Russian Federation 
is seeking further clarification from Mongolia regarding its quota regime, in particular:  
 
a. Does Mongolia plan to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of a gricultural 
products subject to quota regime? When?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future?  
c. Please confirm that Mongolia will not apply quotas for importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk.  
Answer by Mong olia 
 
Mongolia would like to refer to her replies given to the Russian Federation during the Committee on 
Market Access and the CTG meetings last month.  
 
Mongolia is reiterating once again that the Food Law of Mongolia defines only few products as 
strategic, including liquid milk and wheat flour.  
 
The quota regime was implemented temporarily until the Enrichment Law came into force 
in December 2019.  
 
Mongo lia has informed the RF of the recommendations of the National Food Security Council of 
29 November 2019 not to impose quotas on the imports of wheat flour and liquid milk in 2020. No 
quotas are being imposed on these products following the recommendations  of the NFSC. The 
imports of wheat flour and liquid milk are made open and imports of these products from the 
Russia n Federation  are registered in our trade statistics.  
  
1.1.46.2   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93191)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID s 87094, 88104, 90027, 91011, 92098 and 93072:  
 
In 2013  Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain  agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk.  
 
Mongolia did not open quotas for import of these two products for  2020, while stated that there were 
no quantitative restrictions for  the following products at all. However, Mongolia did not exclude  wheat 
flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products  subject to quota regime. According to the 
current informatio n, Mongolian competent authorities do not issue permits for the import  of the 
following products referring to the fact that there are no  quotas allocated for these two products. 
Thus, the absence of import  permits made the importation of wheat flour and li quid milk in  fact 
impossible.  
 
The Russian Federation is seeking further  clarification from Mongolia regarding its restrictions, in  
particular:  
 
a. Does the fact that there are no quotas for wheat flour and liquid  milk in 2020 mean that 
import of the following products is  prohibited? How does this fact correspond to the 
previous statements  of Mongolia that no quotas are being imposed on these products  
following the recommendations of the National Food  Safety Council?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 64 - 
 
  b. Does Mongolia plan to exclude wheat  flour and liquid milk from the  list of agricultural 
products subject to quota regime? When?  
c. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of  these products in future?  
d. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions are consistent  with Artic le XI of the 
GATT  1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on  Agriculture.  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
See response to AG-IMS ID 93072 . 
 
Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy imports  
1.1.47.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93073)  
Nigeria recently restricted access to foreign currency for the importation of dairy products. Nigeria 
has provided exemptions to a select few dairy companies on the condition, New Zealand 
understands, that they "backward integrate "; i.e., set up production  or engage in dairy development 
activities locally.  
  
Can Nigeria please explain how this measure is consistent with its WTO obligations?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria thanks New Zealand for its questions concerning the Central Bank of Nigeria measure on 
Milk and Dairy Products Importation, of 11th February 2020 and wishes to state that we are mindful 
of our obligations under WTO Agreements. Our Central Bank Measure was necessitated by 
extraordinary economic circumstances and force majeure.  
 
Nigeria relies  heavily on oil as its main source of foreign exchange earnings and government 
revenues. The sharp decline in demand and prices of oil in recent years negatively impacted our 
external reserve and exerted unprecedented pressure on our currency (Naira). This  is further 
exacerbated by COVID –19 pandemic which triggered exceptional reversals in capital flows as a result 
of decreased global risk appetite.  These developments have significantly weakened our ability to 
finance our import, undermine our Balance of Pa yment position and increased our chances of 
defaulting on our sovereign debt if timely and appropriate measures are not taken. The Central Bank 
of Nigeria measures on Milk and Dairy Products Importation is a temporary measure taken within 
the framework of Article XII of the GATT 1994 to avert a looming economic catastrophe.  
 
Nigeria is also saddled with severe livelihood and extreme poverty difficulties with over 62% of 
Nigeria's population of 180 million people still living in extreme poverty. This measure  was therefore 
taken within the framework of paragraph 4(a) of Article XVIII of the GATT 1994 to address our 
livelihood and extreme poverty difficulties.  It is also pertinent to note that Section B of Article  XVIII 
(paragraph  8 to 12 of Article XVIII) prov ides for special balance of payment exceptions for 
Developing Country like Nigeria that is experiencing the difficulties Mentioned above  Nigeria 's 
extreme poverty and livelihood security difficulties, as well as our high rate of youth unemployment 
(23% as at 2019), has also triggered exponential increase in social ills and vices which have further 
worsen our National Security situation. This measure is part of temporary measures taken to address 
our National Security difficulties (Article XXI of the GATT).  
 
It is pertinent to note that it is not the intention of the Nigeria Central Bank to restrict access to the 
Nigeria Market or discriminate between locally produced and imported milk. The measure was 
necessitated by extraordinary economic circumstances and force majeure.   
 
In conclusion, we wish to state that the Measure was promptly published to enable governments 
and traders to become acquainted with them as envisaged in Article X of the GATT  
 
Follow -up: While acknowledging the difficulties Nigeria is facing, the EU under lined its concern on 
the measure's impact to the dairy sector, an important and sensitive sector. The EU took note of the 
measure's temporary nature and looked forward to examining its legal basis. New Zealand was 
interested in more information on the temp orary nature of the measure, including when the measure G/AG/W/216  
 
- 65 - 
 
  would be rescinded, its connection with the balance of payments issue and the requirement to 
alleviate that difficulty Nigeria is experiencing.  
 
1.1.47.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93016)  
This restr iction was published on 11 February. Its effect is a clear restriction on the import of dairy 
products into Nigeria.  
 
How does Nigeria explain that this measure is not restricting imports and that it respects the 
following commitments:  
• Article 4.2 of the  Agreement on Agriculture (Market Access);  
• Article III:4 GATT (National Treatment);  
• Article X GATT (Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations); and  
• Article XI GATT (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions).  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeri a thanks the European Union for its questions concerning the Central Bank of Nigeria measure 
on Milk and Dairy Products Importation, of 11th February 2020 and wishes to state that we are 
mindful of our obligation under WTO Agreements including those listed  by the EU. Our Central Bank 
Measure was necessitated by extraordinary economic circumstances and force majeure.  
 
Nigeria relies heavily on oil as its main source of foreign exchange earnings and government 
revenues. The sharp decline in demand and prices  of oil in recent years negatively impacted our 
external reserve and exerted unprecedented pressure on our currency (Naira). This is further 
exacerbated by COVID –19 pandemic which triggered exceptional reversals in capital flows as a result 
of decreased gl obal risk appetite.  These developments have significantly weakened our ability to 
finance our import, undermine our Balance of Payment position and increased our chances of 
defaulting on our sovereign debt if timely and appropriate measures are not taken. The Central Bank 
of Nigeria measures on Milk and Dairy Products Importation is a temporary measure taken within 
the framework of Article XII of the GATT 1994 to avert a looming economic catastrophe.  
 
Nigeria is also saddled with severe livelihood and extre me poverty difficulties with over 62% of 
Nigeria's population of 180 million people still living in extreme poverty. This measure was therefore 
taken within the framework of paragraph 4(a) of Article XVIII of the GATT 1994 to address our 
livelihood and ext reme poverty difficulties.  It is also pertinent to note that Section B of Article  XVIII 
(paragraph 8 to 12 of Article XVIII) provides for special balance of payment exceptions for 
Developing Country like Nigeria that is experiencing the difficulties Mentio ned above  Nigeria 's 
extreme poverty and livelihood security difficulties, as well as our high rate of youth unemployment 
(23% as at 2019), has also triggered exponential increase in social ills and vices which have further 
worsen our National Security situation. This measure is part of temporary measures taken to address 
our National Security difficulties (Article XXI of the GATT).  
 
It is pertinent to note that it is not the intention of the Nigeria Central Bank to restrict access to the 
Nigeri a Market or discriminate between locally produced and imported milk. The measure was 
necessitated by extraordinary economic circumstances and force majeure.   
 
In conclusion, we wish to state that the Measure was promptly published to enable governments 
and traders to become acquainted with them as envisaged in Article X of the GATT  
 
Follow -up: While acknowledging the difficulties Nigeria is facing, the EU underlined its concern on 
the measure's impact to the dairy sector, an important and sensitive sector. The EU took note of the 
measure's temporary nature and looked forward to examining its legal basis. New Zealand was 
interested in more information on the temporary nature of the measure, including when the measure 
would be rescinded, its connection with the balance of payments issue and the requirement to 
alleviate that difficulty Nigeria is experiencing.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 66 - 
 
  
Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  
1.1.48.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  
The United State s notes that Nigeria continues to maintain import prohibitions on several agricultural 
products (see https://customs.gov.ng/?page_id=3075 ), including frozen poultry, beef, and pork 
from all countries.   
  
a. Please provide the measure or implementing regulations for these prohibitions and specify 
on what basis these imports prohibited?  
b. Can Nigeria explain why import bans are in still place, especially given that Nigeria stated 
in AG -IMS ID 48012 from March o f 2007 that many of the restrictions were temporary?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria wishes to thank the United States for raising this question and for its understanding of our 
peculiar economic situations. Indeed , we informed the Committee in good faith in 20 07 that import 
prohibitions on selected items were temporarily applied in order to address our development 
challenges. We also set in motion the process of phasing out the measures which led to the delisting 
of some items from the import prohibition list. However, the economic challenges we were 
experiencing then further degenerated into economic and security crisis due to a combination of 
exogenous and endogenous shocks. Our current high rates of youth unemployment (23% as 
at 2019) as well as our extreme p overty and livelihood security difficulties, triggered exponential 
increase in social ills and vices which have further worsen our National Security situation. This 
measure is therefore still being temporarily applied to address our National Security Diffi culties. This 
notwithstanding, our government is working assiduously to address our National Security and 
economic difficulties and Nigeria will phase out this measure as soon as possible.  
 
Oman's Table DS:2 notification  
1.1.49.1   Question by United States of Americ a (AG -IMS ID 93257)  
In response to A G-IMS ID 92028, the United States would like to thank Oman for their thorough 
responses. As a follow up, the United States would like to inquire if Oman will be submitting a 
table DS:2 notification for the programs it ha s outlined across its Table DS:1 notifications, noting 
the difference between a Supporting Table DS:2 within the Table DS:1 notification, and the separate 
table DS:2 notification where Members are required to give detail on new domestic support 
programs.  
 
Answer by Oman  
 
Panama – Non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade during the COVID -19 pandemic  
1.1.50.1   Question by Costa Rica (AG -IMS ID 93314)  
Panama – Non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade during the COVID -19 pandemic  
 
Costa Rica wishes to express its conc ern regarding the growing number of non -tariff barriers applied 
by the government of Panama and their negative impact on bilateral and regional trade in agricultural 
products. Moreover, the upsurge in these measures comes at a time of high economic vulnera bility 
due to the effects of the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
This is not a new problem. In recent years, Costa Rica has faced a growing number of regulatory 
and non -regulatory barriers that prevent our agricultural exporters from accessing the Panamanian 
market. T omato exports have been impeded by phytosanitary restrictions for several years now, 
and, since October 2019, we have faced new barriers for banana, plantain, pineapple and strawberry 
exports.  
  
These problems are compounded by the Panamanian animal health authority's decision, on 30  June, 
not to renew the export authorizations of animal product establishments in Panama's trading G/AG/W/216  
 
- 67 - 
 
  partners until on -site inspections have been carried out. Trade facilitation practices had, until then, 
allowed establishments to continue exporting even when the period covered by an authorization had 
expired. This decision affects exports of dairy produc ts, pork, beef, processed poultry meat, 
sausages and fish food from numerous trading partners. Costa Rica has no objection to the 
application of this requirement; what we do not understand is the value of enforcing it in the midst 
of the pandemic.  
  
The n ew measure appears to punish the exporting country for the failure to conduct inspections of 
previously authorized establishments, and, even more so, when, as in Costa  Rica's case, these 
inspections have been repeatedly requested in the last two years only  to be cancelled or postponed 
by the Panamanian authorities.  
 
The fact is that the requirement for on -site visits could not have come at a worse time. The pandemic 
makes it impossible to schedule this type of inspection, as both Panama and Costa  Rica are s ubject 
to international travel restrictions, and the Panamanian authorities know this. In practice, this has 
led not only to the sudden cessation of trade in the range of animal products exported from Costa 
Rica to Panama, thereby harming Costa Rican produ cers, but also to the halting of shipments of 
critical products for consumption and production in Panama.  
  
The closure of the Panamanian market has already greatly affected the business activity of 
Costa  Rican enterprises, which have reported losses of m illions of dollars, at a time when the 
economic crisis is worsening because of the global pandemic. Account should also be taken of the 
fact that 79% of Panamanian imports of liquid milk and 38% of other milk products consumed in 
the country come from Cost a Rica; an increase in prices in the Panamanian market would therefore 
be to the detriment of Panama's own consumers.  
  
Costa Rica has tried to engage in dialogue with the Panamanian authorities in order to understand 
their reasoning and find mutually sati sfactory solutions. To date, we have been unsuccessful. 
Costa  Rican exporting enterprises comply with all the applicable rules and regulations and meet the 
highest international sanitary and quality standards. Furthermore, there have been no changes to 
Costa Rica's health status that justify these measures right in the middle of the pandemic. The 
Panamanian authorities refuse to explain the reasons for implementing the measures, which are 
inconsistent with Central American trade regulations and Panama's WTO  commitments.  
  
The Panamanian health authorities appear to be going against the global trend, which is to facilitate 
trade in agricultural products during the pandemic, and instead are imposing requirements that, for 
obvious reasons, cannot be met while our countries are in lockdown. In the absence of any answers 
from Panama, Costa Rica fears that this is an example of a protectionist policy designed to take 
advantage of the situation generated by the pandemic – one clearly inconsistent with Panama's 
WTO commitments.  
  
In light of the foregoing, we therefore request, as a matter of urgency, that the Panamanian 
authorities take into consideration the exceptional circumstances generated by the COVID ‑19 
pandemic and immediately implement measures to facilita te trade in agricultural products and 
restore the flow of trade, which came to a standstill three weeks ago. We hope that Panama will 
remedy this situation as soon as possible and allow trade to continue while things get back to normal 
and the appropriate renewal procedures take place.  
 
Costa Rica and Panama are neighbours and historical allies with very close trade ties. Indeed, our 
shared vision means that Costa Rica will always stand ready to support Panama in its food safety 
and development objectives.  All we ask is that these objectives be pursued in the compliance with 
the rules of the multilateral trading system and in such a way as to benefit both nations.  
 
Answer by Panama  
 
We thank Costa Rica for its comments, we hope to continue the dialogue betw een capitals on this 
issue.  
 
Follow -up: Colombia registered interest in this issue and noted that it had received complaints from 
strawberry exporters. El Salvador shared the concern and called on Panama to ensure its measures 
are in line with the Central American community regulations in order to prevent any distortions to 
regional trade. Nicaragua pointed out the significant impact Panama's measure brought to its G/AG/W/216  
 
- 68 - 
 
  agricultural exports. Since 2018, Nicaragua had been experiencing difficulties exporting to P anama 
due to the barriers imposed. Noting the situation was aggravated by the COVID -19 pandemic and 
Panama has not responded to questions it previously posed, Nicaragua registered its serious concern 
on this matter.  
 
Russia's export subsidies  
1.1.51.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93017)  
Follow -up to question  AG-IMS ID 92044.  
 
The EU is concerned about the recent amendment of Article  78 to the Russian Budget Code 
(amendment by Federal law Nº 330 -ФЗ of 1 October 2019), which appears to allow for subsidies f or 
alcoholic products intended for export. In the answer to the EU question No AG -IMS ID 92044 
(Committee on Agriculture, 30.10.2019) on the subject the Russian Federation stated that "… the 
Budget Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for any fo rms of exports subsidies".  
 
Could the Russian Federation further elaborate on that answer in light of the explicit link between 
eligible subsidies and export destination of alcoholic beverages in the amended Article 78 of the 
Budget Code?  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
The Budget Co de of the Russian Federation establishes the general principles of the budget 
legislation of the Russian Federation, the legal principles of the functioning of the budget system of 
the Russian Federation, the legal status of the subjects of budget legal re lations, determines the 
principles of the budgetary process and the order of the regulation of inter -budgetary relations in 
the Russian Federation.  
 
On the basis of and in pursuance of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation the government of 
the Russian Federation shall adopt normative legal acts regulating the budget legal relations:   
 
• relations arising between the subjects of budget legal relation s in the process of the revenue 
formation and of incurring the expenditures of budgets at all levels in the budget system of the 
Russian Federation and of budgets of state extra -budgetary funds, of the realization of state and 
municipal borrowings and the regulation of state and municipal debt;  
• relations arising between the subjects of budget legal relations in the process of drafting and 
considering budgets of all levels in the budget system of the Russian Federation, of the approval 
and execution of the b udgets of all levels in the budget system of the Russian Federation and 
control over their execution.  
 
Federal Law No. 330 -FZ of 1 October 2019 "On the amendment to Article 78 of the Budget Code of 
the Russian Federation " lists legal entities for the purpo se of compensation of costs incurred in 
connection with production/trade of alcoholic products, inter alia, intended for export.   
 
This legal act itself does not stipulate subsidies provision and does not imply that the possible 
subsidies would be related to subsidizing the exports of the produce. The rules for providing subsidies 
would have been determined in other legal acts in accordance with the budget legislation of the 
Russian Federation. Such legal acts have not been adopted by the government of the Russian 
Federation.  
 
Follow -up: The EU noted its concern was whether these measures amounted to export subsidies and 
would review in detail the Russian Federation's replies in the AGIMS.  
 
Russia n Federation  - Subsidies to "certification of agricultural pro ducts in foreign 
markets " 
1.1.52.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93186)  
The new Decree of the government of the Russian Federation of 25 December 2019 No 1816 (as 
amended on 13 May 2020) "On state support of organizations in order to compensate for part of the G/AG/W/216  
 
- 69 - 
 
  costs associated with the certification of agricultural products in foreign markets" appears to be an 
export subsidy, falling under Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
The "certification of agricultural products in foreign markets " seems t o cover the following: 
assessment of conformity of agri -food products with requirements of foreign markets, veterinary 
and phytosanitary measures, transportation, storage, testing and disposal of test samples, 
assessment of  conformity of products with the requirements, contained in the foreign trade contract 
for the supply of agricultural products to foreign markets (hereinafter - the contract), including 
during voluntary certification for obtaining Halal and Kosher certificates. The provision of certificat e 
of costs incurred to meet the requirements of external markets appears necessary to obtain the aid.  
 
a.  Can the Russia n Federation  explain how it ensures that this new subsidy does not 
compensate for costs incurred as part of and during the process of selling a product to 
foreign markets and is not an illegal export subsidy?  
b.  Can the Russia n Federation explain how the decree in quest ion complies with the 
requirements of Articles  8-10 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Government  support to legal entities for compensation of part of costs on  certification of 
agro-industrial products to foreign markets in the Resolution of the government of the Russian 
Federation No. 1816 of 25  December 2019 is not an export subsidy within the meaning of 
Article  9.1 (d). 
 
Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of  - New system for issuing import licenses  
1.1.53.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93074)  
On 27 January 2020, the Saudi government adopted a new system for issuing import licenses, 
without prior consultations with interested parties or granting an adaptation period on the new 
measure. The new system requires local importers to file with the Sa udi government, six months in 
advance, "import plans". These plans must include detailed information about the exporter. The 
measure puts at risk not only trade flows, given that most agricultural goods are traded on a monthly 
basis, according to supply an d demand conditions, but also business confidentiality terms, since the 
new measure would make it necessary to disclose to the importer sensitive information, such as 
production capacity. Furthermore, although it creates a series of new requirements, the c riteria for 
approving import plans seem to lack transparency.  
  
a. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provide an English version of the "Amendment of 
Import Licensing Procedures and Guide" notified through document (G/LIC/N/2/SAU/2)?  
b. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia explain how the new procedure complies with:  
i. Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture (determining that access to Members' 
markets can only be regulated through customs duties, rendering prohibited, among 
others, the establishment of quantitativ e restrictions and discretionary import licensing 
regimes);  
ii. Article XI, 2 of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (establishing exceptions 
to the general obligation to eliminate quantitative restrictions on imports and to 
regulate market access only  through customs duties, even if operated through quotas 
or licenses);  
iii. Article 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (Members should 
ensure that administrative procedures used to implement import licensing regimes do 
not distort trade  and that the rules applicable to the import licensing procedure will be 
neutral and that the procedures will be fair and equitable).  
Answer by Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 70 - 
 
  
Sri Lanka - Suspension of importation of processed agricultural products  
1.1.54.1   Question by U nited States of America (AG -IMS ID 93258)  
From 16 April to 15 July 2020, Sri Lanka suspended the importation of a large number of processed 
agricultural products, with the aim to prevent a rapid depreciation of the Sri Lankan Rupee. Some 
of the products in clude bread, pasta, non -alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages, oils, rice, and 
confectionary products. However, in the same regulation, the government of Sri Lanka announced 
that it will facilitate importation of other agricultural products, including d airy products, dried 
vegetables, wheat, palm oil, sunflower seed, and cane sugar.   
 
a. How does the government of Sri Lanka expect to prevent the depreciation of the 
Sri Lankan Rupee by banning imports of some products while encouraging others?  
b. Why w  ere tho se specific products banned?  
c. How did Sri Lanka determine to ban those specific products?  What steps will Sri Lanka 
take to ensure this intervention has minimal trade distortions in the international market?  
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
Introduction:   
 
Sri Lanka appreciates the interests shown by the US on Sri Lanka 's trade policies in general and for 
directing its specific questions under the AG -IMS.  
 
During the time period specified in the inquiry of the US Delegation (From 16 April to 15 July 2020), 
the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) introduced certain trade measures through the  Imports and 
Exports (Control) Regulation No. 1/2020  of 16th April 2020 an d the relevant Operating Instructions 
No. 03/2020 of 16.04.2020 issued by the Competent Implementing Authority, which is the Controller 
General of Import & Export Control of Sri Lanka.   
 
In the Operating Instructions No. 03/2020 of 16.04.2020 issued by the  Competent Authority  in 
relation to the implementation of the measures included in Imports and Exports (Control) Regulation 
No. 1/2020 - Gazette Extraordinary No. 2171/5 -2020 (16 April 2020), there are two clear references 
to the following:   
 
Chapeau parag raph:  "Following Operating Instructions have been issued under the powers 
vested in Imports and Exports Control Act No. 1 of 1969 and in terms of regulations of 
Extraordinary Gazette Notification 2171/05 dated 16 April  2020 ".  
Paragraph 1:  "Considering COV ID-19 pandemic in the Island, the Department intends 
taking necessary implementations time to time to alleviate the pressure on the exchange 
rate and the financial markets. " 
  
Though it is not explicitly mentioned in the  Import and Exports (Control) Regula tion No. 1/2020, 
generally, it is a common practice that Operating Instructions (which takes the form of 
Administrative Circulars/Instructions) issued by the Competent Authority  gives the clear purpose, 
guidance and direction on the implementation of any R egulation or Law of the country.   
 
Accordingly, the measures covered in Import and Exports (Control) Regulation No. 1/2020 had been 
taken  as ad hoc  measures in response to the COVID -19 pandemic and they were not taken as 
"regular" measures by Sri Lanka.  
  
Further, the  Imports and Exports (Control) Regulation No. 1/2020  of 16th April 2020 and the relevant 
Operating Instructions No. 03/2020 of 16.04.2020 have now been repealed w.e.f.  22.05.2020.  
  
a. How does the government of Sri Lanka expect to prevent the de preciation of the Sri Lankan 
Rupee by banning imports of some products while encouraging others:   
The economic fallout from the COVID -19 shock is ongoing and increasingly difficult to predict. 
Sri Lanka, as a small developing country, is not an exception t o this situation. As an outward looking 
country, which relies heavily on international trade, Sri Lanka is witnessing loss of export revenue G/AG/W/216  
 
- 71 - 
 
  (both on trade in goods & services and depleting of overseas migrant remittances, which significantly 
offset the tr ade balance), striking domestic production and mounting  import bills and therefore, 
country 's ability to build up international reserves as a buffer against macroeconomic shocks has 
been drastically weakening.   
  
In view of this "highly unfavourable econom ic climate " created with the spread of CO VID-19 
Pandemic around the globe and difficulty in protecting & safeguarding its external financial situation, 
restoring macroeconomic balance and safeguarding healthy balance in its dollarized economy, no 
secret th at Sri Lanka was compelled to proceed with the imposition of measures that may affect the 
international trade and the trade interests of its other trading partners in the WTO.   
  
In some contrast to the measures notified by other Members, Sri Lanka 's measu res appear to be 
based on an economic rationale (limiting banking services to limit flow of foreign exchange out of 
country and to stabilize exchange rate and the financial sector).  The measures cover certain activities 
in the financial sector.  It is of course understandable that Sri Lanka being a potentially vulnerable 
island economy is concerned about the economic impact of the corona crisis, which compounds 
previously -existing economic challenges e.g. to the tourism industry posed since April 2019 afte r a 
series of devastating terrorist attacks on key cities crippling the entire sector.   
  
As shown below, the measures in question introduced under the  Imports and Exports (Control) 
Regulation No. 1/2020  of 16th April 2020 and the relevant Operating Instru ctions No.  03/2020 of 
16.04.2020 were with respect to the facilitation of banking services at issue, not directly aimed at 
limiting the trade of commodities per se.   
  
The measures temporarily suspended the banking services, so that it served to limit faci litation of 
banking services by Sri Lankan banks. In effect, the measures imposed restrictions on or unduly 
delay on payments and transfers. This enabled GOSL to limit the flow of scarce foreign exchange 
going out of the country during the COVID -19 Pandemi c challenges.   
  
i. Measures affecting facilitation of banking services for importation of:  Non-Essential Goods 
specified in Schedule I:  Limiting facilitation of banking services for imports of the products covered 
here, if payments for imports are made un der (1)  Letter of Credit (L/C), (2)  Documents Against 
Acceptance (D/A) and (3)  Advance Payment (A/P).  
  
ii. Measures affecting facilitation of banking services for importation of:  Non-Essential Goods 
specified in Schedule I:  Limiting facilitation of banking services for imports of the products covered 
here, if payments for imports are made under (5) Open Account (OA) and (6) Consignment 
Basis (CB).  
  
iii. Measures affecting facilitation of banking services for importation of:  Essential  Goods specified in 
Schedule II:  Limiting facilitation of banking services for imports of the products covered here, if 
payments for imports are made under other methods, other than on three -months Credit Basis and 
the payments on Imports Bills will be rel eased only after 16.07.2020.   
  
b. Why were those specific products banned?  
The number of products that were subject to the above regulation and also fell under the purview 
of Agreement on Agriculture (AoA): Approximately around 155 products (at 8 -digit level ).  
  
c. How did Sri Lanka determine to ban those specific products?  
The products that were subject to the above regulation and also fell under the purview of Agreement 
on Agriculture (AoA) could be recognized under two categories based on the consumption pat terns 
of the Sri Lankan population. They are (a) Essential and basic food items and (b) Non -essential food 
items.  
  
In terms of the consumption patterns of the Sri Lankan population, the items such as pasta, non -
alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages, r ice (high value varieties, i.e. basmati), and confectionary 
products generally fall under the category of Non -essential food items. Approximately around 135 
(at 8-digit level) items that generally fall under this category had been subject to the measures.  
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Similarly, dairy products, dried vegetables (pulses high in protein significantly form part in SL 's basic 
staple diet), wheat, palm oil, and white crystalline beet/cane sugar fall under the category of 
Essential & food items. Approximately around 20 (at  8-digit level) items that generally fall under 
this category had been subject to the measures.  
  
As shown in Table above, facilitation of banking services for imports of the products covered under 
each category was subject to specific limitations.  
  
d. What steps will Sri Lanka take to ensure this intervention has minimal trade distortions in 
the international market?  
It is Sri Lanka 's earnest expectation that many WTO Members may show understanding  for 
emergency measures of type taken by Sri Lanka under th e above regulation.  This may especially be 
the case, as these measures were property targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary, 
while preserving the WTO 's Non -discrimination principle.  
  
1. the measures are taken for limited periods of time, which s eems to be the case (trade effects 
are temporary) and  
2. the measures do not disproportionately burden foreign traders over domestic economic 
actors (compliance with WTO 's Most -Favoured Nation and National Treatment Principles).  
  
In order to assure its tra ding partners, the measures in question, limiting the banking facilities, did 
not discriminate between domestic banks and the Sri Lankan branches or subsidiaries of foreign 
banks operating in Sri Lanka. The measures were applicable to both domestic and for eign banks 
present in Sri Lanka.  
  
Sri Lanka, with its limited capacity, has been analyzing the precise WTO legal provisions under which 
the measures could be justified and accordingly to arrange the appropriate notifications though the 
time limit of some of these measures was less than 1 -3 months. Once this process is completed, 
Sri Lanka will submit the notification and relevant information to the appropriate Committee in due 
course.  
 
Chinese Taipei - Rice TRQ tender system  
1.1.55.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 93053)  
Australia refers to Chinese Taipei's administration of its simultaneous buy -and-sell (SBS) 'private' 
tender system under its WTO tariff -rate quota for rice imports.  
 
Australia understands through bilateral consultations that Chinese Taip ei implements a floor price 
under this SBS tender which includes three factors:  
 
• the rice export price;  
• fees and charges associated with transportation and port clearance; and  
• the price of imported rice in Chinese Taipei.  
With respect to the administra tion of the SBS system, Australia requests Chinese Taipei provide 
answers to the following questions with respect to the floor price:  
 
a. Are there any laws, regulations, or other ordinances governing the way in which the floor 
price is determined?  
b. Which ag encies, private enterprises or entities are responsible for setting and 
administering the floor price?  
c. Which agencies, private enterprises or entities are engaged in commercial transactions 
under the SBS tender (i.e., who is the buyer in Chinese Taipei)?  
d. What are the policy reasons for including the price of imported rice in the floor price?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 73 - 
 
  e. What are the fees and charges associated with transportation and port clearance? (please 
provide a detailed breakdown of each component, including the policy rationa le for their 
inclusion and an explanation of how each reflects the actual costs of services rendered)  
f. Are there any other factors beyond factors 1 to 3 that are included in the floor price?  
g. Is the floor price and its factors the same for all parties bidd ing in an SBS tender?  
h. Is an equivalent floor price also applied to rice produced in Chinese Taipei?  
i. If so, please provide details about this and how it is calculated.  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
The simultaneous buy -and-sell (SBS) system is conducted by the Agriculture and Food 
Agency  (AFA). In this system, the AFA procures rice from private importers and sells to private 
dealers at the same time by tender. Importer and dealer participate in the tender and make their 
bid jointly. The differen ce between each participant's sale and purchase price is its bid price in the 
SBS system. For those with a bid price highest among other participants and higher than floor price, 
they will win the bid. According to Article 46 of the Government Procurement Act, SBS shall set floor 
prices. The AFA will calculate the floor price, based on various factors, including export costs, freight 
fees, processing fees at import port as well as the domestic market price of rice. The factors for 
setting the floor price ar e the same for all Country Specific Quotas, but the floor price will vary 
according to the country of origin. The factors affecting the floor prices are as follows:  
  
a. Export price: In the case of Australian rice, in accordance with "Bilateral Agreement on 
the Rice Tariff Rate Quota Regime of Chinese Taipei", the export price of US rice on the 
open market is used as proxy for the Australian price.  
b. Freight fees and processing fees at import ports: include freight charges, insurance 
premium, harbor construction dues and trade promotion service charge, import business 
tax, loading and unloading fees at import port, inspection charges, quarantine fees, and 
inland transportation fees.  
c. Domestic market price of rice: wholesale price of the relevant domestic rice (i.e., with 
specifications equivalent to the imported rice). No similar system or floor price is adopted 
for domestic rice.  
Tajikistan's export p rohibitions on certain food products  
1.1.56.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93305)  
Japan would appreciate it if Tajikistan could explain how export prohibitions on certain food products 
including wheat, wheat flour and vegetable introduced by the Member on 25  April 2020 meet the 
conditions required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, ii)  criticalness of the shortages, and iii)  temporality of the measure. 
Japan would also appreciate it if Tajikistan could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
 
Answer by Tajikistan  
 
Thailand's sugar support  
1.1.57.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93 203)  
Australia understands Thailand has approved measures to support its sugar industry, which has been 
impacted by the disruptions caused by COVID -19. We understand the support package is valued at 
THB 10 billion (approx. USD  320 million).   
 
Can Thailand provide information on this support package, including details on:  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 74 - 
 
  • the different parts of this support package?  
• the policy objectives of each part? And  
• how payments for each part are calculated?  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand's responses are as follows:  
 
The Cabinet has approved assistant measures for cane growers for a total of 10 billion Baht, which 
comprises two projects:  
 
a. Input Support Scheme for Cane Growers . The Cabinet approved 6.5 billion Baht budgetary 
outlay for the scheme. The support provides a payment of 85 Baht per ton ne for cane 
growers who sell their canes to domestic sugar factories (at a maximum of 5,000 tonnes 
per household). This scheme aims to help cane growers to access agricultural facilities 
such as fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, and  tools, as most cane growers in Thailand are low -
income people whose crops were affected by droughts. Cane growers who have registered 
with the Office of Canes and Sugar Board and signed contract with sugar millers will receive 
these payments.  
b. Support  to improve environment . Cane growers in Thailand sometimes burn their sugar 
canes before cultivation for ease of harvesting. The sugar cane burning has caused 
pollution and hazardous dust of PM 2.5 in many provinces across Thailand. In order to 
reduce PM 2.5, the government approved 3.5 billion Baht budgetary outlay for the scheme. 
The support programme provides a payment of 92 Baht per  tonne for crane growers if 
they do not burn their canes. The scheme aims to reduce sugar cane burning before 
cultivation, which will help improve environment and protect human health from PM 2.5 
as a result.  
• With regard to the government budget of 450 million Baht, the government approved the 
said budget since 19 November 2007 in order to subsidize the Cane and Sugar Fund's 
liabilities from the Bank for Agriculture and Cooperatives' loan. The payment started in 2009 
and will be expired by the end of 2020.  
 
• For the Domestic Support notifications, the Ministry of Commerce is collecting information 
from related agencies and will notify the Committee in due course.   
 
1.1.57.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93227)  
According to media reports, Thailand has approved over 10  billion Baht (over USD  300 million) in 
subsidies to sugarcane farmers ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us -thailand -sugar/thailand -
approves -300-million -aid-for-drought -stricken -sugarcane -farmers -idUSKBN23G28H ). 
 
Thailand's most recent WTO DS:1 notification of domestic support commitments (G/AG/N/THA/85, 
6 October  2017) applicable to calendar years 2014 -2016, reported a product -specific sugarcane 
subsidy of 450 million Baht per year. Although Thailand's notifica tion did not report its value of 
production, the new subsidies appear to exceed the sugarcane product -specific " de minimis ". 
 
The recently announced program is more than 20 times larger than the last domestic support 
program notified by Thailand  and more t han half of Thailand's Total AMS commitment level.  
 
In the light of the above, could Thailand provide the following information:  
 
a.  Copies of the applicable measures granting and administering the subsidies, including 
Cabinet Resolutions and any other legal  or regulatory instruments.  
b.  An estimation of when Thailand plans to submit a new WTO domestic support 
commitment  (DS:1) notification.  
c.  An estimation of when Thailand plans to notify the new sugar subsidies to the WTO.  
d.  Confirmation that the 450 million Bath government subsidy  has continued after 2016.  
e.  Updated data on the value of its annual sugarcane production for 2017, 2018, and  2019.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 75 - 
 
  f.  Would Thailand explain the eligibility criteria for the  aforementioned program, especially 
regarding the following:  
i.  Is the program exclusive for sugarcane producers or is it  generally available for 
farmers?  
ii.  Is the payment contingent upon the cultivation of sugarcane?  
iii.  Is the program related with the acquisition of inputs and  production factors by 
farmers? If so, how does  that affect the payment?  
iv.  Are there any sugarcane producers that are not entitled  to apply for the subsidy?  
Since drought has been mentioned as a justification for  the announced domestic support, is there 
an obligation for farmers to prove production loss es as a condition for payment of the subsidy? If 
positive, how much as a percentage of expected production must these losses be?  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand's responses are as follows:  
 
The Cabinet has approved assistant measures for cane growers for a total of 10 billion Baht, which 
comprises two projects:  
 
a. Input Support Scheme for Cane Growers . The Cabinet approved 6.5 billion Baht budgetary 
outlay for the scheme. The support provides a payment of 85 Baht per tonne for cane 
growers who sell their canes to domestic sugar factories (at a maximum of 5,000 tonnes 
per household). This scheme aims to help cane growers to access agricul tural facilities 
such as fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, and tools, as most cane growers in Thailand are low -
income people whose crops were affected by droughts. Cane growers who have registered 
with the Office of Canes and Sugar Board and signed contract with sugar millers will receive 
these payments.  
b. Support to improve environment . Cane growers in Thailand sometimes burn their sugar 
canes before cultivation  for ease of harvesting. The sugar cane burning has caused 
pollution and hazardous dust of PM 2.5 in  many provinces across Thailand. In order to 
reduce PM 2.5, the government approved 3.5 billion Baht budgetary outlay for the scheme. 
The support programme provides a payment of 92 Baht per ton ne for crane growers if 
they do not burn their canes. The schem e aims to reduce sugar cane burning before 
cultivation, which will help improve environment and protect human health from PM 2.5 
as a result.   
• With regard to the government budget of 450 million Baht, the government approved the 
said budget since 19 Novemb er 2007 in order to subsidize the Cane and Sugar Fund's 
liabilities from the Bank for Agriculture and Cooperatives' loan. The payment started 
in 2009 and will be expired by the end of 2020.  
• For the Domestic Support notifications, the Ministry of Commerce i s collecting information 
from related agencies and will notify the Committee in due course.   
Thailand's  "Licence " charge on eggs  
1.1.58.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93075)  
Thailand 's Department of Livestock Development imposes a 25 Baht (USD 0.80) per chick /hatching 
egg "licence " charge on day old chicks/hatching eggs shipments transiting through or entering into 
Thailand. These fees appear highly disproportionate to the actual cost of regulating commercial 
shipments which can contain upwards of 20,000 birds  each and are effectively functioning as an 
unjustified tariff barrier. This matter was first raised with Thailand nearly  two years ago and despite 
assurances that the charges would be reviewed, no action appears to have occurred.  
  
Can Thailand please pr ovide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to 
remove these fees, and the expected dates for revised charges to be implemented?  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 76 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
 
The Department of Livestock Development (DLD) provided updated information as foll ows: 
 
The DLD submitted the Revision of Ministerial Regulation which removes the charge on day old chicks 
and hatching eggs shipments transiting through Thailand to the Secretariat of the Cabinet Office. It 
is currently waiting for the Cabinet 's considerat ion. 
 
Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  
1.1.59.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93193)  
Japan recognizes that Turkey continues implementing prior export authorization/registration on 
fresh lemons introduced on 7 April 2020, but finds that required notif ication to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement of Agriculture so far. 
Japan would appreciate if Turkey could provide the reason behind.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Prior export authorization on fresh lemons is a short -term, temporary measure, which has been 
taken due to food security concerns raised by COVID -19 and will end on 31 August 2020. Turkey 
has already shared the related information on this temporary measure  through the WTO Trade 
Monitoring Mechanism and will continue its efforts to provide necessary information to ensure 
transparency.  
 
Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  
1.1.60.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93019)  
Turkey's response to  AG-IMS ID 90064 provides no information on the reasoning behind Turkey's 
consideration of a state -owned enterprise as fully autonomous, nor does it explain the reasoning for 
not notifying wheat purchases at prices referred to by TMO and published on its website as 
"intervention purchasing prices". Article 4 of the relevant measure indicates that its objective is, 
among other things, "...to prevent abnormal increases or decreases in the price of grain products to 
the determinant of producers…". Therefore, we would like to reiterate the questions and request a 
more detailed response.  
 
a. Please clarify how the board maintains full autonomy while being a state -owned enterprise 
with 100% public ownership.  
b. Please explain the rationale for Turkey's judgment that TMO's announce ment and 
implementation of prices for commodities does not qualify as the setting of an an applied 
administered price, as stated in response to EU question No. 44 and referenced in  AG-IMS 
ID 90064.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. TMO is defined as "Organization; is a s tate-owned economic enterprise whose capital is 
entirely state -owned, established to operate on an economic basis according to 
commercial principles. " in the Article 2, Clause 2 of the Decree Law No. 233.  
Again, in the Decree Law No. 233;  
"Article 5.1. The  undertaking bodies are the board of directors and the general directorate.  
2. The Board of Directors is the highest authority and responsible decision -making body of the 
enterprise.  
3. The General Directorate is the competent and responsible executive bod y of the enterprise. " 
statements are included.  
 
In addition, the Board of Directors is authorized and responsible for determining the principles and 
management policies that will provide the conditions for conducting the activities of enterprises, 
institu tions and affiliated partners in an efficient and profitable manner.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 77 - 
 
   
As a result, TMO; is an autonomous Public Economic Enterprise, whose business principles and 
management policies are determined by the Board of Directors, which operates in accordance wi th 
its legislation and is the highest authority and responsible decision -making  body.  
 
b. TMO carries out its buying and selling activities under market conditions. As a private 
enterprise, it enters the market  as a buyer, and in the same manner, it can put up the 
product in its stock for sale considering the market conditions and prices. Therefore, TMO 
purchase prices are not considered as administered prices.  
TMO is defined as "an organization; which is a state -owned economic enterprise whose capital is 
entirely state -owned, established to operate on an economic basis according to commercial 
principles. " in the Article 2, Clause 2 of the Decree Law No. 233.  
 
1.1.60.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93021)  
According to TMO 's website, TMO has been charged with helping to control food inflation by buying 
and selling commodities more actively than in previous years with shortened tender periods.  It has 
also been charged with additional oversight as to the price of domestic purchases, "in order to carr y 
out market regulation more rapidly and actively, to reduce the cost to our country by providing 
products at a more affordable price than the world markets offer in short -term price options, and to 
provide an opportunity for effective and timely intervent ion in accordance with international trade 
conditions. "  
  
a. Please provide the relevant legislation or implementing regulation that gives TMO the 
authority to undertake these activities?  
b. Does TMO receive funding from the government of Turkey to implement th ese 
programs?  If so, please describe the manner in which funding is provided and the amount 
of funding provided since 2002.  
c. How does Turkey plan to notify these TMO activities to the WTO COA and STE Working 
Party?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. TMO acts for the purpose of profitability in the products that are included in its field of 
activity. In this context, while determining its commercial policies, it also takes into 
account the sustainability of production and trade by considering its long -term profit. 
Moreover, the duties and authority of TMO are specified in the "TMO Main Status" and 
there is no legislation or duty for controlling food inflation or assigning additional oversight 
for domestic purchase prices. However, the domestic and foreign markets are mo nitored 
in order to carry out its duties and transactions in accordance with the principles of 
profitability and efficiency.  
b. TMO does not take any special funding from the government of Turkey for the activities 
that are mentioned in the question.  
c. TMO is a state-owned  economic enterprise, the capital of which is owned by state and 
subjected to private law provision under the Decree Law No. 233. Activities of TMO are 
carried out under the free-market  conditions and TMO acts in the market with the private 
sector, determines its policies by considering profitability and efficiency within the 
framework of the economic conditions.  
According to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a government organization must have 
a concession or privilege in the sec tor to be defined as "State Trade Enterprise (STE) ". Mentioned 
notifications are made by the Ministry of Trade and TMO has not been notified to the WTO Secretariat 
as STE since 1997 as there is no privilege granted to TMO.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 78 - 
 
  
Turkey's flour export and Turki sh Grain Board  
1.1.61.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93018)  
In AG -IMS ID 90009 to Turkey, the EU cited 2013 purchase prices of wheat being higher than 
domestic sales prices. The EU requested more information on these transactions and asked when 
the price support for wheat was going to be notified by Turkey. Turkey replied with "TMO determines 
independent policies within the framework of profitability and efficiency principles, regarding the 
products that fall within its scope. In this sense, Turke y would like to repeat the answers given in 
the previous committee meetings and its last TPR".  
 
In AG-IMS ID 90064, the United States asked Turkey to clarify how the board maintains full 
autonomy while being a state -owned enterprise with 100% public owner ship. It also asked Turkey 
how TMO's announcement and implementation of prices for commodities does not qualify it as 
providing market price support when it is a 100% state -owned enterprise. Turkey referred to their 
response to  AG-IMS ID 90009, which simpl y references TMO's framework of profitability and 
efficiency principles.  
 
As the EU indicated in AG -IMS ID 90009, there are instances where TMO is procuring wheat for more 
than it is selling it.  
 
Please explain how sales at a price lower than the procure ment price comports with the "profitability 
and efficiency principles", as Turkey cited.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Commercial activities carried out by TMO are conducted within the frame of the same 
rules/regulations (just as Turkish Commercial Code, Banking Law) as the firms operating in the 
private sector. Just as the logic of the private sector organizations, some products can be 
commercialized at high prices and some can be at low prices according to the state of the market 
conditions. TMO operates  pursuant to profitability and efficiency principles, as it has its own 
decision -making bodies and autonomous management, although its capital is publicly owned. In the 
mentioned time period, sales prices were determined above the purchase prices in accord ance with 
the market realities within the same framework.   
 
United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.1.62.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93076)  
Australia is pleased that the EU and the UK reached agreement on the Withdra wal Agreement and 
Brexit subsequently occurred on 31 January 2020. The UK government appears committed to not 
extend the transition period, meaning that the splitting of current EU WTO tariff -rate quotas  (TRQs) 
will be implemented on 1 January 2021. Austra lia is aware that both the UK and EU are engaged in 
Article  XXVIII negotiations with affected WTO Members, including Australia. We have remained 
constructive during these negotiations and have continued to offer Australia's own quota usage data 
to support both the UK and EU throughout this process. The continued Brexit uncertainty has created 
significant commercial disruption for Australian businesses currently holding licenses to export 
agricultural products into the EU under existing EU WTO tariff -rate qu otas (TRQs). Australia 
previously raised concerns in the lead up to a possible no -deal Brexit that the UK and EU were 
proposing two conflicting approaches to split TRQs midway through a quota year (i.e. , potentially 
splitting a n EU-28 calendar year quota b etween the EU -27 and UK with two months remaining). 
These same issues will again arise at the end of the transition period, a situation that Australia would 
like to avoid. For a number of Australia's country -specific quotas, the differing UK and EU approac hes 
would have resulted in an EU-27 and UK CSQ that, when added together, will be less than Australia's 
current EU-28 entitlement.  
 
a. Could the UK confirm whether it will take the same approach to splitting quotas at the end 
of the transition period as had been proposed in the lead up to a possible no -deal Brexit?  
b. Could the UK please provide an explanation for the different approach it had previously 
proposed to take from the EU?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 79 - 
 
  c. How would the UK have ensured that any proposal to split TRQs midway through a quota 
year does not leave quota holders worse off (i.e. , that newly split TRQs/CSQs add up to 
current EU-28 entitlements)?  
d. In the event that the proposed splits leave TRQ/CSQs fully exhausted, how would the  UK 
have treated agricultural products (exported under licence) which were currently on route 
and arrive after the end of the transition period? Would the UK have allowed these products 
to arrive without paying the associated out -of-quota rates?  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
a. The UK ceased to be a Member State of the European Union on 31 January 2020, following 
the conclusion of a Withdrawal Agreement under Article 50 of the Treaty on European 
Union. Trading arrangements in place to address the UK 's departure fr om the European 
Union without concluding a withdrawal agreement are therefore no longer UK policy. The 
UK is currently in the process of designing its UK Global Tariff that will apply from 
1 January  2021, following the conclusion of a public consultation i n early March. We will 
be publishing further information on the future applied UK Global Tariff over the course of 
the transition period.  
b. The policy set out by the UK on 13 March 2019, and updated on 8 October 2019, in The 
Customs (Tariff Rate Quotas) Reg ulation was prepared in response to a specific possible 
outcome of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, where the UK 
would cease to be a member State of the European Union without concluding a withdrawal 
agreement by 1  November  2019. In preparation for this potential outcome, the UK 
established a bespoke UK tariff regime, which included an immediate focus on the annual 
nature of quotas and the time remaining within the quota administration period. The UK, 
however, ceased to be a member of the European Union on 31 January 2020, following 
the conclusion of a Withdrawal Agreement. The Regulation was, therefore, not adopted 
and this policy was not put in place.  
c. As noted above, the UK established a bespoke UK tariff regime to cater for the specific 
scenario of a potential no -deal in November 2019. In determining its quota volumes under 
that bespoke regime, the UK was always mindful of its WTO commitments and the 
comments of Members. However, once the Withdrawal Agreement was agreed betwe en 
the UK and the EU, the scenario for which this policy was developed was no longer relevant 
and the UK tariff regime proposed for this scenario was no longer UK policy.  
d. The UK developed this approach in response to a specific possible outcome of negotia tions 
under Article  50 of the Treaty on European Union, where the UK would cease to be a 
member State of the European Union without concluding a withdrawal agreement by 1 
November 2019. In such a scenario, there would not have been a transition period. In 
determining the bespoke tariff regime to cater for such a no -deal scenario, the 
arrangements made under the UK 's Temporary Tariff Regime of 8 October 2019, were 
such that all goods arriving in the UK after 1 November 2019, but holding an import licence 
issued by the Rural payments Agency valid for the TRQ administration period that applied 
before 1 November 2019, would have been permitted into the UK under the in -quota rate.  
United Kingdom - Policy update resulted from Brexit  
1.1.63.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93077)  
Canada understands that the United Kingdom and the European Union have signed a Withdrawal 
Agreement that establishes a transition period that is set to end 31  December  2020, unless 
extended. Previously, producers in the United Kingdom have benefite d from the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP). In a February 2020 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
issued a policy update called Farming for the Future: policy and progress update for England. The 
policy update indicates that England wi ll move away from the EU CAP and established its own 
agriculture policy framework. ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ the-future -for-food-
farming -and-the-environment -policy -statement -2020).  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 80 - 
 
  a. Could the UK indicate when CAP will no longer apply in the England, Scotland, Wales and 
Northern Ireland?  
b. The February 2020 policy update indicates that England will phase out EU CA P direct 
payments over seven years from 2021 to 2027. Could the UK indicate if similar phase -out 
of direct payments will occur in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?  
c. Could the UK indicate if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will provide similar poli cy 
updates on their respective agriculture policy frameworks? And if so, what are the 
timelines?  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
a. Pursuant to Article 137 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the CAP Direct Payments legislation 
ceased to apply in the UK for the 2020 scheme year once the UK ceased to be a member 
State of the EU on 31  January  2020. The UK now neither contributes to the funding of the 
EU 2020 Direct Payment schemes, nor receives any EU money for its domestic schemes. 
For Pillar 2 of the CAP (Rural Development Programmes), Union law will continue to apply 
until any programmes and activities started during the current 2014 -2020 pro gramme 
period have closed. This is provided for by Article  138 of the Withdrawal Agreement. The 
UK government has committed to honour any Pillar  2 programmes entered into before the 
end of 2020 for the lifetime of the programme agreements and will continue to pay for 
them after EU funds have been exhausted.  
b. and c. Agriculture is a devolved matter and the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, 
Wales  and Northern Ireland have responsibility for developing and implementing 
agricultural measures within their respective countries. Agricultural policy updates can be 
found at the official government website for each individual administration when such 
updates become available. Future agricultural programmes meeting the criteria for DS:2 
will be notified to the Committee on Agriculture (CoA) by The Department for Environment, 
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in accordance with the timelines stipulated in G/AG/ 2.  
United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.1.64.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93078)  
Australia welcomes Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of 
America and the People's Republic of China. This is a positive step forward in resolving existing trade 
tensions and will provide a greater level of certainty to help lift global economic confidence during 
what is a challenging time. With respect to Chapter 6, Article 6.2, Section 1 (b), whereby China 
ensures that: "F or the category of agricultural goods identified in Annex 6.1, no less than 
$12.5  billion above the corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China 
from the United States in calendar year 2020, and no less than $19.5 billion above t he corresponding 
2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the United States in calendar 
year 2021". Can the US please respond to the following questions with respect to these 
commitments:  
 
a. Can the US please provide the 2017 baseline amount for each agricultural good used to 
measure China's compliance with this commitment?  
b. Can the US provide further disaggregated information on the amounts China is expected 
to purchase for each agricultural good under Annex 6.1?  
c. Can the US explain ho w the implementation of this Agreement will support market -
orientation in both the US and Chinese markets, and in the global trading system more 
broadly? and  
d.  Can the US reassure the WTO Membership that the Agreement will not unduly impact 
other Members o r markets?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 81 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Official Chinese trade data and official U.S. trade data shall be used to determine whether 
Chapter 6 of the Agreement has been implemented.  
b. To avoid speculative behaviour  in commodity markets, the parties a re not disclosing 
further disaggregated information.  
c. The United States and China have reached a multi -chapter agreement covering numerous 
issues crucial to supporting market -oriented economies, including the protection of 
intellectual property, ensuring th at the transfer of technology occurs on voluntary, market -
based terms, various regulatory issues affecting trade in food and agricultural products, 
opportunities for participation in financial services markets, and exchange rate practices.  
d. The Agreement n either restricts China from purchasing food, agricultural, and seafood 
products from other countries nor discriminates against these products.  
1.1.64.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93080)  
The recently signed Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United States 
of America and the government of the People's Republic of China includes a requirement in 
paragraph 1 (b) of Chapter 3, Trade in Food and Agricultural Products for the minimum purchase of 
agricultural goods by the People's Republic of Chi na. Chapter 3, Trade in Food and Agricultural 
Products Paragraph 1 b. "For the category of agricultural goods identified in Annex 6.1, no less 
than $12.5 billion above the corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into 
China from the Uni ted States in calendar year 2020, and no less than $19.5 billion above the 
corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the United States 
in calendar year 2021."  
  
a. There are reports that the "2017 baseline amount" is US$24 billion. Could the United 
States share its analysis on the market conditions that would support increasing its 
agricultural exports by 52% to US$36.5 billion over a three year period?  
b. Could the United States provide the value of 2017 exports to China for the following 
commodities: i. beef ii. pork iii. wheat iv. canola v. soybeans  
c. There have been reports that this Agreement includes a commitment by China to purchase 
specific volumes of particular agricultural products. Could the United States share the 
specific quantities by value or volume for the following products:  
i. Beef;  
ii. Pork;  
iii. Wheat;  
iv. Canola;  
v. soybeans  
d. What role will the United States play in potentially "matching" US exporters of agricultural 
products identified in Annex 6.1 with importers in China? Paragraph 5: "The Parties 
acknowledge that purchases will be made at market pr ices based on commercial 
considerations and that market conditions, particularly in the case of agricultural goods, 
may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year."  
e. Could the United States elaborate how "commercial considerations" will be taken  into 
account when there is a defined value commitment for the purchase of US agricultural 
goods?  
f. Could the United States elaborate as to how it ensures that these new purchase 
requirements will not displace existing commercial relationships?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 82 - 
 
  Answer by U nited States of America  
 
a. As explained in the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of America 
and the People's Republic of China (Agreement), China has committed to ensuring that 
purchases and imports into China from the United States of a gricultural and seafood 
products exceed the corresponding 2017 baseline amount by $12.5 billion in 2020 and 
by $19.5 billion in 2021.  Purchases will be made at market prices based on commercial 
considerations and market conditions may dictate the timing of  purchases within any given 
year.  
b. Value of 2017 Exports to China based on U.S. Census Data:  
i. Beef:  $30,928,503;  
ii. Pork:  $488,569,570;  
iii. Wheat:  $351,092,196;  
iv. Canola:  0; 
v. Soybeans:  $12,224,417,839.  
c. To avoid speculative behavior in commodity markets, the parties a re not disclosing further 
disaggregated information.  
d. Chinese buyers can choose specific products and venders, time purchases, and negotiate 
prices according to current market conditions.   
e. China is obligated to make the purchases as identified in the Agree ment for the first two 
years.  The parties acknowledge that purchases will be made at market prices based on 
commercial considerations.  
f. The Agreement neither restricts China from purchasing food, agricultural, and seafood 
products from other countries nor discriminates against these products.  
1.1.64.3   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93082)  
As widely reported, the United States and China recently signed a "phase one" trade accord. 
Noteworthy in this bilateral arrangement, among other things, are commitments to reduce or 
withdraw punitive tariffs as well as obligations to purchase set monetary  amounts of goods. China 
agrees to import an additional $200 billion worth of U.S. goods and services during the next two 
years, including agricultural products. Ukraine strongly supports the WTO as a rules -based 
institution. A key characteristic of the WT O's rules -based system is to enable fair trade opportunities 
for all Members to compete in an open and transparent system. A core WTO discipline is the most 
favoured nation principle. Provisions of Article XXIV GATT also provide Members additional bilatera l 
trade opportunities. A review of the WTO's Regional Trade Agreements database indicates that no 
such arrangement exists between China and the United States.  
 
a. Could the US provide information on which agricultural products are covered by the phase 
one ac cord and amount of targeted purchases for these products?  
b. Could the US also kindly elaborate on how the US views the very concrete and preferential 
phase one purchase obligations fit within the WTO's rules -based system?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. As explained in the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of America 
and the People's Republic of China (Agreement), China has committed to ensuring that 
purchases and imports into China from the United States of agricultural and seafood  
products exceed the corresponding 2017 baseline amount by $12.5 billion in 2020 and by 
$19.5 billion in 2021.  Purchases will be made at market prices based on commercial G/AG/W/216  
 
- 83 - 
 
  considerations and market conditions may dictate the timing of purchases within any g iven 
year. All agricultural and seafood products listed in Annex  6.1.2 (Agriculture) of the 
Agreement are covered in Chapter 6 (Expanding Trade) of the Agreement.   
b. The purchase commitments are consistent with the parties' WTO obligations.  
 
U.S. Proposed do mestic support measures  
1.1.65.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93079)  
At the 92nd Committee on Agriculture meeting, in response to Australia's question  AG-IMS ID 92102 
that queried if any plans were in place or being developed to manage the end of the US' farmer  
Trade Aid Package for 2019, the delegate from the United States advised that there were no plans 
beyond the 2019 programme. Since that advice, Australia has noted commentary from the 
U.S. President that indicates the US is considering further packages to provide aid for farmers that 
may be negatively impacted by any trade deal that the US has negotiated, is negotiating or that it 
is preparing to negotiate. This could reasonably be extended to possible deals with, inter alia: the  EU, 
India, Kenya, the UK, and also the next phase of the Economic and Trade Agreement between the 
US and China.  
 
a. Can the United States confirm if additional farmer Trade Aid Packages are now under 
development, planned or being considered?  
i. Can the United States provide detail on any possible packages, including whether they 
would be similar to the 2018 or 2019 Packages?  
b. Can the United States confirm what trade deals (either signed, under negotiation, or 
contemplated) would be considered in the establishme nt of possible further trade aid 
packages?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. and b. No announcements have been made regarding any additional package to aid U.S. farmers 
impacted by any current or anticipated U.S. trade agreement.  
 
1.1.65.2   Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 93084)  
According to the USDA, a higher proportion (approximately 30%) of net farm income is expected to 
come from federal assistance programmes in 2019.  
  
a. Could the United States discuss how the next Farm Bill could be structured in order to 
address producer exp ectations and reliance on these current payments? USDA forecasts 
$139 billion in exports in fiscal year 2020, up $4 billion from 2019 numbers. That's 
significantly lower than the expectation that China would purchase $40 billion in 
agricultural products fr om the U.S. or $36 billion higher than USDA projections. 
Additionally, the COVID -19 outbreak is slowing global economic activity. On 
21 February  2020, President Trump suggested that he might again push for new trade aid 
for farmers. On 4 March 2020, House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Rep. Mike 
Conaway of Texas said that another round of Market Facilitation Program payments would 
be vital to the survival of producers affected by trade disruptions if agricultural exports do 
not increase soon.  
b. Could t he United States confirm the possibility of an additional trade aid package for 
U.S. farmers in 2020?  
c. Could the United States elaborate as to how an additional aid package would be distributed 
geographically and among commodity sectors? H.R. 2157, the Add itional Supplemental 
Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019, was signed into law by President Trump, 
requiring a change to the first round of Market Facilitation Program (MFP) assistance 
provided in 2018. Producers previously deemed ineligible for MFP in 2018 because they G/AG/W/216  
 
- 84 - 
 
  had an average adjusted gross income (AGI) level higher than $900,000 limit may now 
be eligible for 2018 MFP benefits.  
d. Could the United States indicate the amount of these retroactive payments to previously 
ineligible producers no w eligible for MFP payments in 2018?  
e. Could the United States indicate under which notification year will these retroactive 
payments will be notified?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The 2018 Farm Bill governs U.S. farm programs through the 2023 progr am year. 
Consideration of changes to current programs or addition of new programs will be part of 
a legislative process that has not yet begun.  
b. and c. No announcements have been made regarding any additional package to aid U.S. 
farmers negatively impacted  by unjustified trade measures of other countries.  
d. As of 9 March  2020, payments under the 2018 MFP are estimated at $8.6 billion. Data on 
2018 MFP payments made after certain eligibility requirements were modified in 2019 is 
not yet available.  
e. The United  States notifies support for the year to which payments apply. In the case of 
2018 MFP, outlays will be notified for 2018.   
1.1.65.3   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93144)  
How are the trade assistance programmes for agricultural producers and exporters affected by 
disputes with China being implemented, given that the USDA (United States Department of 
Agriculture) has repeatedly announced increases in the aid and assistance budgets for these 
producers?  
 
It is important to understand what amounts have been allocated,  to which products, and for which 
specific activities, and, in particular, how this support is consistent with multilateral commitments.  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Details about these programs are available at the following USDA websites:  
  
https://www.farmers.gov/manage/mfp  
https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-to-usda/trade -mitigation -programs  
https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/agricultural -trade -promotion -program -atp 
  
The United States will ensure all payments are consistent with its commitments.  
 
1.1.65.4   Question  by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93086)  
According to recent news, the United States is increasing the aid package for its farmers, which was 
created to mitigate the effects of tariffs on certain products for 2018 and 2019. In light of the above, 
we request the United  States to provide information on:  
 
a. the total amount of subsidies granted to producers as part of these compensation 
measures;  
b. the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries;  
c. the main products for which the support is granted;  
d. the manner in which the Unite d States will notify these subsidies in the DS:1 notification, 
and when the notification for 2018 will be issued.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 85 - 
 
  e. whether this support is the last round of payments or whether funds have been allocated 
for future payments, given that the purpose of the su pport is to mitigate the effects of 
specific circumstances; and  
f. the producer states that benefited most from the payments.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. As of 9 March 2020, 2019 MFP payments are estimated at $14.4 billion. Payments under 
the 2018  MFP are estimated at $8.6 billion.  
b. Eligibility criteria for the 2018 MFP and the 2019 MFP are established in Title 7 CFR Part 
1409 available  at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8c3bf772cc93509b7bb9795493b48cf6&mc=true&n=pt7.10.
1409&r=PART&ty=HTML%23se7.10.1409_13  (U.S. Code of Federal Regulations).  
c. Commodities eligible for the 2018 MFP include cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat, almonds, 
fresh sweet cherries, milk, and hogs.  Commodities eligible for the 2019 MFP are: 
1) non‑specialty crops  (alfalfa hay, barley, canola, corn, crambe, dried beans, dry peas, 
cotton, flaxseed, lentils, rice, mill et, mustard seed, oats, peanuts, rapeseed, rye, 
safflower, sesame seed, chickpeas, sorghum, soybeans, sunflower seed, triticale, and 
wheat), 2) specialty crops (tree nuts, cranberries, cultivated ginseng, fresh grapes, and 
fresh sweet cherries) and 3) live stock (milk and hogs).  
d. These programs will be notified as appropriate in the 2018 and 2019 notifications.  
e. No announcements have been made regarding any additional package to aid U.S. farmers 
negatively impacted by unjustified trade measures of other countr ies. 
f. For the 2018 MFP program, the top five states are Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, 
and Indiana; for the 2019 MFP program the top five states are Iowa, Illinois, Texas, 
Minnesota, and  Kansas.  
1.1.65.5   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93087)  
New Zealand re fers to its question at the October Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 92082). 
The US advised at the time that the data was not yet available to answer New Zealand's question. 
As such, New Zealand again asks:  
 
a. How many producers have signed up for USDA M arket Facilitation Program  (MFP) 
payments so far, i.e. , since 29 July 2019? MFP payments are to be made in up to three 
tranches, with the first payments starting in mid -late August. As a result of the Additional 
Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Rel ief Act of 2019, producers previously 
ineligible for MFP in 2018 may now be eligible for 2018 MFP benefits.  
b. Are these benefits funded out of the USD 12 billion (originally applied in 2018/19)?  
c. Can the US confirm how many producers have signed up for these retrospective payments 
from the 2018 MFP, during the parallel signup period (29 July to 6 December 2019)? I n 
February 2020, the USDA released a press statement confirming that the third and final 
tranche of payments were being made to farmers.  
d. Can the US confirm that the third tranche of payments are included in the overall 
USD 14.5 billion authorised under th e Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act 
for use in direct support for producers? This statement appears to be at odds with an 
announcement from President Trump stating "if our formally targeted farmers need 
additional aid until such time as the tr ade deals with China, Mexico Canada, and others 
fully kick in, that aid will be provided by the federal government…"  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 86 - 
 
  e. Can the US confirm that the third tranche of payments announced by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, is the final payment in the  2019/20 package of direct support 
to farmers?  
f. Can the US advise the total amount of funding required for ongoing direct payments to 
farmers impacted by trade deals that are yet to be implemented? And confirm when this 
additional package of support will b e notified to the WTO?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. As of 9 March 2020:  655,199 producers have received payments under the 2019 Market 
Facilitation Program (MFP).   
b. The 2018 MFP payments are part of the 2018 package that provided up to $12 billion i n 
assistance. Data on the number of applicants who became eligible for the 2018 program 
after certain eligibility criteria were modified in 2019 is not yet available.  
c. Yes, the third tranche of payments under the 2019 MFP that was announced on 
3 February  2020 are part of the $16 billion assistance package announced on 
23 May 2019, which included $14.5  billion for the 2019 MFP.  
d. The third tranche of payments announced on 3  February 2020 is the final tranche of the 
2019 MFP.  
e. No announcements have been made reg arding additional future assistance to farmers 
impacted by not -yet-implemented trade agreements.  
United States – Japan  - US Trade Agreement  
1.1.66.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93081)  
On 7 October 2019, the Japan and the United States signed the United States - Japan Trade 
Agreement. At the time, reports indicated that there would be further negotiations to achieve a 
comprehensive agreement to address outstanding tariff and non -tariff issues.  
 
a. What are the timelines for the second round of negotiations between J apan and the United 
States?  
b. Would the scope of this second round include additional commitments on agriculture such 
as purchase commitments?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States looks forward to discussing bilateral agreements when they are reviewed for 
transparency in the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.  
 
U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
1.1.67.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93284)  
As part of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, Secretary Perdue  announced on 17 April 
that USDA is exercising authority under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to purchase and 
distribute agricultural products to those in need. Through this p rogram, USDA 's Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS) is partnering with national, regional and local suppliers to purchase up to 
$3 billion in fresh produce, dairy and meat products. The program will allow the purchase of 
$461 million in fresh fruits and ve getables, $317 million in dairy products, $258 million in meat 
products and $175 million in a combination box of fresh produce, dairy or meat products. Suppliers 
will package these products totalling $1.2 billion into family -sized boxes, then transport the m to 
food banks, community and faith -based organizations, and other non -profits serving Americans in 
need from 15 May through 30 June 2020.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 87 - 
 
  On 4 June 2020, some U.S. news outlet reported that the USDA was paying as much as twice the 
average retail price for milk purchases through the food box program. 
https://www.thebullvine.com/news/to -buy-wholesale -milk-for-its-food-boxes -usda-is-paying -well-
above -retail-prices/   
 
Could the U.S. confirm whether USDA is buying commodities at prices higher than the average 
market price?  
 
Will the U.S. release the average price paid for commodities purchased through the food box 
program or the average per -unit prices indicated in the food box contracts awarded?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Farmers to Families Food Box Program ( FFFBP) is administered in accordance with the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation, which includes contracting regulations to ensure fair and 
reasonable pricing. The food boxes supplied through this program are contracted through 
a competitive bid process.  
b. As of 30 June, the first round of purchases under the FFFBP totaled $1.2 billion. The second 
round of purchases, up to $1.47 billion, are being made from 1 July through 
31 August  2020. As of 21 July, 35.4 million food boxes had been invoiced for Round  1 
contrac ts, with an additional 8.1 million food boxes so far invoiced for Round  2. 
Information on contract awards for Round 1 can be found at 
https://ww w.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-to-usda/farmers -to-families -food-box/approved -
contractors . 
1.1.67.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93286)  
On 12 May 2020, the United States announced the $19 billion Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program  (CFAP), which will provide $16 billi on in direct support to farmers and ranchers. In the 
CFAP Cost-Benefit Analysis released on 14 May 2020, the USDA indicated that approximately 
$637 million is available to producers of commodities identified through the Notice of Funding 
Availability relea sed on 22 May 2020.  
 
Could the U.S. confirm if the amount of $637 million being considered for other commodities is 
included in the original CFAP announcement? Is the amount of $637 still the amount being 
considered?  
  
Since multiple commodity groups in th e U.S. have asked for additional support through the CFAP or 
other programs, is the U.S. considering additional direct payments for the U.S. agriculture sector? 
If so, to what commodity groups?  
  
Under the CFAP, what oversight mechanisms are in place to mo nitor the funds flowing out through 
the USDA and the CCC, keeping in mind that producer self -certification of the farm data is needed 
to calculate losses?  How is USDA addressing the possibility that this may create an incentive to over -
report losses?  
 
Answ er by United States of America  
 
a. Yes, $637 million of the CFAP 's originally announced funding was available for the purpose 
of providing assistance to producers of other commodities that are identified through the 
Notice of Funds Availability process.  As a result of this process, USDA announced on 
9 July 2020 an initial list of additional eligible commodities, changes to several currently 
eligible commodities, and corrections in payment rates based on comments and supporting 
data collected by USDA. Addi tional eligible commodities may be announced.  
b. With regards  to CFAP, see response above.  With regards to whether there will be further 
assistance to U.S. producers, USDA is in the process of evaluating the COVID -19 impact 
on the agriculture economy.   
c. Produc ers must have sales, inventory, and other records to apply for CFAP payments, 
which must be retained and produced  upon request.  Applicants are subject to spot checks G/AG/W/216  
 
- 88 - 
 
  and if they are found to have wilfully  provided inaccurate information, will be subject to  
prosecution under Federal criminal and civil fraud statutes.   
Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93232)  
The US announced the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), a 19 billion dollars program 
that provides financial supports to those affected by the COVID -19 pandemic, including farmers and 
ranchers. While the title of this new program is different from the trade mitigation programs of 2018 
and 2019, the structure of the programs appear to be quite similar, which all cover non -specialty 
crops, animal p roducts, specialty crops and so on. The CFAP uses the fund of the Coronavirus Aid, 
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES ACT), a temporary and new emergency appropriation. 
The payment rates are calculated based on price declines and payments are coupled  to the 
production or inventory of each agricultural product. According to statistics released by the USDA, a 
total of 365,262 applicants have received about 5.36 billion dollars as of 9  July. Cattle, milk, corn, 
hogs, soybeans, upland cotton and wheat are  among the commodities that received most supports.   
 
a. Could the US share with Members its evaluation on the impact of CFAP on the international 
agricultural mark et? 
b. Is there any linkage between the CFAP and the Trade Mitigation Programs of 2018 
and 2019? I f not, will the US provide any new agricultural trade aid package in 2020?  
c. How does the US intend to notify CFAP, especially the direct payment program? How could 
the US ensure its compliance with the WTO rules?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Could t he US share with Members its evaluation on the impact of CFAP on the international 
agricultural market?  
USDA is currently in the process of implementing this measure and has not undertaken an evaluation 
of the impacts of the program on international market s. It should be noted that because CFAP applies 
to production (or inventories) during a previous period, there is no tie to producers' planting 
decisions.  For example, CFAP row crop payments are made on the lesser of the producer's unpriced 
production or 5 0% of their 2019 production for eligible crops as of 15  January  2020. An eligible 
producer will receive the same payment regardless of what they plant in 2020. Therefore, the 
program design does not distort planting decisions. Specialty crop, livestock, an d dairy payments 
are based on production or inventory prior to announcement of the program.  
  
b. There is no linkage between the 2018 Market Facilitation Program, the 2019 Market 
Facilitation Program, and the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program; each is a sep arate 
ad hoc program with different objectives and purposes.  USDA is in the process of 
evaluating the COVID -19 impact on the agriculture economy as deliberations are made 
regarding further assistance to U.S. producers  
c. The United States will notify CFAP as part of the 2019/20 and 2020/21 notifications 
consistent with WTO rules.  
1.1.67.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93245)  
The United States recently decided to roll out a plan to promise the purchase of $3 billion worth of 
dairy, meat and fruits and vegetable produce f rom farmers under the "Farmers to Family Food Box" 
scheme, in order to help farmers during the Corona virus pandemic as part of the $19 billion 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. The products procured would be used to provide 
pre-approved boxes of fresh produce, dairy and meat to food banks and other non -profit 
organizations, as a part of the Agricultural Marketing Services.  
(Source: https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/usda -purchase -3-billion -agricultural -commodities -
issuesolicitations -interested ).  
 
The United Sta tes announced that it had already completed the first round of purchases at 
$1.2 billion on 30  June 2020, and that it plans to spend $1.47 billion in the second round of 
purchases through July and August 2020.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 89 - 
 
  (Source : https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-to-usda/farmers -to-families -food-box)  
 
In this context, India requests the United States to provide the following information:  
 
a. Details regarding the actual proc urement of fresh produce, dairy and meat products, as 
well as the actual expenditure on the procurement of each of these commodities.  
b. Details regarding the manner in which such procurement is being made, along with the 
procurement prices.  
c. How is this scheme different in operation from the general scheme under the Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS) distribution programmes, such as the emergency food assistance 
programme? Also, please specify the exclusion criteria, if any, under both these sch emes.  
d. How does the United States plan to notify this measure under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Farmers to Families Food Box Program (FFFBP) is administered in accordance with the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation, wh ich includes contracting regulations to ensure fair and 
reasonable pricing. The food boxes supplied through this program are contracted through 
a competitive bid process.  
As of 30  June, the first round of purchases under the FFFBP totalled  $1.2 billion. Th e second round 
of purchases, up to $1.47 billion, are being made from 1  July through 31  August  2020. As of 21  July, 
35.4 million food boxes had been invoiced for Round 1 contracts, with an additional 8.1  million food 
boxes so far invoiced for Round 2. Info rmation on contract awards for Round 1 can be found at 
https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-to-usda/farmers -to-families -food-box/approved -
contractors . 
  
b. All details regarding the program can be found at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-
to-usda/farmers -to-families -food-box. 
c. The Farmers to Families Food Box Program (FFFBP) and FNS' Food Distribution Programs, 
including The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental 
Food Program (CSFP) and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations  (FDPIR), 
both provide nutritional assi stance to people in need.  The Agricultural Marketing 
Service  (AMS) is administering the FFFBP and is partnering with regional and local 
distributors to provide up to $3 billion in pre -approved boxes of fresh produce, dairy and 
meat products to non -profit a nd governmental organizations serving Americans in need. 
The distributors and the non -profit or governmental organizations may determine the 
contents of the boxes based on local and national availability, local preferences, and other 
needs of the populatio ns served.  
d. The United States will notify the measure as part of the 2019/20 and 2020/21 domestic 
support notifications consistent with WTO rules.  
1.1.67.4   Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93299)  
With regard to the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP):  
 
Can the U nited States provide a breakdown of the following:   
 
a. Payments made under the CARES Act  to compensate for losses due to the disappearance 
of normal marketing channels: Amount per product; Number of producers that have 
benefitted; Main states that have benef itted.  
b. Payments made by the CCC to compensate for losses due to market disruptions: Amount 
per product; Number of producers that have benefitted; main states that have benefitted.  
c. With regard to payments made by the CCC, are market disruptions understood t o be price 
declines, or are there other types?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 90 - 
 
  d. With regard to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, what criteria were used to 
choose which producers' products should be purchased and distributed under the 
Program?  
e. With regard to the Farmers to Familie s Food Box Program, USD  3 billion has been 
budgeted, but there is talk of significant delays in implementation.   
i. What is the amount currently spent by the USDA on this Program?  
ii. Is the goal of distributing the USD 3 billion expected to be met on time? If no t, will the 
surplus be re -appropriated by Congress or can the USDA use it for other payments to 
producers?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
1. The United States 2016/17 domestic support notification was issued 23 September  2018.  The 
United States submitted its domestic support notification for 2017/18 to the WTO in mid -July. The 
United States is currently working on the 2018/19 notification.  The 2019/20 marketing year is 
ongoing. (Note this question and answer w as also submitted separately as AG -IMS ID 93310)   
  
Regarding the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP):  
  
2.a. Sign up for this program will not close until 28  August  2020, so final data are not yet 
available.  Currently available data on CFAP payment s can be found at 
https://www.farmers.gov/cfap/data . 
  
2.b. See response to question 2a above.  
  
2 c. Payments by CCC under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program provide financial assistance 
only to produ cers of specialty crops who had shipments that did not leave the farm or mature crops 
that remained unharvested.  
 
3. For the  Farmers to Families Food Box program, the criteria used to choose producers can be found 
in the Request for Proposal and Applicable  Attachments section at 
https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-to-usda/farmers -to-families -food-box. 
  
4.a. As of 15  July, current disbursements under the Farmers to Families Food Box program  are 
$975.6 million.  
  
4.b. We expect to timely distribute the $3 billion allocated for th e Farmers to Families Food Box 
program.  The funds cannot be used for any other purpose.  
 
1.1.67.5   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93240)  
On 17  April, the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, announced that the Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Program  (CFAP) had been set up. This is a programme designed to provide critical 
assistance to US farmers, totalling USD  19 billion. It was indicated that the CFAP would provide 
USD 16 billion indirect aid, based on losses in the marketing year 2020 caused by COVID -19, and 
USD 3 billion for the purchase of food as food aid. Furthermore, the USDA will provide additional 
funds for the purchase and distribution of food as food aid. The Republic of Paraguay would like to 
have greater clarity on this Program and would thus like to ask the United States for:  
 
a. Confirmation of whether this type of direct aid can be considered as market price 
support  (MPS);  
b. Eligibility criteria to receive such aid;  
c. Products covered by this Program;  
d. If it is foreseen to pursue the Program beyond the 2020  marketing year;  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 91 - 
 
  e. When the corresponding DS:1 notification is expected to be submitted and if the possibility 
of submitting a partial notification is being considered.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. and b. The payments under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program are designed to 
provide financial assistance to producers of agricultural commodities who have suffered a 
five-percent -or-greater price decline or who had losses due to market supply chain 
disruptions due to COVID -19 and face substantial marketing costs for inventories during 
a specified time frame. Information on how payments under CFAP are calculated and 
eligibility requirements can be found at: http://www.farmers.gov/cfap . The program is not 
a market price support measure.  
c. Eligible commodities for CFAP include non -specialty crops, wool, livestock, dairy, and 
specialty crops.  Further details can be found at: http://www.farmers.gov/cfap . 
d. There are currently no plans to continue this program beyond the 2020 marketing year.  
The United States will notify CFAP as part of the 2019/20 and 2020/21 notifications consistent with 
WTO rules. The United States would al so encourage Members to visit http://www.farmers.gov/cfap  
for extensive information on all aspects of this measure.  
  
US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  
1.1.68.1   Question by Europ ean Union (AG -IMS ID 93187)  
The EU understand that for every litre of pure alcohol exported to the US from the US Virgin Islands 
or Puerto Rico, the producers receive 50% of the excise taxes on that product, as well as excise tax 
on any rum from other sour ces exported to the US. This is equivalent to a subsidy of about US D 3 per 
litre. According to data available to the EU unaged rum costs about $1 – 1.50 per litre to produce in 
these countries.  
 
a. Can the US explain how this scheme works in practice includin g the origin of alcohol, 
eligible products, exact amount of excise duty exemptions per product, the estimated 
annual amount in question and the final beneficiaries of this scheme.  
b. Can the US give statistical information about quantities exported to the US  benefiting  from 
this scheme for the years 2014 to 2019.  
c. Can the US explain how is it ensures that products being exported (from Puerto Rico and 
the US Virgin Islands) to other parts of the world than the US does not benefiting  directly 
or indirectly from  this scheme?  
d. Has this subsidy been included in the recent DS:1 notifications from the US?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. There is no such scheme benefitting rum producers. Under U.S. law, rum produced in or 
imported into the United States is subject to an excise tax. Rum that is produced in Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and shipped to the United States is also subject to this 
excise tax. Under U.S. law, a portion of excise taxes on rum imported into the United 
States is transferred to the ge neral treasuries of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands  
b. As noted above, no such scheme exists. Rum produced in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands that is shipped to the United States is subject to the same excise tax as rum 
produced in or imported  into the United States.  
c. As stated above, there is no such scheme. Under U.S. law, a portion of excise taxes on 
rum imported into the United States is transferred to the general treasuries of Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 92 - 
 
  d. As stated above, there is no such subsidy to include in the U.S. DS:1 notification.  
US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  
1.1.69.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93188)  
According to a study from Kansas State University published in Applied Economic Perspectives and 
Policy (2020) volume 42, number 2, pp. 205 –226 by Joseph P. Janzen and Nathan P. Hendricks: Are 
Farmers Made Whole by Trade Aid? ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/a epp.13045 ) 
many farmers and sectors received more in compensation than their actual losses. In the case of 
cotton the study shows an overcompensation of 33 times the actual loss.  
 
During the Special COVID -19 meeting the US several times underlined that all its support measures 
would respect its WTO commitments, without however indicating how or when it would submit its 
outstanding DS:1 notifications.  
 
a. Does the US agree with the results presented in this st udy? If not, can the US explain 
what in the study it disagrees with.  
b. Has the US calculated the real losses of farmers compared to the compensation payments 
through MFP 1 and MFP 2? What are the results of any such calculations?  
c. How will the US ensure that similar overcompensation will not take place in future given 
it clearly influences farmers ' production  decisions in both the short and long term?   
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments were based on trade damage s measured 
by the value of disrupted trade; the referenced Kansas State University (KSU) study 
assessed price impacts.  Generally, price assessment only reflects the short terms impacts 
of the disruption and does not account for the full economic losses in terms of sales and 
revenues.  USDA 's calculations were based on trade damage, which reflects direct trade 
losses due to tariff retaliation and the long -term loss of market access.  The KSU study 
acknowledged that on a long -term basis, MFP may actually have u ndercompensated 
farmers, stating, "While payments exceed the tariff ‑related price impact in the short run, 
the program may not compensate for long ‑run losses due to the trade conflict. " Another 
recent study conducted by UC Davis and University of Connectic ut estimated that the 
retaliatory tariffs led to the destruction of $15.6 billion in gross exports on an annualized 
basis. This is in line with USDA 's trade damage estimates.   
b. The Market  Facilitation Program is not designed to compensate producers for shor t-term 
price-based losses.  See explanation above.  
c. The overall level of trade damage was established using the methodology detailed in the 
reports made by the USDA Office of the Chief Economist, available at 
https://www.usda.gov/oce/trade/USDA_Trade_Methodology_Report_2019.pdf  and 
https://www.usda.gov/oce/trade/USDA_Trade_Methodology_Repor t_2018.pdf . Further, 
USDA  designed the 2018 and 2019 Market Facilitation Programs to limit potential impacts 
on farmers ' decisions.   
U.S. Domestic Support policies and notifications  
1.1.70.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93085)  
a. As per a Congressional Research Service report, 
(https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45940.html#_Toc21341718 , accessed on 
2 March 2020), the USDA planned to make MFP payments for year 2019 trad e assistance 
program under a different formulation that avoids identifying payments with a specific 
crop i.e. shifting product specific support to non -product specific support. India requests 
the United States to kindly confirm this.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 93 - 
 
  b. The United States has notified its DS:1 notification up to marketing year 2016. In this 
regard, India requests the United States the following:  
i. When is the United States planning to file DS:1 notifications for years post 2016?  
ii. What are the reasons for delay in the notification?  
c. The United States on 28 February 2020 announced that it intends to make available up to 
$100 million in competitive grants for activities designed to expand the sale and use of 
renewable fuels through the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (av ailable at 
https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2020/02/28/secretary -perdue -directs -
usda-fleet-increase -biofuels -usage ). The factsheet for the Higher Blends Infrastructure 
Incentive Program, mentions that "U.S. farmers are producing record amounts of 
feedstocks for renewable fuels. However, lower commodity prices, paired with this record 
production, have caused uncertain time s for U.S. feedstocks producers". In this light, the 
US is requested to answer:  
i. Whether this programme will in any way benefit the farmers producing feedstocks such 
as corn and soybean for renewable fuels.  
ii. How is the US intending to notify this programme u nder domestic support 
notifications?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Congressional Research Service is an independent research arm of the Legislative 
Branch and not associated with Executive Branch policy implementation. The U.S. 
government has not made classification and reporting determinations with respect to MFP 
payments for 2019.  
b. The United States will notify its 2017 DS:1 soon. The U.S. notification is generally 
submitted after reporting of final data for programs that are implemented past the end of 
the marketing year. The  2017 notification has been delayed due to  unanticipated issues 
with data availability for a 2017  disaster assistance program.  
c.  
i. The HIIP program does not provide support to U.S. corn and soybean producers.  
ii. The HIIP program is not notified as domestic support.  
U.S. insurance programmes  
1.1.71.1   Question by  Canada (AG -IMS ID 93285)  
On 9 June 2020, the USDA Risk Management Agency announced changes to the Livestock Risk 
Protection (LRP) insurance program for feeder cattle, fed cattle and swine starting this summer with 
the 2021 crop year. Changes include movin g premium deadlines to the end of the endorsement 
period and increasing premium subsidies to assist producers. https://rma.usda.gov/en/News -
Room/Press/Press -Releases/2020 -News/USDA -Announces -Improvements -to-the-Livestock -Risk-
Protection -Insurance -Program -This-Summer  
 
a. Could the U.S. indicate what will be the new subsidy rate under the LRP program following 
these changes?   
b. Are these changes temporary and if so, when is the expected end date?   
c. In the last months, did the U.S. also increase the subsidy level for other insurance program 
or do they have the intention to increase the subsidy leve l for other insurance program? 
If so, by how much?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 94 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
 
a. New premium subsidy rates under the announced changes to the LRP program will only 
apply to those with an 80 % or higher coverage level.  At this level of coverage the pre mium 
rate will be increased by five percentage points.  
b. This is a permanent change to the program meant to make policies more usable and 
affordable for livestock producers in the long -term.  
c. No. 
Viet Nam – Potential Tariff Reductions on Certain Agricultural Products  
1.1.72.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93083)  
According to media reports, Viet Nam is considering decreasing import tariffs on some agricultural 
products. Viet Nam's motivation for possible tariff reductions on chicken, processed chicken meat , 
almonds, grapes, wheat, pork, and potatoes, however is not entirely clear. On the one side such 
action follows bilateral discussions with the United States and appears to have the objective of 
reducing Viet  Nam's agricultural bilateral trade surplus. A r eview of the WTO's Regional Trade 
Agreements database indicates that no such agreement exists between Viet Nam and the United 
States. On the other side, the Vietnamese Ministry also noted the potential tariff cuts on these 
agricultural products are in line  with the first -year reductions foreseen under the Comprehensive 
and Progressive Trans -Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Ukraine understands that the CPTPP has entered 
into force for  seven countries and that ratification for  four other countries is in their res pective 
process. Ukraine also understands that the United States is not a signatory to CPTPP, and would not 
benefit if the tariff reductions were taken in line with Viet  Nam's CPTTP commitments.  
 
a. Could Viet Nam confirm their intention to cut import tariff s on certain agricultural 
products?  
b. Could Viet Nam also provide more background to the potential basis for such tariff 
reductions on these agricultural products, in particular, will this be limited based on a 
Regional Trade Agreement, might the possible t ariff reductions be based on most -favoured 
nation conditions?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
On 25 May 2020, Viet  Nam promulgated a Decree on adjusting import tariffs for a number of 
commodities (including agricultural products) and the application is based on the MFN principle. The 
decision to adjust these tariffs was considered on the basis of domestic production and consumption 
needs.  
 
1.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  
1.2.1.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/55)  
AG-IMS ID 93088: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Brazil's implementation of a 750,000 metric tonnes tariff rate quota for wheat 
with a zero in -quota duty.   
  
Can Brazil advise the current fill rate of the quota, and whether this information is publicly available 
for interested traders?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
From 18 November 2019 to 9 May 2020, 192,065 tonnes (25,6% of the quota volume) in licenses 
were granted. Updated quota fill information can be found at: G/AG/W/216  
 
- 95 - 
 
  http://www.siscomex.gov.br/informacoes/importacao/  Search for "COTAS DE IMPORTAÇÃO" - 
"COTA CAMEX" - HS NUMBER.  
 
1.2.1.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/247)  
AG-IMS ID 93089: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia welcomes Japan's submission of a MA:1 notification regarding the opening of a number of 
TRQs. Can Japan confirm:  
 
a. The policy rationale for the implementation of each of the TRQs;  
b. The date that each TRQ was first opened?  
Answer by Japan  
 
MA:1 notification made in December 2019 was to notify the following changes but did not establish 
any new TRQ. i) revision of the tariff item number according to HS code revision and ii) modification 
of allocation times and validity period of license for improving implementation.  
 
Imports under tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA:2)  
1.2.2.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/56)  
AG-IMS ID 93020: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
Brazil indicates in the footnote that imports of common wheat reached 6,817,138 metric tonnes 
in 2018.  
 
a. At what duty rates did these imports take place?  
b. What were the origins of these imports?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. The maximum ad valorem tariff was 10% (Mercosur's Common External Tariff). This 
information is also available at http://tariffdata.wto.org/  NCM Description Duty rate 
1001.11.00 Durum wheat, Seeds 0% 1001.19.00  Durum wheat, Other  10% 1001.91.00 
Other wheat, Seeds 0% 1001.99.00 Other wheat, Other 10% However, certain countries, 
such as MERCOSUR Members, enjoy preferential access due to free -trade agreements.  
b. Brazil Wheat (10.01 SH) imports (2018) ISO  3166 Country Co de USD KG AR 
1,303,808,686.00 5,939,491,318.00 PY 76,822,185.00 339,818,780.00 US 
62,971,623.00 273,630,728.00 CA 43,086,094.00 197,282,033.00 UY  7,393,968.00 
30,842,142.00 RU 5,763,193.00 26,229,902.00 FR 2,491,800.00 9,800,000.00 
LB 42,855.00 42,631.00 C N 2,250.00 300.00 TOTAL 1,502,382,654.00 
6,817,137,834.00 . 
1.2.2.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/137)  
AG-IMS ID 93306: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States thanks Canada for submitting its market access (MA:2) notification 
(G/AG/N/CAN/ 137) for marketing year 2017/18, quota year 2017/18, and calendar year 2018.  
 
It appears there is an error in reporting on the Milk and Dairy Products: Cheese tariff quota. In 
table MA:2, the access quantity is reported as 20,411.866 ton nes, but that is in correct, the correct 
access quantity is 20,411,866 ton nes. The in -quota imports reported for this tariff quota are 
20,146  tonnes, and the fill rate is reported as 98.7 %. If the in -quota quantity imported were actually 
20,146  tonnes, then the fill rate was very low.  Please clarify the correct figures for Milk and Dairy 
Products: Cheese tariff quota in table MA:2.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 96 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
Canada 's access quantity for cheese contained in the MA:2 notification is at the appropriate 
commitment level and hence the fill  rate information is appropriate. Canada 's WTO cheese 
commitment is 20,411.866 tonnes or 20,411,866 in kilograms. Canada invites the U.S. to take note 
of the most recent version of its schedule of commitments (G/RS/24), dated 15 December  1994, 
which was in cluded in the Procès -Verbal of Rectification (WT/Let/16).  
AG-IMS ID 93312: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand has previously queried Canada 's quota underfill (refer AG -IMS ID 91017). New Zealand 
notes that the quotas continue to suffer from significant underfill. Acknowledging Canada is currently 
undertaking Phase II of its comprehensive review of the allocation and administration of tariff rate 
quotas for supply -managed projects (refer AG -IMS ID 93046), can Canada please advise h ow it will 
enable quotas to be fully utilised going forward?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
As Canada has previously noted, a variety of market circumstances can influence fill rates. 
Depending on the TRQ, this can include: competitive domestic prices, low domestic demand, quality 
considerations, product availability and prices in export markets, market proximity, and 
transportation and insurance costs.  
 
Canada has put in place TRQ administration policies designed to maximize TRQ fill, such as "return 
and re allocation" policies and "under -utilization" penalties.  
 
In 2019, Canada launched a series of consultations under its Comprehensive Review of the Allocation 
and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products (the Review) with the  
objective of creating long -term policies to ensure the continued efficiency and effectiveness of 
Canada 's TRQs for dairy, poultry and egg products.  
 
On 1 May 2020, Canada 's Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade 
temporarily s uspended the Review. This temporary suspension recognizes the impact the COVID -19 
situation is having on stakeholders and allows them to focus on other pressing issues and operational 
requirements.  
 
The Review, including stakeholder consultations, will res ume in the future at an appropriate time. 
Canada will notify its trading partners upon resumption of the Review.  
Questions may be addressed to: TRQConsultat ion.ConsultationCT@international.gc.ca  
AG-IMS ID 93304: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States thanks Canada for submitting its market access (MA:2) notification 
(G/AG/N/CAN/137)  for marketing year 2017/18, quota year 20 17/18, and calendar year 2018.  The 
United States would like to note its concern regarding the consistently low fill rates for several of 
Canada 's tariff -rate quotas (TRQ), which continue in the most recent notification.  In particular, 
concentrated/condense d milk/cream, yogurt, and powdered buttermilk, for which the fill rate of each 
product has remained below 65% for at least the past four years.  In addition, the fill rates for yogurt 
and powdered buttermilk decreased from 2017 to 2018; in the case of powde red buttermilk, the 
decrease in fill rate was quite significant. The United States notes Canada 's response to NZ question 
AG-IMS ID 91017 on tariff rate quota administration, including for dairy products. In response to 
that question, Canada stated, "In Ma y 2019, Global Affairs Canada launched a comprehensive review 
of TRQ administration and allocation of supply -managed tariff rate quotas. " and "Consultation results 
will inform recommendations for longer -term allocation and administration policies. " 
 
Phase II of Canada 's comprehensive review of TRQ administration was halted on 1 May 2020.When 
will Canada 's review recommences ? 
 
Based on the information gained from Canada 's comprehensive review of TRQ administration so far, 
does Canada have any plans to revise  its policies for administration of dairy tariff -rate quotas?  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 97 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada 's Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade has  
temporarily suspended the Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and  Administration of 
Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products  - Phase II (the Review).  
This temporary suspension recognizes the impact the COVID -19 situation is  having on stakeholders 
and allows them to focus on other pressing issues and  operational requirements.  
 
The Review, including stakeholder consultations, will resume in the future at  an appropriate time. 
Canada will notify its trading partners upon resumption of  the Review.  
 
Questions  may be addressed to: TRQConsultation.Consultati onCT@international.gc.ca . 
 
b. Canada  cannot prejudge the results of the Comprehensive Review and the Minister 's 
decisions. Once the Comprehensive Review resumes, Canada will  continue its outreach 
and engagement with the provinces, domestic stakeholders,  and international trading 
partners. Officials will review all feedback  and submit recommendations to the Minister of 
Small Business,  Export Promotion and International Trade for decision.  
1.2.2.3   Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/64)  
AG-IMS ID 93307: Question by Uni ted States of America - Transparency issues  
TARIFF QUOTA FILL (TABLES MA:2),  
 
Chile notes that importers filled 0% of its Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) CHLQ001 in the 2019 calendar 
year (G/AG/N/CHL/64) but does not list the fill rate for 2018 in its submission.   
 
Was the TRQ opened in 2018 and, if so, what was the fill rate?  
 
Answer by Chile  
 
Following the question from the United States, Chile noted the inconsistency in the format of the 
Table  MA:2 notifications for 2018 and 2019. These errors were corrected on 27  July through the 
circulation of revisions of both notifications (G/AG/N/CHL/63/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CHL/64/Rev.1). 
These notifications were made on the basis of the guides designed by the WTO Secretariat for such 
purposes and show that there we re no changes from the previous notifications, meaning that the 
non‑use of the quota is due to the fact that the applied tariff (0%) is equal to the in ‑quota bound 
tariff.  
 
1.2.2.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/50)  
AG-IMS ID 93091: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
China's latest MA:2 notification, pertaining to calendar year 2018, demonstrates that the fill -rate for 
tariff-rate quota CHNQ002 ("corn") decreased during the past years, coming from 72% in 2012 
(G/AG/N/CHN/26) to 39,3% in 2018.  
 
a. Could China provide data on  market circumstances that could explain such reduction of 
the volume of imports under TRQ CHNQ002?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
c. What are the procedures and criteria for granting import licenses for corn?  
d. What is the share of state -owned en terprises in the total of Chinese corn imports?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 98 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
We are still collecting and verifying information.   
AG-IMS ID 93090: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks China for submitting its MA:2 for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/CHN/50). Australia 
notes a number of tariff quotas had a fill rate of less than 65% (wheat: 32.2%, corn:  39.3%, 
rice: 57.8%).  
 
a. Can China explain if it is considering changes to the administration of the TRQs for wheat, 
corn and rice to improve the  TRQ fill rates?  
b. If so, can China please provide details of the possible changes, including the timelines for 
such changes?  
Answer by China  
 
China will administer the TRQs for wheat, corn and rice in accordance with the WTO rules and China 's 
accession co mmitments. The total quantities committed will be allocated to end -users, and the quota 
holders have full discretion on importation according to the market conditions and their actual 
needs.   
AG-IMS ID 93092: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota f ill 
TRQs for wheat (CHNQ001), corn (CHNQ002) and rice (CHNQ003, CHNQ004) are filled by less 
than 60%. Share of state -trading enterprises (STEs) in TRQ for wheat which has the lowest fill -in 
rate (32,2%) is 90%; share of STEs in TRQ for corn (fill -in rate: 39,3%) is 60%; share of STEs 
in TRQ for rice (fill -in rate: 57,8%) is 40%. During the period from 2013 to 2018 in 2014, 2015 
and 2018 fill -in rates of TRQ for wheat were lower than 36%. In comparison with fill -in rate in  2017, 
in 2018 fill -in rate of wheat  TRQ decreased by more than 10%. Since 2015 to 2018 fill -in rate of  TRQ 
for corn declined from 65% to 39%. In 2018 in comparison with the data of 2017 fill -in rate of TRQ 
for rice declined from 75,7% to 57,8%.  
  
a. Could China please provide explanations for  instantly low fill -in rate of TRQ for wheat and 
declines in fill -in rates of TRQs for wheat, corn and rice?  
b. Could China please explain direct correlation between the low fill -in rate and the share of 
state trading enterprises in imports under TRQs?  
Answ er by China  
 
We are still collecting and verifying information.   
 
1.2.2.5   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/57)  
AG-IMS ID 93094: Question  by Brazil - Transparency issues  
a. Could the European Union provide data on the "apportionment" of imports under the TRQs 
listed in docum ent G/AG/N/EU/57 between the EU -27 and the United Kingdom during 
marketing year 2018/2019? i  
b. Does the field "in -quota imports during period" indicate all imports of goods under the 
tariff lines included in the TRQs?  
c. Why were some of the EU TRQs not includ ed in the notification? Specifically, would the 
European Union have data on in -quota imports for EECQ026 and EECQ028?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The apportionment of the WTO TRQs is based on the respective import shares of the EU-
27 and the UK in a given tariff rate quota during a representative three -year period 2013 -
15. This period was chosen as it was considered the most representative when laun ching 
the negotiations under the GATT Article XXVIII procedure. These negotiations are G/AG/W/216  
 
- 99 - 
 
  confidential and are currently ongoing with the WTO Members whose rights the EU has 
recognised.  
b. As the note on page 9 of the document G/AG/N/EU/57 indicates, the figures in column  4 
"in-quota imports during period" represent effective imports of goods under the tariff lines 
included in all the TRQs, except for EECQ005 to EECQ013, EECQ017, EECQ018, EE CQ021 
to EECQ025, EECQ027, EECQ029, EECQ030, EECQ031, EECQ033 to EECQ037, EECQ039, 
EECQ042, EECQ043, EECQ046, EECQ088 to EECQ096, EECQ098, EECQ099, and EECQ124 
where the quantity indicated is based on authorizations to import.  
c. The figures in the notificat ion G/AG/N/EU/57 concern imports under tariff quotas during 
the marketing year 2018/2019. The quotas which are administered on a calendar year 
basis will be notified at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 93093: Question by Australia  - Tariff quota fill  
Australia th anks the EU for submitting its MA:2 for marketing year 2018/2019 (G/AG/N/EU/57). 
Australia notes a number of tariff quotas did not record any fill (0%) or less than 65% fill rate.  
 
a. Can the EU explain the reasons for the significant underfill of some of it s tariff quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, can the EU explain whether the under -fill was due to market 
circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Did the EU consider using the TRQ underfill mechanism as out lined by the Bali Decision?  
Answer by European Union  
 
Please see the reply provided to question AG-IMS ID 93061 asked by Paraguay.  
AG-IMS ID 93095: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand welcomes the European Union's notification concerni ng imports under tariff rate quotas 
during the marketing year 2018/2019. New Zealand notes that a significant number of the 
TRQ quotas have very low fill rates, particularly in regards to dairy products. Could the EU please 
provide an explanation of the ci rcumstance such as market conditions or other factors which lead to 
the low fill rates of these quotas. Additionally, has the EU considered removing in quota tariffs?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Please see the reply provided to question AG-IMS ID 93061 aske d by Paraguay.  
AG-IMS ID 93061: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks the European Union for the submission of the notification contained 
in document G/AG/N/EU/57 concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) during  the 
marketing year 2018/2019. It notes with concern that several tariff quotas have very low tariff fill 
rates. In this regard, Paraguay requests the European Union to provide further information on:  
 
a. The reasons for the under -fill of the following tarif f quotas:  
- EECQ011: tariff fill rate of  1.6% ; 
- ECCQ015: tariff fill rate of 2.4% ;  
- ECCQ017: tariff fill rate of 2.2% ;  
- ECCQ018: tariff fill rate of 3.9% ;  
- ECCQ022: tariff fill rate of 50.6% ;  
- ECCQ022: tariff fill rate of 0% ;  
- ECCQ066: tariff fill rate of 1.6% ;  
- ECCQ089: tariff fill rate of 27.3% ;  
- ECCQ091: tariff fill rate of 31% . 
b. It also wishes to know whether the European Union is taking appropriate steps to ensure 
the effective utilization of these quotas.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 100 - 
 
  Answer by European Uni on 
 
A similar question was submitted by Paraguay during the recent EU TPR as a follow -up as regards 
paragraph 3.42 of the EU TPR Secretariat Report. The EU already provided a reply and therefore 
does not see the need to repeat that reply to Paraguay.  
AG-IMS ID 93237: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The Republic of Paraguay is submitting this question following the EU's reply to 
question  AG‑IMS 93061.  
  
In this respect, we wish to point out that the question does not refer to the EU's policy regar ding 
the administration of quotas in general, as in the question posed within the TPR context, but to a 
specific notification subject to this review process in which quotas of interest have been identified.  
  
Furthermore, by the date of the EU's reply to t his question from Paraguay, i.e. , 24 March  2020, and 
by the date of the submission of this follow ‑up question, Paraguay had still not received the 
EU's replies to the questions submitted to it as part of its TPR process. It should be noted that these 
replies were not circulated to the Membership until May and are currently being examined by our 
authorities. We therefore request once again that the EU provide further information on:  
 
The reasons for the low fill rate in respect of the following quotas: EECQ 011 (1.6%), 
EECQ015  (2.4%), EECQ017 (2.2%), EECQ018 (3.9%), EECQ066 (1.6%), EECQ089  (27.3%) 
and EECQ091 (31.2%);  
 
Whether the EU is taking the necessary steps to ensure the effective utilization of these quotas and 
whether it could provide examples of the  steps it is taking.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
A already explained for similar questions in the recent past, but also during the last EU TPR, if 
EU TRQs are not filled this is essentially due to economic reasons. Thanks to continuous reforms, 
EU internal prices have converged towards world prices so making EU products more  competitive 
against imports in many agricultural sectors. The EU has also concluded many bilateral trade 
agreements, further liberalising its agricultural sector. Economic opera tors and consumers have 
therefore more choices that influence the attractiveness of WTO bound TRQs. Any low fill rate is thus 
normally linked to market circumstances. Any impact of SPS measures is temporary and ends once 
the reason for the measure has ende d, e.g. , avian flu.  
Specifically concerning the TRQs that Paraguay has requested additional information about:  
 
• EECQ011 (1.6%) on frozen beef meat: This quota is a specific quota for frozen meat but for 
processing only. Currently this quota is managed by l icenses. The EU is considering changing 
its management to First -Come, First -Served.  
• EECQ015 (2.4%), EECQ017 (2.2%) and EECQ018 (3.9%) on meat of swine: African Swine 
Fever in Asia radically changed the trade the past years and flows are now reoriented towa rd 
Asia and in particular China. This TRQ is managed on a basis of First -Come, First -Served.  
• EECQ066 (1.6%) on durum wheat: Historically, this quota has attracted less interest since the 
EU reform of the cereal sector, particularly as the applied MFN rate has been set as zero. In 
addition, the EU has recorded exceptional harvests in recent years. This TRQ is managed on 
a First -Come, First -Served basis.  
• EECQ089 (27.3%) and EECQ091 (31.2%) on processed poultry meat: Part of these TRQs are 
country allocated t o Brazil. The lower utilisation rate under was due to persistent sanitary 
problems in poultry imports from Brazil (fraudulent case of salmonella )9 over 2018 and 2019, 
 
9 Source Politico on 7 July 2020:  
• EU COURT DISMISSES CHALLENGE FROM BRAZILIAN POULTRY EXPORTERS: The EU's General Court 
dismissed a case brought by two Brazilian poultry producers that were seeking to overturn an EU regulation 
blocking them from exportin g to Europe on public health grounds. In 2018, the European Commission barred 
12 poultry farms belonging to the Brazilian chicken giants BRF and SHB from exporting their produce to the EU G/AG/W/216  
 
- 101 - 
 
  the period that is covered by this WTO notification (marketing year 2018 -2019). In May 2 018, 
more than 20 Brazilian poultry establishments were delisted from those authorised to export 
poultry meat and poultry preparations into the EU. As a result, EU poultry imports from Brazil 
significantly dropped in 2018 or 2019 ( -25% as compared to 2017) . 
AG-IMS ID 93096: Question  by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federation thanks the European Union for its MA:2 notification concerning import under 
TRQs. The Russian Federation noticed that 15 of 60 TRQs under which volumes were imported during 
2018-2019 marketing year (EECQ001, EECQ002, EECQ003, EECQ013 , EECQ014, EECQ019, 
EECQ021, EECQ023, EECQ027, EECQ030, EECQ035, EECQ036, EECQ037, EECQ097, EECQ111) had 
zero or almost zero fill -in rate. Could European Union provide the reasons for the absence of import 
under mentioned TRQs?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Please see the reply provided to question AG-IMS ID 93061 asked by Paraguay.  
 
1.2.2.6   Japan  (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  
AG-IMS ID 93204: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Japan for the submission of its MA:2 for 2018. Australia notes that Japan notif ied a 
fill rate of less than 65% for nine of its quotas.  
 
a. Can Japan explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Japan considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali Decision?  
Answer by Japan  
  
a. and b. The low fill rates of nine items are mainly due to the decrease in domestic demand and 
market circumstances. Regarding barley, as answered in AG -IMS ID 91082, the reason for the low 
fill rate is that the quantity imported from Australia under the Japan - Australia Economic Partnership 
Agreement is excluded from the notification since 2016.  
 
c. Japan  has already improved the TRQ administration by introducing more frequent allocation and  
modifying the validity period of licenses.  
  
1.2.2.7   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/7)  
AG-IMS ID 93205: Question by Australia - Tariff  quota fill  
Australia thanks Kazakhstan for the s ubmission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Kazakhstan 
notified a fill rate of less than 65 % for two of its three quotas.  
  
a. Can Kazakhstan explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill d ue to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
 
because of an uptick in cases of salmonella, and cases of fraud in t he licensing of products to be exported to 
the EU. (Refresher.)  
• Safety first: The General Court judged that the EU was right to reject the companies' challenge 
because of the scale of fraud Brazilian companies had been involved in. In its judgment, the c ourt said 
documents from a Brazilian investigation had found evidence of fraudulent behavior "involving the participation 
of high -ranking staff and the knowledge of members of the boards of directors of both applicant companies."  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 102 - 
 
  c. Has Kazakhstan considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
Answer by Kazakhstan  
 
AG-IMS ID 93189: Question  by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Could Kazakhstan explain the reason for the low fill rate of the TRQ for fresh, chilled and frozen 
beef?  
 
Answer by Kazakhstan  
 
1.2.2.8   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/71, G/AG/N/KOR/72, G/AG/N/KOR/73)  
AG-IMS ID 93097 : Question by Australi a - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for submitting its MA:2 for Calendar Years 2016, 2017 
and 2018 (G/AG/N/KOR/71, G/AG/N/KOR/72 and G/AG/N/KOR/73). Australia notes a number of 
tariff quotas had a fill rate of less than 65% (in 2018 potatoes: 49.1%, onions: 0%, citrus 
fruits:  36.7%).  
 
a. Can the Republic of Korea explain the reasons for the significant underfill of some of its 
tariff quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, can the Republic of Korea explain whether the under -fill was 
due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?  
c. Did the Republic of Korea consider using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the 
Bali Decision?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a.  
i. Onion: Onion production in 2018 increased by 17% and 32% respectively compared 
to that of 2016 and 2017. The underfill of KORQ020 was attributable to sudden spike 
in domestic production, increase in stock and price fall in 2018.  
(Unit: thousand tonnes, %)  
 2016  2017  2018 
 Production  TRQ fill rate  Production  TRQ fill rate  Production  TRQ fill rate  
Onion  1,299  99.5 1,145  98.5 1,521  0 
  
ii. Potato: Potatoes are applied 0% duty when imported under KOR -US FTA TRQ · 
seasonal duty and under KOR -AUS FTA seasonal duty. WTO in-quota duty on potatoes 
is higher (30%) than that under bilateral agreements.  
iii. Citrus fruits: Applied tariffs and in -quota tariffs are the same (50%) for citrus fruits. 
Citrus fruits are applied 0% in -quota duty and seasonal duty under KOR -US FTA.  
b. The fill rates for the mentioned TRQs are the result of market circumstances. There was 
no SPS measure taken on potatoes, onions, and oranges during the period 2016 -2018, 
and TRQ administration remains the same during the same period.  
c. The Republic of Korea has  managed and will be managing TRQ complying to the 2013 Bali 
TRQ Decision.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 103 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93098 : Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
The Republic of Korea's most recent MA:2 notifications indicated a steep decline on the fill rate of 
TRQs KORQ020  (onions) an d KORQ021 (garlic), from 99.5% and 100% respectively during calendar 
year 2016 to 0% during calendar year 2018.  
a. Could the Republic of Korea provide data on market circumstances that could explain such 
a reduction of the volume of imports under TRQs KORQ02 0 and KORQ021?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a.  
i. Onion: Onion production in 2018 increased by 17% and 32% respectively compared 
to that of 2016 and 2017. The underfill of KORQ020 was attributable  to sudden spike 
in domestic production, increase in stock and price fall in 2018.  
ii. Garlic: Garlic production increased by 10%  in 2017 and 20% in 2018 compared to that 
of 2016. Under -utilization of KORQ021 in 2018 was  due to huge amount of garlic stock 
produced in 2016 coupled with steep increase in production in 2017 and 2018.  
Please refer to the table below for the production of onion and garlic during 2016 to 2018.  
(Unit: thousand tonnes, %)  
  2016  2017  2018  
  Production  TRQ fill rate  Production  TRQ fill rate  Production  TRQ fill rate  
Onion  1,299  99.5 1,145  98.5 1,521  0 
Garlic  276 100 304 1.7 332 0 
  
b. Due to fixed amount of demand on imported onions, 59,700 tonnes of onions  
(HS code 0703.1.1000, 0712.20.0000) were imported ou tside the TRQs in 2018. Small 
amount of garlic  (about 5,000 tonnes) was imported outside the TRQs during the same 
year. 
(Unit: thousand tonnes)  
HS Code  Item  Import Quantity  
0703.10.1000  Onions (fresh or chilled)  58.0 
0712.20.0000  Onions (dried)  1.7 
0712.90.1000  Garlic (dried)  0.1 
0703.20.1000  Garlic (fresh or chilled/peeled)  0.7 
0703.20.9000  Garlic (fresh or chilled/other)  5.0 
AG-IMS ID 93099 : Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
During three consecutive years (2016 -2018) several TRQs were zero filled or about to be zero -filled: 
KORQ001 (cattle and buffalo: pure bred breeding animals), KORQ002 (swine: pure bred breeding), 
KORQ012 (bird's eggs, not in shell/not dried), KORQ014 (powd er of bones), KORQ015 (silkworm 
eggs), KORQ016 (fruit trees), KORQ017 (mulberry trees), KORQ018 (seed potatoes), KORQ026 
(sweet potatoes), KORQ044 (foxtail millet), KORQ055 (ginseng), KORQ063 (oil -cake and other 
residues of sesamum seeds), KORQ066 (silk -worm cocoons suitable for reeling).  
Could the Republic of Korea please indicate the reasons for zero fill -in rate of mentioned TRQs?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
The fill rates of TRQs in certain year are affected by various market factors, including dome stic 
supply and demand, fluctuation  in international price, and quarantine issues. For the most cases of 
mentioned TRQs, strong preference for domestic product and quarantine issues account for the zero 
import during 2016 -2018.  
a. Cattle and buffalo: due to q uarantine issue, only two countries (Australia and New 
Zealand) are allowed to export live cattle and buffalo to the Republic of Korea. However, 
due to some disagreement between the Republic of Korea and these two countries over G/AG/W/216  
 
- 104 - 
 
  the test method of animal d iseases regarding import health requirement and strong 
objection from Australian animal protection groups, there has been no import of live cattle.  
b. Swine: the Republic of Korea imports swine with zero import duty from the U.S., EU, and 
Canada  FTAs.  
c. Bird's eggs: bound rate of processed egg products such as egg white and egg yolk which 
can replace bird's egg is lower than that of bird's  eggs. (Bound rate of processed egg 
products: 27%, in -quota rate of bird's eggs: 30%)  
d. Powder of bones: importation from the BSE -affected countries is not allowed and as the 
quarantine process for bone powder imported from non -BSE-affected countries is also 
thorough and strict, an alternative (calcium phosphate) is used instead.  
e. Silkworm eggs, mulberry trees, seed potatoes, foxtail millet: domestic production meets 
demand for the mentioned items.  
f. Fruit trees: there was no domestic demand for fruit trees.  
g. Sweet potatoes: with 99.3% of self -sufficiency rate, only few amounts of sweet potatoes 
are imported for canning.  
h. Ginseng: Korean people strongly prefer domestic ginseng. There is almost no demand for 
foreign ginseng.  
i. Oil-cake and other residues of sesamum seeds: the oil cake produced from the sesame oil 
in the Republic of Korea is fresher and has low risk of turning rancid than that imported 
from overseas while price of domestic and overseas products are the same at KRW 400/kg. 
In addition, not many countries consume sesame oil which makes it difficult to import 
sesame meal.  
j. Silk-worm cocoons suitable for reeling: the Republic of Korea imports silk, instead of 
silkwor m cocoons.  
1.2.2.9   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/48, G/AG/N/MAR/48 /Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/49, 
G/AG/N/MAR/50 , G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52 ) 
AG-IMS ID 93100: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federati on thanks Morocco for its MA:2 notifications (G/AG/N/MAR/48, 
G/AG/N/MAR/49, G/AG/N/MAR/50, G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52). Russian Federation noticed 
that during the period from 2013 to 2017 TRQ for sheep meat (MARQ002) were zero filled or about 
to be zero filled. Could Morocco please indicate the reasons for such low fill -in rates?  
Answer by Morocco  
In Morocco, the sheep meat market is open and is governed only by the rules of supply and demand. 
In addition, following the implementation of the agricultural sector modernization strategy, "Plan 
Maroc Vert", the sheep meat sector has performed well in recent years, with, most notably, the 
continued genetic improvement of livestock, an increased supply in volume and better quality.  
This sector's growth and posit ive momentum are helping Morocco meet its demand for sheep meat 
through domestic production and have resulted in weak demand for imported sheep meat.  
AG-IMS ID 93101: Question by Brazil  - Transparency issues  
Morocco's latest MA:2 notifications, pertaining to calendar years 2013 to 2017, indicate that tariff 
rate quota MARQ003 ("white meat") has had a very low fill rate, ranging from 6.4% in 2017 to 30% 
in 2013.  
a. Could Morocco provide data on market circumstances that could explain such reduced 
volume of imp orts under TRQ MARQ003?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 105 - 
 
  c. Has there been any change in the administration method or the establishment of new 
non-tariff requirements for the imports of products under TRQ MARQ003?  
d. Which economic operators are enti tled to apply for an import license for white meat?  
e. Is Morocco considering updating its TRQ administration method in order to allow economic 
operators to seize the commercial opportunities deriving from TRQ MARQ003?  
Answer by Morocco  
a. In Morocco, the white meat market is open and is governed only by the rules of supply 
and demand. In addition, the white meat sector has performed well in recent years 
following the implementation of the agricultural sector modernization strategy, "Plan 
Maroc Vert", which  has improved productivity, the quality of white meat products and the 
sector's competitiveness.  
This strong performance is enabling Morocco to meet its demand for white meat through domestic 
production and has resulted in weak demand for imported white me at. 
b. Imports  remain within quota limits.  
c. No changes  were made to the administration method for TRQ MARQ003 and no new 
non-tariff requirements were established for poultry meat for the period 2013 2017.  
d. All the economic operators of countries with which Moro cco has negotiated and validated 
sanitary certificates on a bilateral basis.  
e. The administration method used by Morocco for TRQ MARQ003 advocates the principle of 
"first come, first served". This method has no impact on the above TRQ fill rate which 
depends  instead on supply and demand and strong sector performance. Morocco is not 
considering updating its TRQ administration method.  
1.2.2.10   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/54)  
AG-IMS ID 93206: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Nicaragua for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Nicaragua 
recorded a fill rate of 55.8% for milk.  
a. Can Nicaragua explain the reasons for that underfilled quota?  
b. Was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictiv e tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Nicaragua considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
Answer by Nicaragua  
In follow -up to the questions posed by Australia regarding Notification MA.2 for 2019 
(G/AG/N/NIC/54), please no te the following:  
 
a. The tariff quota for imports of powdered milk established by Nicaragua in accordance with 
WTO bound schedule XXIX was utilized by 68.9% on average for the period 2006 to 2019. 
This is due mainly to that fact that Nicaragua is a net expo rter of liquid milk, milk powder, 
cheese and other dairy products. As such, it is ranked first in Central America.  
The quota fill in 2019 was 55.8%, which was the lowest in the past 10 years; this decrease, according 
to the users, was because of low domes tic demand for imported milk powder, primarily whole milk 
powder.  
 
In terms of administration, it is important to note that the quota was fully allocated in 2019.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 106 - 
 
  However, during the period for returning allocated volumes, which takes place in the first th ree 
working days of September, users returned 803 MT, for which only 100 applications were submitted 
during the reallocation process.  
 
b. The low tariff quota fill in 2019 is due to market circumstances because of a higher supply 
of domestic dairy products.  
c. Nicaragua establishes the process of allocation and administration of WTO tariff quotas in 
accordance with the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, including the Bali 
Decision.  
The Ministerio de Fomento, Industria y Comercio, MIFIC (Ministry of Develo pment, Industry and 
Trade), is the government body responsible for the allocation and administration of WTO tariff rate 
quotas and those in existing trade agreements.  
 
The provisions for the allocation and administration of WTO tariff rate quotas are estab lished 
annually through ministerial agreements, published in the Official Journal La Gaceta and on the 
MIFIC website.  
 
These ministerial agreements contain, among other provisions, those aimed at regulating the 
following:  
1.Allocation, which includes the requirements for participating in the allocation of the tariff quota, 
the periods for submission and review of applications and the methods for distribution and issuance 
of import licences.  
2. Administration: Monitoring of the utilization of allocated volu mes, the redistribution of volumes 
returned by users, import periods and penalties.  
 
MIFIC Ministerial Agreement No. 009 -2019 was adopted, which contains the regulations for the 
allocation and administration of the WTO milk powder tariff quota for 2019.  
(http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/normaweb.nsf/($All)/FFCC233B9716821E062583E80056DCF3?
OpenDocument ) 
 
1.2.2.11   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/110)  
AG-IMS ID 93207: Question by Australia  - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Norway for the submis sion of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Norway 
recorded a fill rate of less than 65% for ten of those TRQs opened.  
Can Norway explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market c ircumstances, SPS measures for the 
product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
Has Norway considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali Decision?  
Answer by Norway  
The reason for underfill with regard to some of the 21 import  quotas is lack of commercial interest 
for the import quotas in the market.  
See answer a.  
Norway has not considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali Decision.  
AG-IMS ID 93181: Question  by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand  welcomes Norway 's notification (G/AG/N/NOR/104) concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2019.  
New Zealand notes that a number of a number of tariff rate quotas are consistently under filled 
particularly NORQ229 – butter, butter and other fats and oils derived from milk.  
Can Norway please advise whether the under fill is due to market circumstances or other causes?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 107 - 
 
  For those quotas that are significantly and consistently under filled, can Norway explain what steps 
it is taking to ensure that quotas are not under filled and any consideration it has given to moving 
to a tariff only regime?  
Answer by Norway  
The reason for under fill with regard to some of the 21 import quotas is lack of commercial interest 
for the import q uotas in the market.  
With reference to answer 1, Norway has not considered to move to a tariff only regime.  
1.2.2.12   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/55)  
AG-IMS ID 93208 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Panama for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Panama 
recorded a fill rate of less than 65% for ten of those TRQs opened.  
Can Panama explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the 
product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
Has Panama considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali Decision?  
Answer by Panama  
a. Despite the fact that Panama has made tariff rate quotas  available for the corr esponding 
participation of economic operators, on many  occasions the latter are unable to agree on 
prices with their sellers or vice  versa and decide not to carry out the respective commercial 
transactions.  
b. For all the quotas indicated by Australia, namely  quotas  with fill rates below 65%, we 
consider that the main reason is market circumstances.  
c. For the moment, Panama has not considered using the TRQ  underfill mechanism.  
1.2.2.13   Russian Federation  (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  
AG-IMS ID 93209: Question  by Australia - Tariff quo ta fill  
Australia thanks the Russia n Federation  for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that 
the Russia n Federation  recorded a fill rate of less than 65% for all quotas.  
Can the Russian Federation explain the reasons for the underfill of i ts quotas?  
For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the 
product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
Has the Russian Federation considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
The Russian Federation thanks Australia for its question and would like  to note that tariff rate quotas 
are underfilled due to market  conditions.  
1.2.2.14   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/98)  
AG-IMS ID 93062: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Switzerland for the submission of the notification contained in 
document G/AG/N/CHE/98 concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for the calendar 
year 2018. Paraguay requests Switzerland to provide f urther information on the reasons for the 
under -fill of tariff quotas CHEQ026 (tariff fill rate of 58.5%) and CHEQ028 (tariff fill rate of 45.7%).  
Answer by Switzerland  
There are no rules concerning the allocation of these two tariff quotas, which means th at imports 
are authorized in unlimited quantities at tariff quota rates. Moreover, the tariff quota rate is marginal. 
The under -fill of tariff quotas is therefore attributable to market circumstances, in particular demand. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 108 - 
 
  For instance, the demand for coar se grains for human consumption (tariff quota 28) has fallen due 
to changes in consumption patterns for processed products.  
1.2.2.15   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/191)  
AG-IMS ID 93214: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Chinese Taipei for the submission of its MA:2 for reporting period 2019. Australia 
notes that Chinese Taipei recorded no or little quota fill for a number of products, including bananas 
and mangoes.  
  
a. Can Chinese Taipei explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Chinese Taipei considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the 
Bali Decision?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
My delegation would like to thank Australia for the questions.  The response is as followed:  
 
a. The underfill of tariff quotas is mainly  due to the market mechanism and sometimes the 
requirement of SPS measures. In the cases of banana s and mangoes, the underfill of their 
TRQs is largely due to the fact that the products which could be potential imported could 
not meet our quarantine requirements.  
b. All the TRQ administration procedures are operated in the principles of transparency, 
predictability, equity and based on market mechanism. We are committed to implementing 
TRQs in accordance with our accession commitment and WTO rules.  
1.2.2.16   Ukraine (G/ AG/N/UKR/35)  
AG-IMS ID 93102: Question by Brazil  - Transparency issues  
Ukraine's latest MA:2 notif ication, pertaining to calendar year 2019, indicate that there has not been 
any imports under TRQ UKRQ001 ("raw cane sugar", tariff line 1701.11), even though there is no 
indication on the notification that it was not opened.  
a. Could Ukraine provide data on  market circumstances that could explain the absence of 
applications under TRQ UKRQ001?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
c. What are the criteria for the State Reserve Agency of Ukraine and the Ministry of Agrarian 
Policy and Food of Ukraine to app rove the issue of a license (ref. G/AG/N/UKR/34)?  
Answer by Ukraine  
a. A demand for sugar imports within TRQ did not appear to exist in Ukraine in 2019. For 
recent years, the domestic market for sugar has been characterized by surplus production 
and lower do mestic consumption. Import of sugar has also declined significantly. The 
demand /consumption is by large supplied by domestic production. It should be noted that 
in recent years significant structural changes in the sugar industry have led to the 
establishm ent of a number of vertically -integrated companies with relevant production 
technologies. Thus, we consider the non -filling to be due to market circumstances.  
b. As stated above, sugar imports have declined significantly in recent years. In 2019, there 
was v ery little import of raw cane sugar (less than 240 tonnes).  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 109 - 
 
  c. Taking into account the industry's structure an applicant is to demonstrate the availability 
of its own or contracted production facilities to process raw sugar to be imported.  
AG-IMS ID 93103: Question by Thailand  - Tariff quota fill  
Ukraine bound Raw Cane Sugar (HS 170111) as TRQ product, which import quota is 
267,800  tonnes/year. However, in 2019, the fill rate of in -quota quantity is 0%. Could Ukraine please 
elaborate the reason?  
Answer by Ukraine  
A demand for sugar imports within TRQ did not appear to exist in Ukraine in 2019. For recent years, 
the domestic market for sugar has been characterized by surplus production and lower domestic 
consumption. Import of sugar has also declined signifi cantly. The demand and consumption are by 
large supplied by domestic production. It should be noted that in recent years significant structural 
changes in the sugar industry have led to the establishment of a number of vertically -integrated 
companies with relevant production technologies. Thus, we consider the non -filling to be due to 
market circumstances.  
1.2.2.17   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic  of (G/AG/N/VEN/28 , G/AG/N/VEN/29 , 
G/AG/N/VEN/30 ) 
AG-IMS ID 93104: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
New Zealan d refers to Venezuela's response to Canada's question at the November 2014 Committee 
on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 75033). In response, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela advised that 
it would submit its 2013 MA:2 notification for the 16 remaining products w ithin a few days of the 
meeting. New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not yet submitted 
its MA:2 notification for the remaining 16 products for the 2013 year. Can the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela please confirm when this noti fication will be submitted?  
Answer by Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
We thank New Zealand for the question, and we agree on the importance of the principle of 
transparency. Venezuela is fully aware of the outstanding notification commitments and we are  
striving to bring ourselves up to date by giving priority to the information that we have available or 
that requires less research effort. In recent years, there have been changes to the task forces that 
had previous experience in notifications and we are  now training new staff. This is in addition to the 
challenges we face as inactive Members of the WTO, with restrictions on the consultation of 
documents on the Member's page and the ban from participating in technical cooperation activities.  
AG-IMS ID 931 05: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
a. Russian Federation took note that TRQ for cheese (VENQ010) in 2016 was fully 
filled (100%) while in 2017 fill -in rate of the same TRQ dropped to 0%. Could Venezuela 
please indicate the reasons for such  a significant decline?  
b. Several TRQs in 2016 -2017 were zero filled: VENQ020 (wheat), VENQ034 (palm nuts and 
kernels), VENQ043 (other oils), VENQ046 (coconut oil), VENQ047 (other vegetable fats 
and oils). Could Venezuela indicate the reasons for the absenc e of imports under 
mentioned TRQs?  
c. Russian Federation noticed that in 2016 fill -in rate of TRQ for animal or vegetable fats and 
oils was 21,8% while in 2017 fill -in rate decreased to zero percent. Could Venezuela please 
provide the reason for this decline ? 
Answer by Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
We thank the Russian Federation for its question and for having noted the sharp decline in the quota 
fill rates in certain items that were a traditional part of the Venezuelan diet. This is because, in 2016, 
Venezuela's imports fell by 52% compared to the previous financial year, owing to the sharp drop 
in the price of oil, the country's main source of income. In 2017, the downward trend continued, 
with a 20% drop compared to 2017. This is why the country had to  dispense with imports of these 
items.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 110 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93106: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
New Zealand refers to Canada's question at the November 2014 Committee on Agriculture 
(AG‑IMS ID 75032). In response, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  advised that it intended to 
bring its notifications up to date as soon as possible. New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela has still not submitted MA:2 notifications for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Additionally, 
New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not submitted MA:2 notifications 
for 2014 and 2015. Can the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela please advise when it expects to provide 
these notifications?  
Answer by Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
We thank New Ze aland for the question, and we agree on the importance of the principle of 
transparency. Venezuela is fully aware of the outstanding notification commitments and we are 
striving to bring ourselves up to date by giving priority to the information that we ha ve available or 
that requires less research effort. In recent years, there have been changes to the task forces that 
had previous experience in notifications and we are now training new staff. This is in addition to the 
challenges we face as inactive Membe rs of the WTO, with restrictions on the consultation of 
documents on the Member's page and the ban from participating in technical cooperation activities.  
 
1.2.2.18   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/9, G/AG/N/VNM/10 , G/AG/N/VNM/1 1, 
G/AG/N/VNM/12 ) 
AG-IMS ID 93210: Question  by Australia  
Australia thanks Viet  Nam for the submission of its MA:2s for reporting years 2016, 2017, 2018 
and 2019.  Australia notes that Viet  Nam recorded a fill rate of 0 for eggs in each period, and a 
downward trend in quota f ill for sugar.  
a. Can Viet  Nam provide further information on the 0 % fill rate for eggs, including whether 
it was due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
b. Can Viet  Nam provide information on the do wnward trend on in -quota sugar imports?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
Every year, Viet Nam issues circulars to administer TRQ for eggs (via import license) and sugars (via 
auction). The administration mechanisms (including the annually increased amount of quotas) are 
in compliance with its commitments in the WTO.  
a. The zero percent fill rate for eggs is due to the fact that no trader registered to import this 
product under TRQ in the reported period.  
b. The downward trend on in -quota sugar imports is due to the  decrease in the quantities 
registered by traders in the reported period.  
Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 To MA:5)  
1.2.3.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/251)  
AG-IMS ID 93211: Question by Australia  - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks Japan for the submission of  its MA:5 for 2019.  Australia notes that Japan invoked 
price based or volume based SSG action during the period for all of the products listed.  
  
a. Can Japan provide information on the volume of imports at which the SSG action was 
invoked for each of the pro ducts?  
b. Can Japan provide domestic consumption statistics for the same reporting period for each 
of the products?  
c. For the volume -based SSG on butter and other fats and oils derived from milk; dairy 
spreads, can Japan confirm the SSG was in -place for the ent ire reporting period? (the G/AG/W/216  
 
- 111 - 
 
  MA:5 is for the period 01/04/2019 -31/03/2020, with the SSG being in place 
from 01/01/2019 to 31/03/2020).  
Answer by Japan  
  
a. The import volume at which the volume -based SSG action was invoked for each of the 
products is described in the following notifications on table MA:3. That of price -based SSG 
action is not available.  
Document Number of Notification on MA:3  
  
G/AG/N/JPN/241 ; G/AG/N/JPN/242 ; G/AG/N/JPN/243 ; G/AG/N/JPN/244 ; G/AG/N/JPN/245 ;  
G/AG/N/JPN/246 ; G/AG/N/JPN/248 ; G/AG/N/JPN/249 ; G/AG/N/JPN/250 . 
  
b. Please  refer to the notification on table MA:3. For most cases, domestic consumption data 
is not available and trigger levels are calculated in accordance with footnote 3 of paragraph 
4 of Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. Japan would like to thank Australia for the question. The correct period is from 01/01/2020 
to 31/03/2020 for the SSG on butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, dairy 
spreads, and accordingly Japan has modified the notif ication.  
1.2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  
AG-IMS ID 93022: Question by United States of America - Link with TRQ commitments  
On 27 September 2019, Chinese Taipei notified a volume -based special safeguard for fresh milk.  
Chinese Taipei's imports of fresh milk have increased significantly over the years and annually fill 
the tariff -rate quota (TRQ) within only a matter of months suggesting the growth in domestic 
production remains unable to meet the demand. Has Chinese Taipei considered reviewing its TRQ 
administration and SSG policies?  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
We firstly affirm that our SSG measures for the products concerned are fully in accordance with 
Article  5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Fresh milk is one of our sensitive products. Any import 
fluctuation poses a risk to domestic production and industries. Therefore, such measures remain 
necessary.  
 
1.2.3.3   Chinese Taipei  (G/A G/N/TPKM/183)  
AG-IMS ID 93023: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
On 4 November 2019, Chinese Taipei notified a volume -based special safeguard on chicken legs and 
wings. It is noted that during the relevant preceding years period (2 015-17), both imports and 
domestic consumption declined. However, the percent decrease in imports was nearly double the 
percent decrease in consumption.  
 
a. Please describe what factors contributed to the decrease in domestic consumption and 
also any factors  contributing to changes in domestic production during this period.  
b. Has Chinese Taipei considered reviewing its SSG policies to ensure its consumers have 
access to sufficient quantities of affordable chicken legs and wings?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
a. In early 2015 Chinese Taipei experienced the eruption of the three HPAIs (Highly 
Pathogenic Avian Influenza) H5N8, H5N3 and H5N2; moreover, there was an additional 
eruption of the possibly zoonotic H5N6 in 2017. These events had an impact on 
consumption of chi cken because domestic consumers were hesitant to consume poultry 
meat for the duration of the eruption.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 112 - 
 
  b. We firstly affirm that the SSG measures for the products concerned are fully in accordance 
with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Chicken legs  and wings are both among 
our sensitive products. Any import fluctuation poses a risk to domestic production and 
industries. Therefore, such measures remain necessary.  
1.2.3.4   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/185, G/AG/N/TPKM/187)  
AG-IMS ID 93107: Question by Thailand  - Transparency issues  
According to Chinese Taipei's latest MA:3 notifications, notifying that the Trigger Volume of Garlic 
(G/AG/N/TPKM/185) and Other Milk Products (G/AG/N/TPKM/187) are 20,436.3 tonnes 
and 13,564.8 tonnes respectively. In this regard, Th ailand would like to seek more clarifications as 
follows:  
 
a. In MA:3 notifications of Garlic and Other Milk Products, Chinese Taipei used 125% as base 
trigger level to calculate trigger volumes. However, Article 5.4 and footnote 3 of AoA allows 
using 125% ( Article 5.4 (a)) if the domestic consumption were not taken into account. 
Thailand views that Chinese Taipei already has domestic consumption on both 
notifications. Could Chinese Taipei clarify why the domestic consumption is not taken into 
account?  
b. Article 5.7 stated that Members shall give notice in advance as may be practicable and in 
any 10 day of implementation. Thailand would like to seek clarification for the delay of 
submissions.  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
We firstly affirm that the SSG measures for the products concerned are fully in accordance with 
Article  5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The trigger level of special safeguard is based on the 
Article  5 of the Agreement on Agriculture and related associated footnotes. Section 4(a) of A rticle 5 
shall be applied if the domestic consumption is not taken into account. My government recognizes 
that transparency is one of the Members' obligations. We ensure that our operation of SSG measures 
will always be carried out in a transparent manner.  In this case, more than one government 
department or agency is involved in the issuing of notifications; therefore it takes time to finalize 
such documents. Our notifications will be issued as early as possible and no delay is on purpose.  
 
1.2.3.5   United States  of America (G/AG/N/USA/130)  
AG-IMS ID 93190: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The EU welcomes the US finally notifying its SSG use for 2016. The US had recourse to the SSG on 
no less than 55 tariff lines. When does the US intend to notify its outstanding notifications 
subsequent years?   
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States will notify its MA:5 notifications for 2017, 2018, and 2019 in the near future.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93194: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
1. New Z ealand notes that special safeguards have been applied to a small volume of many tariff 
line products, including (but not limited to) the following : 
 
• 04015025 : 34 kgs; 
• 04021050 : 36 kgs; 
• 04051020 : 4 kgs; 
• 04062033 : 8 kgs; 
• 04062039 : 4 kgs. 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 113 - 
 
  Can the US:   
 
a. explain why price -based special safeguard measures were invoked in these instances, for 
such small quantities of products?  
b. Advise when corresponding MA:4 notifications will be submitted, identifying the trigger 
price applicable in each case?  
c. Advise how much additional duty was payable on these 5 tariff lines?  
2. New Zealand notes that the US imported 47,140 tonnes of boneless frozen beef (HS  0202.30.80) 
in 2015 and applied a price -based safeguard on 72  kgs of product. However, in 2016 the US only 
importe d 15,318 tonnes (68% less product than the previous year) and yet applied a price -based 
safeguard on 11,670  kgs of product.  
 
Can the US:  
 
a. provide more detail on the trigger price and additional duty payable for HS 0202.30.80 in 
calendar year 2016 and in calendar year 2015?  
b. Confirm if a MA:4 notification will be submitted for HS 0202.30.80, and when?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
1. a. Price-based special safeguards are invoked automatically on a shipment -by-shipment basis, 
based on price not quantity. Importers declare a pre -established price range for their product. If 
there is a safeguard duty associated with that price range, the ad ditional charge is assessed.  
  
1. b. The United States notified Table MA:4 in February 1995 (G/AG/N/USA/1) and November 1995 
(G/AG/N/USA/1/Add.1), which include trigger prices.  
  
1. c. Applicable additional duty rates vary depending upon the product and th e price declared by 
importers.  All relevant duty rates for each price - and volume -based safeguard can be found in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Supplement, Chapter 99, Subchapter IV, at 
https://hts.usitc.gov/current . Additional duties in 2020 are unchanged from those in 2015 and 2016.  
  
2. a. Price-based special safeguards are invoked automatically on a shipment -by-shipment basis, 
based on price. Importers declare a pre -established price ra nge for their product. If there is a 
safeguard duty associated with that price range, the additional charge is assessed.   
  
The trigger levels can be found in G/AG/N/USA/1/Add.1.  Additional duty payable for boneless frozen 
beef can be found in the Harmoniz ed Tariff Schedule of the United States Supplement, Chapter 99, 
Subchapter IV, for each price  - and volume -based safeguard at 
https://hts.usitc.gov/current . Additional duties in 2020 are unchanged from those in  2015 and 2016.  
  
2. b. The United States notified Table MA:4 in February 1995 (G/AG/N/USA/1) and November 1995 
(G/AG/N/USA/1/Add.1).  
  
Domestic support commitments (Table DS :1) 
1.2.4.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/44, G/AG/N/ARG/45)  
AG-IMS ID 93109: Question by India - General services: training services  
India requests Argentina to respond to Canada's question AGIMS ID 92052 seeking the reasons for 
increase in the amount notified under "Special Fund for Tobacco" from 1992 pesos 240,703,683 
to 1992 pesos 379,331,941 in the Green Box, that is, approximately 58% rise, as per notification 
documents G/AG/N/ARG/44 and G/AG/N/ARG/45 for years 2015 -16 to 2016 -17. 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 114 - 
 
  Answer by Argentina  
 
Argentina provided timely replies to questions AG -IMS IDs 92052 and 92054  submitted by Canada 
in the context of the 92nd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (COA) held in October  2019.  
 
See the replies provided by our country, which are found in the World Trade Organization's 
Agriculture Information Management System, but only in Spanish (when using the system in Englis h, 
the replies are not visible).  
AG-IMS ID 93108: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada in its question AG -IMS ID 92054 sought information about Argentina's "Belgrano Agricultural 
Stimulus Plan" which remains unanswered. In this contex t, India requests Argentina to answer the 
following: In its 2016/2017 domestic support DS:1 notification document G/AG/N/ARG/45, 
Argentina notified the "Belgrano Agricultural Stimulus Plan" for the first time under product -specific 
domestic support for soy a.  
 
a. What type of interventions are covered under the plan?  
b. What is the eligibility criteria of getting support?  
c. Is this plan only restricted to soya or are there any other products covered?  
Answer by Argentina  
 
Argentina provided timely replies to questio ns AG -IMS ID 92052 and AG -IMS ID 92054 submitted 
by Canada in the context of the 92nd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (COA) held in 
October  2019. See the replies provided by our country, which can be found in the WTO's Agriculture 
Information Manag ement System, but only in Spanish (when using the system in English, the replies 
are not visible).  
 
1.2.4.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  
AG-IMS ID 93110 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Australian government has in place a program me called the Fuel Tax Credits (FTC) that is 
available to its agriculture sector. However it appears that Australia has not notified this support in 
its most recent domestic support notification (G/AG/N/AUS/129) or any previous domestic support 
notificatio n.  
  
a. Could Australia please explain why it has not notified this programme in its domestic 
support notification?  
b. Could Australia explain why this support provided to its agricultural producers does not 
constitute revenue forgone, an input subsidy or any another type of domestic support that 
benefits Australian agricultural producers?  
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia has not included the Fuel Tax Credits programme in its domestic support notification as 
the programme is economy -wide and not agriculture -specific.  
 
1.2.4.3   Bolivia, Plurinational  State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14  to G/AG/N/BOL/26,)  
AG-IMS ID 93025: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In its notifications for 2006 -2018, the Plurinational State of Boliv ia reports that no domestic support 
measures exist. For each of the following programme, please confirm whether any or all of these 
measures were in place between 2006 -2018, their current status, and whether/when the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia will not ify the measures.  
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 115 - 
 
  a. CRIAR: Provides technical assistance and vouchers that partially cover the cost of 
agricultural technology such as irrigation, greenhouses, or storage units, among others, 
targeting small landholder farmers.  
b. Agricultural Innovation and  Services Project: The project innovation in agriculture and 
forestry and research, technical assistance, and seed certification activities, benefitting 
small -scale commercial seed producers.  
c. Catastrophe Insurance Subsidy Program: The insurance programme covers 10 
commodities and compensates farmers for losses.  
Answer by Bolivia, Plurinational State of  
AG-IMS ID 93111: Question by Australia  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Plurinational State of Bolivia for its DS:1 notifications for the Calendar 
Years  2006-2018, in which it confirms no domestic support was provided for any of these years.  
  
Australia thanks the Plurinational State of Bolivia for updati ng its compliance with its WTO Domestic 
Support notification obligations.  
  
On Bolivia's Ministry of Rural Development and Land website - https://www.ruralytierras.gob.bo/ , 
the financial accounts report for  calendar year 2018 indicates that around 612,827,012 Bolivianos 
(approximately USD  89 million), was expended through government investments or transfers. There 
has also been media reporting that the Plurinational State of Bolivia is providing agricultural  subsidies 
to diversify production away from quinoa.  
  
Can the Plurinational State of Bolivia explain why the expenditure detailed and reported in its official 
government websites has not been included in Bolivia's Domestic Support notifications?  
 
Answer by Bolivia, Plurinational State of  
 
1.2.4.4   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93029: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Supporting Table DS:6 & 7  
  
Brazil stated in its response to AG -IMS ID 87014 that "there is no ne w forecast for new PEP/PEPRO 
auctions for the 2017/2018 crop " outside of rice and maize, and in AG -IMS ID 91165 stated "market 
conditions do not indicate the need to use these mechanisms for any crop " in 2019.  
  
Are any PEP or PEPRO auctions expected for agricultural commodities in 2020?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
Currently, no PEP or PEPRO operations are expected.  
AG-IMS ID 93112 : Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia thanks Br azil for the submission of its DS:1 for Agricultural year 2017 -2018. Australia is 
interested in the Program of acquisition of agricultural products from family farming, listed under 
Public Stockholding for food security purposes in Supporting Table DS:1.  
 
Can Brazil provide more information on this programme, including:  
  
a. Are the agricultural products purchased at market rates?  
b. How are the products sold and/or distributed following their purchase and storage?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 116 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Yes, purchases are made at either local or regional market rates.  
b. The food products covered by the notification were donated to several receiving entities, 
such as: social assistance networks; community restaurants; community kitchens; food 
banks; public or public -private partnersh ip entities that cook and offer public school meals; 
and public health services and networks that offer basic, outpatient or hospital health 
services.  
AG-IMS ID 93028: Question by United States of America - Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential Treatment/D evelopment Programmes)  
Supporting Table DS:2  
  
Brazil 's notified expenditures in ST/DS:2 decreased significantly between 2014/15 and 2017/18, 
mainly due to the reduction of input subsidy expenditures through the National Program to 
Strengthen Family Farmin g (PRONAF) program, and the 90 % drop in spending on investment credits 
since the last notification in 2016/2017.  
  
Please explain the reason for the drop in expenditures for each of the identified measures, 
i.e., PRONAF and investment credits.  
 
Answer by  Brazil  
 
As regards production credit (granted through PRONAF), the amount of credit granted in 2017/2018 
was approximate to the credit granted in 2014/2015 in Brazilian currency. Nonetheless, two factors 
contributed to the "significant decrease" in the amount in U.S. dollars: (a) the Brazilian reference 
interest rate (SELIC) has sharply decreased (by approximately 51,6%) between 2014/15 
and 2017/18; and (b) the Brazilian real has devaluated against the U.S. dollar by around 12,7%. 
Regarding investment cr edits, adding to the currency devaluation impact, several programs had 
their own interest rates changed between 2016/2017 and 2017/2018, following a reduction of SELIC 
by around 41,8% in this period.  
AG-IMS ID 93026: Question by European  Union - Input subs idies available to low -income 
or resource -poor producers  
Debt rescheduling – Supporting table DS:2  
 
Brazil has indicated USD 28 million as input subsidy for debt rescheduling under PRONAF and 
PROCERA.  
 
a. Can Brazil explain how it sees debt rescheduling as fulfilling the criteria of being an input 
subsidy for low -income resource -poor producers?  
b. Can Brazil indicate the proportion of the outstanding loans benefitted from this 
rescheduling?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Domestic support under debt rescheduling derive from  PROCERA (Special Credit Program 
for Land Reform) and PRONAF (National Program for Strengthening Family Farming), both 
of which are available exclusively to low -income farmers, justifying their notification under 
Article 6.2. PROCERA was established in 31 June 1986 by Brazil 's National Monetary 
Council pursuant to guidelines from the National Plan for Land Reform (PNRA), enacted by 
Decree no. 91.766 on 10 October 1985. PROCERA provided investment credit under 
special conditions for farmers that benefited fr om the land reform program, supporting 
settlement areas approved by the National Institute of Colonization and Land Reform 
(INCRA) and projects for structuring settler production output. PROCERA was terminated 
in December 1999. PRONAF was established in 28  June 1996 by Decree no. 1946. As 
stated in Article 1 of the Decree, the program is intended "to promote the sustainable 
development of the rural segment made up of family farmers, by increasing output, G/AG/W/216  
 
- 117 - 
 
  creating jobs and improving income". Therefore, both PROCERA and PRONAF target low -
income farmers, falling within the scope of AoA Article 6.2.  
b. Currently there are no outstanding  loans since the final payment term of the rescheduled 
debt, under PRONAF and PROCERA programs, was 2018.  
AG-IMS ID 93027: Questio n by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
Debt rescheduling – Supporting table DS:9  
 
Brazil indicates an amount of USD 957 million as debt rescheduling.  
 
a. What was the overall total debt that benefitted from this subsidy?  
b. What has been the average r escheduled programme interest rate during the reporting 
period?  
c. What has been the average subsidy rate (expressed as percentage points of interest per 
year) for the debt benefitting from this subsidy?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. The notification considered all debt rescheduling for the year in question as a subsidy. 
Therefore, total debt for 2018 is also USD 957 million.  
b. The adjustment rate in 2018 was 7.55% p.a.  
c. As per letter (a), the entire annual debt rescheduling was conside red as a subsidy.  
AG-IMS ID 93030: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:9  
  
In ST/DS:9, Brazil has notified a line for production and marketing credit expenditures [described 
as an Implicit subsidy based on th e difference between the interest rate of each of the following 
programmes and SELIC (Special System for Liquidation and Custody) interest rate (interest rate for 
the overnight interbank loans collateralized by government bonds): Constitutional Funds (FNO,  FNE 
and FCO), Pronamp (Medium -Scale Agricultural Producer Support Program), and Rural Savings and 
Mandatory Resources at controlled interest rates] in each of the previous three years, with outlays 
totaling more than 650 million USD each year. However, th at line was not included in Brazil 's 2018 
DS:1 notification.  
  
Please explain the reason for the exclusion of expenditures on non -product specific production and 
marketing credits.  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
Differently from previous years, Brazil did not provide  "non-product specific production and 
marketing credits" -type subsidies during the reference period of notification G/AG/N/BRA/58.  
 
1.2.4.5   Burkina Faso (G/AG/N/BFA/18, G/AG/N/BFA/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93213: Question by European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU appreciates the effort Burkina Faso has made in submitting its Domestic Support notification 
for 2015 and 2017. The notifications indicate: Burkina Faso did not apply any domestic support 
measures in the calendar year 2017 ". 
 
Taking into account the importance of the cotton sector in the country and the efforts Burkina Faso 
is making to improve the sector, the EU wonders whether these efforts are made without any 
government support, whether Green Bo x, Article 6.2 subsidies or otherwise.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 118 - 
 
  Can Burkina Faso confirm that it does not provide any domestic support for the cotton sector?  
 
Answer by Burkina Faso  
AG-IMS ID 93212: Question  by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia tha nks Burkina Faso for the submission of DS:1s for 2015 and 2017 confirming that no 
domestic support was provided during these reporting periods. Australia notes FAO reporting 
(http://www.fao.org/3/i3760 e/i3760e.pdf ) indicates Burkina Faso began re -investing government 
funding in its agricultural sector following the 2007/08 food crisis.  This reportedly included input 
subsidies, price -setting mechanisms and irrigation infrastructure.   
  
Noting the DS:1 response for 2015 and 2017, can Burkina Faso confirm that no support covered by 
the Agreement on Agriculture was provided during these reporting periods, for example under 
Article  6.2? 
 
Answer by Burkina Faso  
 
AG-IMS ID 93260 : Question by United State s of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Burkina Faso 's notification states that its government does not provide domestic support to its 
agricultural sector.  However, it is the United States ' understanding that Burkina Faso has provided 
financial support to cotton companies to purchase and distribute fertilizer at subsidized rates for 
targeted commodities.  As a result, studies have shown that subsidized fertilizer is approximately 
one-quarter cheaper than those purchased at market prices.  It is also understood that seeds, 
pesticides, and equipment may also be subsidized.  The United States also understands the 
government of Burkina Faso provides funding for agricultural research.  
  
a. Please confirm whether Burkina Faso provided such input subsi dies during the period 
covered by these notifications, CY 2015 and CY 2017.  
b. If so, what was the basis for not notifying these measures and will Burkina Faso be 
submitting a revised notification?  
c. Please confirm no other domestic support was provided to the  agricultural sector in 
CY 2015 or CY 2017, such as public funding for agricultural research.  
Answer by Burkina Faso  
 
1.2.4.6   Cambodia (G/AG/N/KHM/14)  
AG-IMS ID 93288: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters  
In its 2018 notification, Cambodia introduced a new program classified under paragraph 8 of the 
Annex 2 of the AoA described as "Expenditure on the provisions of agricultural inputs, equipment 
and pest and disease control to agricultural producers for reli ef from natural disaster in accordance 
with Annex II: 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture ". 
 
a. Could Cambodia provide the name of the measure and general information as to how this 
measure works, who is eligible and what are the eligibility criteria to receive  a payment 
under this measure?  
b. Could Cambodia explain how this measure complies with the specific criteria of 
paragraph  8 of the Annex of the AoA?  
Answer by Cambodia  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 119 - 
 
  1.2.4.7   Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 93031: Question by European Union - Transparency issue s (including Table 
DS:2)  
Cameroon indicates that no support is granted towards agricultural production. The notification 
indicates that support is provided under the environmental protection programme through the 
Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protect ion and Sustainable Development.  
 
a. Can Cameroon elaborate more in details of what types of programmes are implemented, 
and who are the beneficiaries, along with eligibility criteria.  
b. How much was spend on these programmes in 2018?  
c. Would Cameroon consider including the amounts paid out under such programmes in the 
supporting table DS:1 in the future?  
Answer by Cameroon  
AG-IMS ID 93032: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Cameroon 's notif ication states that its government does not provide domestic support to its 
agricultural sector.  However, Cameroon 's notification also states that its government provides 
assistance to the agricultural sector through the Ministry of Environment, Nature Pro tection and 
Sustainable Development 's environmental protection programme.   
  
Please elaborate on what the assistance to the agricultural sector is with regards to environmental 
protection programme.  
 
Answer by Cameroon  
 
1.2.4.8   Canada  (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  
AG-IMS ID 93 113: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  (including Table DS:2)  
According to Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada, Growing Forward 2 concluded in 2018. As Canada 
reports its domestic support with a significant time lag, can Canada confirm that this i s the case, 
and that we can anticipate no further domestic support measures under "growing forward 2 " to be 
notified after 2018?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) is a five -year (2018 -2019 to 2022 -23 Fiscal Years) 
commitment by  federal, provincial and territorial governments to strengthen the agriculture and 
agri-food sector. It replaces the Growing Forward 2 (GF2) Framework Agreement (2013 -14 
to 2017-18 Fiscal Years). We are currently completing the 2017 notification with the figures from 
the 2017 -18 Fiscal Years. At this time, we do not anticipate any further domestic support measures 
under GF2 to be notified after notification year 2018 (i.e., covering 2018 -2019 Fiscal Years).  
AG-IMS ID 93035: Question b y United States of America  - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Supporting Table DS:5 "Note 2" to "Supporting Tables DS:5" indicates that "eligible production " of 
skim milk powder equals total production (102,953 t) less product sales for further p rocessing and 
animal feed under Special Classes 5a, b, and c (11,840 t) and 4m (69,964 t) less total exports 
(23.687 t), plus that portion of exports that had received the support price (0 t).  
 
a. Is SMP produced in Ontario using components priced under Clas s 6, which was 
implemented in April 2016, also excluded from eligible production in the same manner as 
is done for SMP product sales under Special Classes 5 a, b, and c and 4m?  
b. If so how much SMP was produced in Ontario in 2016 under Class 6 and was exclu ded 
from eligible production?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 120 - 
 
  c. The United States notes that Canada continues to exclude butter and skim milk powder 
for further processing under Classes 4m (powder) and 5 a, b, and c and for exports from 
eligible production. Following up on  AG-IMS ID 83079 , what measure specifically excludes 
butter and skim milk powder for further processing and exports from receiving the price?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. and b. Class 6 was not excluded from eligible production to calculate market price support 
for SMP in notification year 2016.  
c. The Canadian Dairy Commission Act allows the Canadian Dairy Commission to purchase 
and sell dairy products.  The applied administered prices reported by Canada are the prices 
at which the Canadian Dairy Commission purchases and sells  butter and skim milk powder 
within the framework of its various programs.  The sales under Classes 4m (powder) and  5 
a, b, and c and exports are not eligible for the applied administered price for butter and 
skim milk powder, hence they were removed from t he eligible production calculation.  
AG-IMS ID 93114: Question  by New Zealand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In 2016, total product -specific AMS for beef increased from CAD 20.3 million to CAD 64.3 million – 
mainly as a result of CAD 37.6 million (increas ed from CAD 0.7 million in calendar year 2015) listed 
under "assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles". Can Canada confirm if this increase is the 
result of a one -off event, and what that event was? Or if Members can expect to see similar large 
increa ses in product -specific AMS in future notifications?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The Programme d 'assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles (ASRA) is intended to protect income 
of Québec farmers. It is based on actual financial information and compensates produc ers when the 
average selling price for a unit of beef is lower than the stabilized income for the same unit of beef. 
The stabilized income is based on the production cost of specialized farm businesses. The ASRA 
payment reported in the 2015 WTO domestic su pport notification for beef was significantly lower 
than usual mainly due to the fact that the average selling price per unit of beef was higher than the 
related stabilized income. For 2016, the increase was the result of a significant decrease in average 
selling price coupled with a more moderate decrease in stabilized income resulting in increased 
compensation. Commodity prices coupled with other factors that impact costs of production will 
determine the amounts in future notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 93033: Question by United  States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:7  
  
Support was provided for several commodities under the measures "Provincial Programs", "Hog 
Industry Loan Loss Reserve Program (HILLRP)", "Ontario Marketing and V ineyard Improvement 
program", and "Nova Scotia Vineyard Quality Enhancement" notified in column 5 "Other product 
specific support (with calculation details)", however, no calculation details are provided.  
  
Please provide calculation details for payments made under each of these programs so that Members 
may understand how the reported values were derived.  
  
Answer by Canada  
 
Under the HILLRP, Canada entered into contribution agreements with financial institutions to provide 
reserve -backed loans to hog pro ducers. For each loan registered, Canada deposited a portion of the 
value of the loan in a reserve fund account with the lender. All loans under the HILLRP are to be 
repaid by 30 April 2025. However, if at any time before 30 April 2025, a HILLRP loan becomes 
impaired and the lender decides to realize on the HILLRP loan, the lender can draw a defined 
percentage of its net losses from its government of Canada (GOC) reserve -backed loans account. 
The amount reported for 2016 ($13,862,22 9) represents the amount that was drawn from the 
reserve -backed loans account.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 121 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93115: Question by New Zealand - Non-product -specific AMS  
Spending under AgriInsurance increased from CAD 894 million in 2015, to CAD 1 ,038.3 million 
in 2016. The amo unt appears to represent the premiums cost -shared by Federal and Provincial 
governments. Can Canada explain what caused the significant increase in premiums, and if we can 
expect similar increases in future notifications?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
There was a sh ift observed in 2016, particularly in the Prairies, where producers have insured a 
more expensive crop mix which increased the liability and resulted in higher premiums. This was a 
distinct event and is not expected to occur frequently.  
AG-IMS ID 93034: Q uestion by United  States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:7  
 
Canada notified negative support under "Other product specific support (with calculation details) " 
for pork under the "Provincial Programs " measure without any associated fees/levies reported. This 
support was deducted from Total AMS.  
 
a. Please explain how this measure is implemented, including the basis for notifying negative 
values of support in column 5.  
b. Please specify the province in ques tion, and the nature and amount of each levy or fee on 
producers that forms the basis for the claim of negative domestic support.  
c. Please also provide a copy of all legal instruments related to the programme.  
Answer by Canada  
 
There were two small provinc ial loan programs included under the measure "Provincial programs ". 
The first was the 2008 Short Term Hog Loan Program in Saskatchewan and the second was the 
Manitoba Hog Loans program. In both cases, the amounts reported by Canada were calculated using 
the difference between the commercial interest rate and the program rate multiplied by the amount 
of outstanding debt. Support reported for the Short -Term Hog Loan Program was $44,528 and 
support reported for the Manitoba Hog Loans was -$157,607. The negativ e amount for the Manitoba 
Hog Loans reflects the fact that the program interest rate was higher than the commercial rate 
during the period covered by the 2016 domestic support notification. Manitoba Agricultural Services 
Corporation (MASC), a Crown corpora tion of the Manitoba Government, manages the Manitoba Hog 
Loans program. The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation was established in 2005 by The 
Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation Act.  
 
1.2.4.9   Colombia (G/AG/N/ COL/69)  
AG-IMS ID 93037: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The footnote in Colombia's DS:4 states "the calculation of value of production corresponds to the 
revised methodology from base year 2015 and Central Product Classification (CPC)" for cotton and 
rice. The VoP for cotton nearly doubled between 2015 and 2016 .  
 
Please explain the difference between the previous and current methodology for calculating VoP, the 
basis for changing the methodology and what the 2016 VoP for cotton and rice would be when 
applying the 2015 methodology.  
 
Answer by Colombia  
 
The Colo mbian National Statistics Department (DANE) updated the base year for the national 
accounts to the base year 2015, which replaces the figures from the previous base year 2005, and 
revised the historical series from the year 2000 onwards.  
 
The update also provided the opportunity to adopt classifications for products, economic activities, 
institutional sectors and transactions, in order to bring them into line with international standards. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 122 - 
 
  This made it possible to refocus the review of production accounts, with the improved monitoring of 
production activities, whereas in the base year 2005, emphasis had been placed, as a priority, on 
product monitoring.  
 
The periodic re -estimation of the national accounts makes it possible to incorporate into the 
measuremen t, for the base year and those following or preceding it, all conceptual, methodological 
and information source developments.  
 
Regarding the calculation methodology, information sources were broadened considerably.  
 
For the agricultural sector, information from the National Agricultural Census (CNA) concerning 
product quantities and hectares sown is recognised and included in ord er to improve the 
measurement.  
 
Similarly, the Agricultural Production Unit (UPA) is adopted as a statistical unit to define production 
activities, showing how these activities are structured.  
 
It should be noted that DANE approved the historical series of national accounts as of the year 2000, 
and the previous methodology (base year 2005) is no longer used to make historical calculations.  
In this light, and in view of the concerns raised by the United States, Colombia will revise the 
notifications mentio ned.  
 
The document describing the methodological changes in the measurement of Colombia's national 
accounts may be viewed at https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/boletines/pib/cuentas -
nal-anuales/cuentas -nal-anuales -base-2015.pdf . 
AG-IMS ID 93038: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States understands, from a gove rnment of Colombia website, that in 2015 the 
Agricultural Bank of Colombia introduced an agricultural insurance programme for rice, cotton, corn, 
and potatoes with the goal of expanding to additional products. Further, the insurance programme 
is understood  to be subsidized by the Colombian government at a rate of 60 - 80%.  
 
a. Please provide the measure as well as an explanation of how this measure is implemented.  
b. Please clarify whether the measure is notified in Colombia's most recent domestic support 
notification.  
Answer by Colombia  
 
a. Every year, the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture establishes the technical criteria that will govern 
the agricultural insurance programme for each period. The programme seeks to protect producers' 
investments from damage c aused by natural and biological risks over which the policy -holding 
producer has no control.  
 
The programme encourages producers to seek risk insurance, providing an incentive on the cost of 
the premium acquired by the producer, and operates through the Na tional Agricultural Risk Fund 
administered by the Agricultural Sector Financing Fund (Finagro). The Ministry of Agriculture 
approves, by Resolution, the yearly agricultural insurance plan that determines coverage, the 
agricultural activities (crops) subjec t to the incentive, eligibility conditions, maximum insurable 
values, and the amount of the incentive granted on the policy acquired by the producer. The 
programme covers climate -related and geological risks, and natural risks of a biological and health -
related nature (pests and disease).  
 
The eligibility conditions for the agricultural insurance programme were established in Resolution 
No. 72 of 24 March 2015, which sets out the eligibility requirements for the incentive, the crops 
covered by the programme , maximum insurable values, and the value of the incentive according to 
type of producer.  
 
b. Colombia, in the corresponding periods, and in accordance with its notification obligations, notifies 
the programmes and budgets covered by the general services measures provided for in the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 123 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93036: Question by United States  of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Colombia has notified "direct support for producers " for rice for the first time in 2016.  Please provide 
the measu re and explain how this measure is implemented.  
 
Answer by Colombia  
 
The Ministry of Agriculture, through support for producers and the rice industry, seeks to normalize 
supply levels and support marketing and the continuity of productive activity, in order to ensure that 
product supply meets the domestic demand.  
 
The tech nical justification for granting the incentive, the value and duration of the support, the 
beneficiaries, the eligibility requirements and access procedures, the operating mechanism, and the 
payment conditions are established by Ministry of Agriculture res olution.  
 
The programme is implemented through the Colombian Commodities Exchange.  
 
The rules governing the granting of the incentive and the mechanisms for its implementation can be 
found on the Commodities Exchange website: 
https://www.bolsamercantil.com.co/ProgramasMADR/Arroz.aspx . 
  
1.2.4.10   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/ 55 and G/AG/N/EU/61)  
AG-IMS ID 93219: Question  by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes t hat in Supporting Table DS:4, value of production for some products has not been 
provided.   
 
a.  Can the European Union provide values of production for those products that were listed 
as part of their current total AMS, particularly for butter and skim milk powder?  
i. If the VoP is not available for those products, can the EU explain its decision to notify 
these products in its current total AMS?  
Answer by European Union  
 
As explained in reply to similar questions in the past, the VoP in the EU DS:1 notificatio n is based 
on the figures for which Eurostat data exists. Eurostat does not provide figures on VoP for some 
processed agricultural products. For some fruit and vegetables VoP is also not available.  
 
The EU has used this approach for SMP, butter and the ce rtain fruit and vegetable products for which 
VoP does not exist since its very first DS:1 notification for 1995.  
 
The EU finds this to be the most correct way of notifying its support for products for which a specific 
support exists but no VoP data availa ble. This is also the most transparent way to show which 
products are supported. The alternative would be to merge these products into larger product 
categories. This could lead to the possibility of the support for these products falling within the 
produc t specific de minimis  for the larger category, and hereby reducing the overall Current 
Total AMS for the EU.   
AG-IMS ID 93215: Question by Australia  - General services: marketing and promotion 
services  
Australia thanks the European Union for the submission  of its DS:1 for implementation year 2017.  
Australia notes that EU expenditure on marketing and promotion services increased by 304.7  million 
Euros from the 2016 implementation year.  
  
a. Can the EU provide further details on the programs funded through this support?; and  
b. Details on the significant increase in funding?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 124 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
  
The promotion activities includes the following.  
 
• EU promotion programmes under Regulation (EU) 1144/2014.  
• Producer Organisations within the fruit and vegetable sector in the framework of the 
Common Market Organisation; Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.  
• EU quality schemes under the Rural Development programm es; Regulation (EU) 
No 1305/2013.  
• Quality improvements for olive oil, in the framework of the Common Market organisation . 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.  
• Several national schemes to promote agricultural products.   
 
While the amounts spent under the quality i mprovements for olive oil and rural development 
programmes was mostly unchanged, there were increases under the other three headings.  
 
The EU promotion schemes have undergone a gradual increase in spending during the 
current  2014-2020 Multiannual Financia l Framework, reaching EUR 200 million in 2020. Following 
the import ban on EU agricultural exports imposed by Russia, Producer Organisations in the fruit 
and vegetable sector significantly increased their efforts in promotion in order to develop alternativ e 
markets, as well as a general effort to promote fruit and vegetable consumption within a healthy 
diet. Finally, the biggest increase was by in Member States national schemes; as the CAP is becoming 
more market oriented the Member States has enhanced thei r effort to assist the promotion of 
agricultural products.   
AG-IMS ID 93289: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
In G/AG/N/EU/61 the European Union notified a total of 6,240 million EUR in  domestic support under 
paragraph 11 structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids for the marking 
year 2017 -2018. This represents an increase of approximately 2,380  million EUR compared to the 
last notification covering marketing year 2016-2017.  
 
Could the European Union provide additional information on the conditions that led to this significant 
increase in spending?   
 
Answer by European Union  
  
This increase is entirely link to implementation of Rural Development programmes. The Rur al 
Development programmes for current 2014 -2020 Multiannual Financial Framework were mostly 
adopted in 2014 and 2015. Therefore, since payments can only be made after projects have been 
finalised, a larger share of the payments related to investments under  the Rural Development 
programmes takes place towards the end of the programming period. That is exactly what is 
observed in the implementation of EU budget 2018, covered by this notification. The same was the 
case for prior programming period and was also  observed in the EU DS:1 notifications for 2011 
and 2012.   
AG-IMS ID 93216: Question by Australia  - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Australia notes that EU expenditure on Environmental Services increased by almost two billion euros 
(EUR 1,939.2 million) from 2016 to 2017.  
  
a. Can the European Union provide a disaggregation of the specific programs funded under 
these Environmental Servic es? 
b. Can the European Union explain what led to the significant increase in reported funding 
under Environmental Services?  
c. Can the European Union explain what specific programs "created conditions of fair 
competition " and how they do so?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 125 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
The majority of the amounts notifies under this heading originates from the environmental parts of 
the Rural Development programmes, and in particular:  
 
- Measure 10 - Agri-environment - and climate mitigation ; 
- Measure 11 – Organic farming ; 
- Measure 12 - Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directives payments ; 
- Measure 14 – Animal welfare programmes.  
 
A minor part of this heading relates to expenditure for environmental programmes implemented by 
Producer Organisations in fruit and vegetables sector. Finally , this h eading also includes national 
schemes for animal welfare and animal waste related to manure.  
 
As also mentioned in reply to question AG -IMS ID 93289 from Canada, a significant part of the 
increase is related to progressive implementation of the Rural Devel opment programmes during 
the 2014-2020 period. Further, there were a significant increase in the schemes for animal welfare.  
 
The words fair competition originates from Article 1 (1) of the basic Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 
where it is said:  
This Regulat ion provides the basis for the sustainable development of organic production while 
ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market, guaranteeing fair competition , ensuring 
consumer confidence and protecting consumer interests.  
 
Fair competition i s ensured through all the measures of the regulation which all producers have to 
respect, whether production rules and requirements, labelling, logos, control system, documentary 
evidence, or otherwise. This guarantees consumer that all products marketed o n the EU market with 
the organic logo respect the same rules.   
AG-IMS ID 93217: Question  by Australia - Payments based on fixed areas or yields  
Australia notes that EU Blue Box payments include "Aid for bananas (Title III, Regulation 247/2006) " 
totalling 278.9 million Euros  
  
a. Can the European Union provide further information on how these Blue Box payments 
align with and implement Title III, Regulation 247/2006? and  
b. Can the European Union provide disaggregated data on the programmes funded, incl uding 
their location, through this "aid for bananas " measure?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. and b. Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 has been replaced by Regulation (EU) No 228/2013. 
Unfortunately , this had not been updated in the text of the supporting table DS:3. The EU will submit 
a correction.   
 
The Blue Box payments for bananas are made in the outermost regions of the EU  ("POSEI " regions): 
Guadalupe, Martinique, the Azores, Madeira and the Cana ry Islands. The following amounts are 
spent per member State: France EUR 129 million, Spain EUR 141 million and Portugal EUR 9 million 
in the 2017/18 marketing year.   
AG-IMS ID 93218: Question by Australia - Livestock payments made on a fixed number of 
head 
Australia notes that EU Blue Box payments include "Aid for bananas (Title III, Regulation 247/2006) " 
totalling 278.9 million Euros . 
  
a. Can the European Union provide further information on how these Blue Box payments 
align with and implement Title III, Re gulation 247/2006? and  
b. Can the European Union provide disaggregated data on the programmes funded, including 
their location, through this "aid for bananas " measure?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 126 - 
 
   Australia notes that EU Blue Box payments include "Livestock payments made on a fixed numb er 
of head ", including almost 1,676.1 million on Beef, EUR 580.8 million on Sheep and Goat Meat, and 
EUR 921.2 million on Dairy and Milk Products.  
  
c. Can the European Union confirm that these payments are made on number of head of the 
relevant livestock? an d 
d.  Can the European Union provide disaggregated head count for each type of animal funded 
through this measure?  
Answer by European Union  
  
c. Yes.  
d. Beef payments:   Total 16,485,439 heads ; 
Sheep and Goat meat:  Total 35,395,880 heads ; 
Milking cows:   Total 8,830,925 heads . 
 
AG-IMS ID 93261: Question by United States  of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
  
The United States thanks the EU for submitting its domestic support notification for marketing 
year 2017/2018 and seeks further information on measures in supporting table DS:6. In marketing 
year (MY) 2015/16 and MY 2016/17 the EU notified EUR 52.4 million in aid for sheep and 
EUR 10.1 million for sheep and goat meat, respectively.  For both years, the su pport was provided 
by Extraordinary support measures from Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/1853 providing for 
temporary exceptional aid to farmers in the livestock sector noting the EU 's response to  
AG-IMS ID 88078.  In MY 2017/18, notified outlays for sheep was EUR 50 million and the support 
was provided by National aid.  
  
a. Please describe the evolution of sheep and goat policy since 2015/16, including whether 
support for goats was only provided in MY 2016/17.  
b. Please describe how the national aid for MY 2017/18 is implemented and the reason for 
increase in support in 2017/18 after the temporary exceptional aid measures were 
discontinued.  
Answer by European Union  
 
As the US correct refers to in the question, in the notification for 2016/17 included aid granted under 
Regulation (EU) No 2015/1853. This Regulation then expired and no support was granted in budget 
year 2018.  
 
Several member States implemented national schemes during the 2017/18 marketing year. 
However, verification has revealed that the amount notified includes an erroneous amount of 
EUR 33.9 million, so the correct amount for sheep and goat meat is EUR 16.1 million. The EU will 
submit a correction to G /AG/N/EU/61.   
AG-IMS ID 93262: Question by United States  of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
  
In marketing year (MY) 2015/16 and MY 2016/17 the EU notified EUR2.1 million in aid for Other 
Livestock (rabbit, reindeer and eggs) . For both years, the support was provided by Extraordinary 
support measures from Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/1853 providing for temporary 
exceptional aid to farmers in the livestock sector noting the EU 's response to  AG-IMS ID 88078.  In 
MY 2017/1 8, notified outlays for Other Livestock (livestock, rabbit, reindeer and eggs) was 
EUR 63.7 million and the support was provided by National aid.  
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 127 - 
 
  a. Please describe the evolution of the category of "Other Livestock " since 2015/16, including 
what livestock a re included in MY 2017/18 support noting that the notified support lists 
livestock in addition to rabbit, reindeer, and eggs.  
b. Please describe how the national aid for MY 2017/18 is implemented and the reason for 
the significant (approximately 3,000 percent ) increase in support in 2017/18 after the 
temporary exceptional aid measures were discontinued.  
Answer by European Union  
 
The increase is due to national schemes, where a separation of data per sector unfortunately is not 
possible in detail. However, it c an estimated that around EUR 45 million is mostly related to the 
sheep and goat meat sector linked to neonatal mortality, emergency aid and milking sheep and 
goats. These schemes were implemented by member States on an annual basis.   
 
The EU is working tog ether with the member States to try to ensure that more detailed data reporting 
will be possible in future.   
AG-IMS ID 93302: Question  by Colombia - Classification of measures , Paraguay ( AG-IMS 
ID 93303 ) and Guatemala  (AG-IMS ID 93315 ) 
In notifications G/AG/N/EU/61 (page 4) and G/AG/N/EU/55 (page 4), under the category 
"Environmental programmes", the EU includes "support and protection of organic production by 
creating conditions of fair competition".  
 
In this regard:  
 
a. Which specific measur es does "support and protection of organic production by creating 
conditions of fair competition" refer to exactly? Please indicate the regulations that reflect 
these measures.  
b. What is the basis for notifying such support as an "environmental programme" un der 
Annex 2, paragraph 12, of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. In the document "COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the 
document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE 
COUNCIL Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 on th e placing of plant protection 
products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 on maximum residue levels 
of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final}" (available in English only), the Commission notes 
the following:  
Pesticides policy is not sufficiently c onsistent with EU climate policy. While the EU's climate policy 
aims to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, no such considerations are made when approving or 
not approving active substances. This relates most prominently to herbicides as their use may reduc e 
the need for mechanical tillage. Tillage releases carbon emissions both through the use of machinery 
and by releasing carbon stored in the soil.10 
 
In this respect, the Commission recognises that organic farming may have an adverse impact in 
terms of car bon emissions, and that it may therefore not be suitable for protecting the environment. 
Why were measures that may not be suited to protecting the environment (organic farming) notified 
under the category "Environmental programmes" of Annex 2, paragraph 1 2, of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Under EAFRD, support for organic farming is granted to farmers only for environmental commitments 
going beyond the EU mandatory standards established pursuant the provisions of Regulation (EC) 
1306/20213 and the relevant activities as established pursuant Regulation (EU) 1307/2013.  In 
 
10 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING  DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE 
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 
No. 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No.  396/2005 
on maximum r esidue levels of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final}, page 87.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 128 - 
 
  addition, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013 of rural development and the ones of 
Regulation (EU) 834/2007 on organic farming are applicable.   
 
Therefore , the support is focusing on the conversion to and/or maintenance of organic farming 
practices - and not for economic purposes - with a view to encourage farmers to participate in such 
schemes, thus answering society's demand for the use of environmentally friendly farm practices. 
In particular, the objective is to restore, preserve and enhance biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 
areas and in areas facing natural or other specific constraints, and high nature value farming, as 
well as improving water mana gement, including fertiliser and pesticide management, preventing soil 
erosion and improving soil management and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate 
resilient economy in agriculture.  
 
The EU disagrees entirely with Paraguay 's suggestion i n the question 's last bullet point that organic 
farming "may not be capable of protecting the environment ". 
 
Follow -up: Paraguay sought clarification regarding sub -question c. It noted that the EU's citation at 
the end of the reply did not respond to the question as "may not be suited" was different from "may 
not be capable ". Paraguay highlighted that this observation was made on the basis of a conclusion 
published by the EU itself in the report mentioned in the question and was not a suggestion from 
Paraguay.  Therefore, it considered the EU has not responded as to how it reconciled a production 
system which the EU itself considered could generate traditional carbon emissions and how this could 
be notified under Paragraph 12, Annex 2 of the Agreement o n Agriculture.  
 
1.2.4.11   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93117: Question by Canada - General services: research  
Canada notes that in its 2018 DS:1 notification, Georgia notified a new programme titled 
"Elaboration and Management of Environmental Protection and Agriculture Development Policy " 
under paragraph 2 (a) research, Annex 2.  
  
a. Could Georgia please advise whe n it expects to submit a DS:2 notification for this 
programme?  
b. Could Georgia elaborate on the types of activities that are eligible under this programme?  
Answer by Georgia  
 
1.2.4.12   Georgia (G/AG/N/ GEO/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93118: Question by Canada - General services: i nfrastructural services  
Canada notes that in its 2016 DS:1 notification, Georgia notified for the first time a programme titled 
"Agro Sector Support/Development " under paragraph 2 (g) Infrastructural services, Annex 2.  
  
a. Could Georgia please advise when i t expects to submit a DS:2 notification for this 
programme?  
b. Could Georgia elaborate on the types of infrastructural services that are eligible under this 
programme?  
Answer by Georgia  
 
Support/Development of the Agro Sector Within the framework of the progr am for agriculture 
modernization, market access and sustainability, four objects have been selected for the purposes 
of the amelioration (two objects for border maintenance in Shida Kartli region and two objects in 
Kakheti region). The land amelioration pl ans have been drafted hereby. In the context of granting 
components: 19 applications have been reviewed (16 in the context of primary production and 3 in 
relation to the components of processing enterprises). Grant approvals were given to six applicants: 
four of them for the primary production and two of them regarding the components of processing 
enterprises. Schemes of the four land plots were prepared with the purposes of presentation: 
(Kakheti – peaches, Shida Kartli – apple, Samegrelo – persimmon, Qobu leti – kiwifruit). Lab G/AG/W/216  
 
- 129 - 
 
  equipment and facilities have been procured under the project. Within the framework of World Bank's 
project concerning improvement of irrigation and drainage systems, contracts were concluded. 
Currently, the construction works aiming  at the rehabilitation of three irrigation systems are in 
progress (Zeda Ru, Qvemo Samgori and Tbisi -Kumisi irrigation systems). The contract was 
concluded with the international audit company "Price Water House Coopers", to ensure financial -
audit service and establishment of international financial standards (IFRS) for Ltd "Georgian 
Melioration" during the period of three years. In addition, the contract was concluded with LTD PKW 
Georgia, which provided the stock takings of infrastructural assets and fina ncial assessment of 
LTD Georgian Amelioration. The strategy on the development of irrigation system was drafted. The 
preparatory work built on legislative basis of the Amelioration and Water Consumers Associations. 
Within the framework of the project, six GPS gadgets with high -accuracy were procured. The latter 
shall provide incorporation of the respective data of infrastructural buildings in the interactive maps 
for Ltd "Georgian Amelioration". Moreover, two pieces of tractor shredding aggregates were 
acquired.  
 
1.2.4.13   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/64)  
AG-IMS ID 93264: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments for 
relief from natural disasters  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala has notified a new measure "Emergency response following the 
eruption of t he Fuego volcano " as a payment for relief from natural disasters.  
  
a. Please describe how the measure is implemented and how payment rates are determined.  
b. How does this measure comply with Annex 2 paragraph 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
and when will Gua temala be notifying this information in Table DS:2?  
Answer by Guatemala  
 
a. The state of public emergency declared following the eruption of the Fuego Volcano led to 
the loss of human lives and caused damage to road, housing, education and health 
infrastructu re, with productive activity and human development also affected.  
Support has been provided through supplies such as food, tool kits, training and cordon sanitaire 
supplies, which include treatment for animals that could be affected (dogs, cats, birds, etc.).  
  
b. Guatemala  will be notifying the information in DS:2, whose notification was inadvertently 
overlooked.  
The project benefits members of the population living below the minimum subsistence level. The 
project focuses on providing support to the  population of Chimaltenango, Escuintla and 
Sacatepéquez, in the vicinity of the Fuego volcano, following the emergency resulting from the 
eruption and serious incidents that affected families, endangering lives and posing a threat to food 
security.  
AG-IMS ID 93265: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments for 
relief from natural disasters  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala has notified a new measure "Coffee Trust Fund " for the first time 
to assist in addressing rust fungus disease.  However, the United States understands the Coffee Trust 
Fund was created in 2001 and is administered by the Rural Development Bank and supervised by 
the Ministry of Agriculture.  The United St ates further understands the fund provides for 1) non -
reimbursable funds for inputs and assistance to coffee production, 2) low interest loans for 
producers, and 3) public transfers of up to USD 100 million.  
  
c. Please confirm whether the Coffee Trust Fund w as funded by the government of Guatemala 
prior to 2018.  
d. Please provide further details on how the Coffee Trust Fund is implemented, including the 
types of support provided via the fund in calendar year 2018.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 130 - 
 
  e. How does the Coffee Trust Fund comply with Annex  2 paragraph of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and when will Guatemala be notifying this information in Table DS:2?  
Answer by Guatemala  
 
Guatemala realized that it had not notified the WTO of the expansion of the Coffee Trust Fund and 
proceeded to do so thro ugh the corresponding notification for 2018.  
  
a. Yes. 
b. Interested  producers must file an application with the Bank, along with the requisite 
supporting documents. The Bank then reviews the application and decides if it can be 
approved. The Trust Fund offers interest rates that are lower than the current market rate. 
For loans that are up -to-date in terms of principal and interest payments, the rates are:  
• 2% per annum for micro and small producers in the coffee sector; and  
• 3% per annum for medium and large pro ducers in the coffee sector;  
• for loans that fall into arrears in the payment of principal or interest, 8.5% per 
annum.  
 
The Trust Fund is a project to gradually renew the coffee tree population in the wake of the natural 
disaster caused by rust fungus dise ase. It provides support to producers in the Guatemalan coffee 
sector, in light of the impact of coffee rust disease in Guatemala.  
  
c. The programme is being implemented under Annex 2, paragraph 8 (of the Agreement on 
Agriculture), which concerns programmes for relief from natural disasters, as is the case 
of coffee rust in Guatemala.  
AG-IMS ID 93263: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala no longer notified agricultural input subsidies in Supporting Table 
DS:2.  Please confirm the measures notified in 2017 are no lon ger operational.  
 
Answer by Guatemala  
 
In 2018, the programme was not implemented due to lack of funds.  
 
1.2.4.14   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93228: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Through its latest DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/IND /18), dated 31 March 2020, India notified that it 
has exceeded the "de minimis " level for rice for the marketing year 2018 -2019. India also claimed 
that its public stockholding programs for food security purposes (covering rice and a number of other 
commod ities) have been consistently reported in its Table DS:1 notifications since 1995 and that its 
program is consistent with the criteria of paragraph 3, footnote 5, and footnote 5&6 of Annex 2 to 
the AoA. For these reasons, the breach of the "de minimis " limits for rice is covered by the peace 
clause set out in the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
(WT/MIN (13)/38) and the General Council Decision (WT/L/939).  
 
Brazil appreciates India 's efforts in complying with i ts transparency notification obligations and asks 
if India could provide comments on the following questions:  
 
a. How does India understand that it has complied with the additional transparency 
obligations provided for in the Bali Decision so that it can invo ke the Peace Clause therein?  
b. Why the PSH program template provided for in the Bali Decision was not submitted in 
previous notifications?  
c. When did rice public stockholding begin? What are the criteria and rules for the formation 
of rice stocks? In which reg ulation are they defined?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 131 - 
 
  d. How is the recently announced rise on the Minimum Support Price for rice from INR  18,15 
to 18,68 related to the PSH policy?  
e. When will information on other domestic support policies for rice be provided (footnote  3 
from DS: ST 5)?  
f. Does India intend to provide data related to PSH programs for wheat, coarse grains and 
pulses in the format of the statistical appendix of the Bali Decision for the period 
between  2013 and 2019?  
Answer by India  
 
a. India has already submitted its Domestic Support notifications in accordance with the Bali 
Ministerial decision on PSH. Given the fact that India has crossed its  de minimis  limit in the case of 
rice, all the relevant information has been provided in Domestic Support notification G/AG/N/IND/18 
for taking recourse to the Bali Decision in accordance with the requirements under the AoA as well 
as under the Bali Ministerial Decision.  
 
b. Para 3 (a) of the Bali Ministerial Decision states that a developing Member benefitting from this 
Decision must "have notified the Committee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of 
exceeding either or both of its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the Member's Bound 
Total AMS or the  de minimis  level) as result of its programmes mentioned above".  As India exceeded 
the de minimis  for rice in the year 2018 -2019, it notified the same to the COA and also submitted 
the Annex as required by the Bali Decision in its notification for the year. For previous years, India 
did not exceed its de minimis  limit as is also reflected in India's past notifications.  
 
c. The relevant information has been provided in the Annex of India's Domestic Support notification 
G/AG/N/IND/18.   
 
d. The relevant information has been provided in the Annex of India's Domestic Support notification 
G/AG/N/IND/18.   
 
e. This information will be provided in due course.   
 
f. India has already provided product -specific support data for wheat, coarse grains and pulses crops 
under its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/IND/18. For these crops, th e support is below the de minimis  
level.   
 
Follow -up: Brazil clarified that, in reference to sub -question e, it mentioned other domestic support 
policies for rice and not for other crops.  
AG-IMS ID 93291: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As part of its 2018/2019 domestic support notification, India notified the relevant statistical 
information described in the Statistical Appendix of the Annex of the Bali ministerial decision. Canada 
noted some discrepancies between the rice stock variations and the quantities purchased and 
released (under the program and open market sale). Canada calculated this discrepancy of 
3,427 millions of tonnes for 2016 -2017, 3 ,211 millions of tonnes for 2017 -2018 and of 9 ,733 millions 
of tonn es for 2018 -2019.  Could India provide an explanation of these discrepancies? Please include 
detailed information of what happened to these stocks, notably how they were disposed, through 
which channel, at what price, and if they were exported.  
 
Answer by I ndia 
 
This information will be  provided in due course.  
AG-IMS ID 93195: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Japan would appreciate if India could provide the value of production data for each of the 
agricultural products listed i n Supporting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/IND/18 including Coarse 
cereal, Cotton, Groundnut, Pulses, Rapeseed/Mustard, Soyabean Yellow, Sunflower and 
Wheat, as well as the total value of India agricultural production. This is for us to make 
sure the value of suppo rt for each commodity is under de minimis  threshold.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 132 - 
 
  b. Japan would appreciate if India could provide a clarification to explain why the value of 
support for wheat is a negative number ( -30.53  m USD) in Supporting Tables DS:4 
and DS:5 of G/AG/N/IND/18.  
Answe r by India  
 
a. The Value of Production data, as requested by Japan, is as follows:  
Crops  Value (in Million USD) *  
Coarse Cereals  9,683  
Cotton  11,024  
Groundnut  4,366  
Pulses  14,907  
Rapeseed/Mustard  5,553  
Soyabean  7,083  
Sunflower  106 
Wheat  27,784  
Total VoP  450,776  
* Data is provisional.  
 
b. The market price support notified for wheat is negative as the Applied Administered Price  (AAP) 
is less than the External Reference Price (ERP) for wheat.  
AG-IMS ID 93266: Question by United States  of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
While we thank India for providing a timely notification for Table DS:1 for reporting period 2018/19, 
the notification, in particular Supporting Table DS:1, lacks any detail of transparency beyond broad 
levels of support by classification type.  We take note that India has identified 11 exempt from 
reduction measures in its first ever Table DS:2 notification.  However, none of these measures appear 
to be discern ible in anyway in Table DS:1 with the exception of the Public Distribution System and 
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and that is only because the values notified in 
Table  DS:2, an ad hoc  non-annual notification, could be manually matched with val ues notified 
in Table DS:1.  
 
India has neglected to provide the name and descriptions of any measure notified in Supporting 
Table DS:1.  
 
a. Please resubmit a completed Supporting Table DS:1 for MY 2017/18, inclusive of names, 
descriptions, and monetary value  of each of India 's exempt measures.  
b. If India is unable to provide this information in a timely manner, India is encouraged to 
clarify that the Supporting Table is provisional, as other Members have done in the past.  
c. Further, if data for 2017/18 that is re quired in a Supporting Table DS:1 notification is not 
accessible at this time, please provide a completed Supporting Table DS:1 for the most 
recent year such information is available and provide a timeline for when India will bring 
its more recent notifica tion up to date with required information.  
Answer by India  
 
Consistent with our notification obligations, India has submitted its DS:1 and DS:2 notifications.  
 
India's DS:2 notification provides all the relevant information for the notified programmes.  
AG-IMS ID 93268: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
As noted in the statistical annex for rice, open market sales are made from the stocks accumulated 
in reference to the expenditures notified by India as the "allocation for distribution and buffer stock ". 
 
a. Please confirm whether open market sales for all commodities are sold from the public 
stocks at the same price as they are procured, which is the applied administered price 
noted in Supporting Table DS:5.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 133 - 
 
  b. Please provide the expenditure or revenue forgone from open market sales if the 
procurement and sales prices are not the same.  
Answer by India  
 
The reserve price of wheat and rice for sale of their stocks in domestic  market is kept above the 
applied administered price.  
AG-IMS ID 93273: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Statistical Appendix  
 
India announced a Market Support Price  for unmilled paddy rice, therefore it should be notifying all 
statistics in the Annex, along with rice market price support in ST DS:5, on an unmilled basis rather 
than a milled basis.  However, India notified its statistics on a milled basis.  
a. What is the basis for providing the statistical annex on a milled basis rather than on the basis of 
the product supported?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The Market Support Price is announced for  un-milled paddy. However, the ERP in India 's agriculture -
related Supporting  Tables at the WTO is given for the Rice. To make a comparable and con sistent  
analysis, the minimum support price of paddy is converted to milled rice by  using a conversion factor 
as provided in the DS:1 notification. This approach  has been used consistently by India in its past 
DS notifications, and the same  approach has al so been used for the latest 
DS notification  G/AG/N/IND/18.  
AG-IMS ID 93274: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In the Statistical Appendix, with regards to the Opening and Ending Balance of Stocks (a. and i.) 
notified by India:  
 
Please provide the source of these statistics and please confirm whether the values include private 
stocks.  
 
If private stocks are included, please provide a breakdown of public and private stocks.  
 
Answer by India  
 
a. The source of t hese statistics is India 's Ministry of Consumer  Affairs, Food and Public Distribution 
is the source.  
 
b. The  values notified do not include private stocks.  
AG-IMS ID 93275: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In the Statistical Appendix, with regards to "Annual Releases under the programme" in line  (e.) of 
the table notified by India:  Please provide the source of these statistics.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The source of these statistics is India 's Ministry of Con sumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.  
AG-IMS ID 93277: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
With regards to all statistics in the Statistical Appendix of India's DS:1 Notification, please confirm 
all data is on a marketing year basis.  If any statistics are not, please identify which ones and what 
yearly basis is used.   
 
Answer by India  
 
The data is on a marketing year basis.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 134 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93267: Question  by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
The United States understands that the Public Distribution System accounts for the largest share of 
stocks released from public stocks; however, India operates a number of nutritional/welfare 
programs that provide domestic food aid.  Other distribution schemes under the National Food 
Security Act include the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme, and the Midday Meal 
Scheme.  Further, food is distributed from public stocks under several other schemes not subject to 
the National Food Security Act.  
 
Please pr ovide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need " for each of these measures and confirm whether all are notified 
in the aggregated value notified by India.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The information requested in this question will be  submitted in due course.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93235: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Canada would like to co -sponsor the following question raised by Paraguay:  
 
India: Subsidies under Article 6.2. The Republic of Paraguay wishes to thank India for submitting 
notification G/AG/N/IND/18. In Table DS:2 of the notification, India reports a subsidy of 
USD 24.1 billion in reference to Article 6.2, indicating that it provides "other input subsidies" 
amounting to that value. Could India please provide information on:  
(a) the types of inputs subsidized, (i) whether such inputs are limited to those indicated in  the 
footnote or whether others are also included, and (ii) the disaggregated value of the subsidy per 
type of input; (b) eligibility criteria and whether the subsidies are available exclusively or "in general" 
for low‑income and resource ‑poor farmers; (c)  whether India is planning reforms to reduce its 
farmers' dependence on this type of subsidy, in respect of which we note an increase of 
approximately USD 2  billion between the notification covering the marketing year 2017 ‑2018 
(G/AG/N/IND/15) and notifica tion G/AG/N/IND/18; in this regard, could India explain the reasons 
for this considerable increase from one marketing year to the next?  
 
Answer by India  
 
We thank Paraguay and Canada for their questions . 
 
a. Input subsidies notified under Article 6.2 are gene rally available to low income and 
resource poor farmers.  
b. This support is on account of power, fertilizer and irrigation in agriculture. A breakdown of 
expenditure under each of these three heads has been provided in India 's DS:1 
notification, and will als o be made available in our written response.  
c. Necessary steps are taken to rationalize input subsidies, including release of support 
through direct benefit transfer.  
Table: Input subsidies notified for 2018 -2019 in DS:1  notification (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
(Figures in million USD)  Fertilizer  Irrigation  Power  
2018-2019 10,500.88  3,730.98  9,952.60  
AG-IMS ID 93234 : Question by Paraguay - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
The Republic of Paraguay wishes to thank India for submitting notification G/AG/N/IND/18. 
In Table  DS:2 of the notification, India reports a subsidy of USD 24.1  billion in reference to 
Article  6.2, indicating that it provides "other input subsidies" amounting to that valu e. Could India 
please  provide information on:  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 135 - 
 
  a. the types of inputs subsidized,  i.e., whether such inputs are limited to those indicated in 
the footnote or whether others are also included; and  ii. the disaggregated value of the 
subsidy per type of input;   
b. eligibility criteria and whether the subsidies are available exclusively or "in gene ral" for 
low‑income and resource ‑poor farmers;  
c. whether India is planning reforms to reduce its farmers' dependence on this type of 
subsidy, in respect of which we note an increase of approximately USD 2  billion between 
the notification covering the marketi ng year 2017 ‑2018 (G/AG/N/IND/15) and notification 
G/AG/N/IND/18; in this regard, could India explain the reasons for this considerable 
increase from one marketing year to the next?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Input subsidies notified under Article 6.2 are generally available to low income and 
resource poor farmers.  
b. This support is on account of power, fertilizer and irrigation in agriculture. A breakdown of 
expenditure under each of these three heads has been provided in India's DS:1 
notification, and will also be made available in our written response.  
c. Necessary steps are taken to rationalise input subsidies, including release of support 
through direct benefit transfer.  
Table: Input subsidies notified for 201 8-2019 in DS:1  notification (G/AG/N/IND/18)   
(Figures in million USD)  Fertilizer  Irrigation  Power  
2018-2019 10,500.88  3,730.98  9,952.60  
AG-IMS ID 93276: Question  by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In Supporting Table DS:2, India listed "Other input subsidies " as the name and description of more 
than $24 billion in support based on data from the Ministry  of Agriculture and Farmers ' Welfare, 
Ministry of Chemicals and Chemistry, Ministry of Power, and Ministry of Statistics and Program 
Implementation.  The footnote to this table indicates this includes subsidies for irrigation, fertilizers, 
and electricity.  India has neglected to provide the name and descriptions of any measure notified in 
Supporting Table DS:2.  
 
a. Please resubmit a completed Supporting Table DS:2 for MY 2017/18, inclusive of names, 
descriptions, and monetary value of each of India 's exempt me asures.  
b. If India is unable to provide this information in a timely manner, India is encouraged to 
clarify that the Supporting Table is provisional, as other Members have done in the past.  
c. Further, if data for 2017/18 that is required in a Supporting Table DS:2 notification is not 
accessible at this time, please provide a completed Supporting Table DS:2 for the most 
recent year such information is available and provide a timeline for when India will bring 
its more recent notification up to date with required  information.  
Answer by India  
 
Under Article 6.2, the following input subsidies have been notified by India in its DS:1 notification 
for year 2018-2019. 
Table: Input subsidies notified for 2018 -19 in DS:1  notification (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
(Figures in million USD)  Fertilizer  Irrigation  Power  
2018-2019 10,500.88  3,730.98  9,952.60  
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 136 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93281: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
As Members have asked with previous notifications, could India please provide a breakdown of 
expenditures on irrigation, fertilizers and electricity notified under Supporting Table DS:2.  For each 
monetary value, please also identify:  
 
a.  the published data sources from which the monetary value s provided are sourced, and  
b.  the name of each scheme or schemes (e.g., measures) that contribute to the value 
provided.  
Answer by India  
 
A breakdown of expenditures on irrigation, fertilizers and electricity has been provided in India's 
DS:1 notification.  
 
Table: Input subsidies notified for 2018 -18 in DS:1  notification (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
(Figures in million USD)  Fertilizer  Irrigation  Power  
2018-2019 10,500.88  3,730.98  9,952.60  
 
The sources of the information are also mentioned in India's notification in G/AG/N/IND/18.  
AG-IMS ID 93220: Question by Australia  - Market price support  
Australia thanks India for its DS:1 notification for marketing year  2018-2019 
(G/AG/N/IND/18).  Australia notes that India provided  product -specific domestic support for a rice 
in excess of India 's product -specific de minimis  commitments.  Australia understands that India  
asserts that the breach is covered by the peace clause set out in the Bali  Ministerial Decision on 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes (WT/MIN  (13)/38) and the General Council Decision 
(WT/L/939).  Australia would  like to ask the following questions:  
 
a. What was the total  production of rice (in both value and volume) in marketing 
year 2018-2019?  
b. What is the eligibility  criteria to receive the minimum support price? And is the minimum 
price support  available to all rice growers?  
Paragraph 3, Annex  2 of the AoA states, "The volume and accumulation of such stocks shall  
correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security". For  the period covered by the 
notification, could India provide:  
 
c. The pre -determined targets,  when these were established, and under which l egislation; 
and; an  explanation of how these targets are in compliance with the requirement of  a sole 
focus on food security?  
Answer by India  
 
a. The information requested under question (a) has already been  provided in the Statistical 
Appendix of India's domestic support notification  in G/AG/N/IND/18 at page 11.  
 
b and c) The procurement at MSP is undertaken for only non -basmati paddy  as per uniform 
specifications prescribed by the government.  
 
d. Before the onset of each marketing season, the  government holds a consultative meeting with 
the Food Corporation of India  (FCI), the State Governments and other stakeholders to make an 
assessment  regarding the availability of paddy/rice for procurement at Minimum Support  Price (MSP) 
in order to meet the fo od security requirements of our citizens.  
 
Based on the feedback received in the meeting regarding the production prospects  and market 
situation, procurement estimates (targets) are drawn up by the  government.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 137 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93236: Question by Canada - Market p rice support  
Canada would like to co -sponsor the following question raised by Paraguay:  
 
The Republic  of Paraguay would like to thank India for submitting its notification G/AG/N/IND/18. 
We note with concern that India has exceeded its de minimis  levels in  rice production in that 
notification and has submitted an annex  thereto, in follow -up to the Bali Decision. In this regard, we 
would like to  request India to provide clarification on the following points:  
 
a. Could India  explain why these PSH programs could not be carried out as a green box, as 
the USD 17.2 billion PSH already notified under this concept, in this same Notice.  
b. Reasons why  this annex has not been presented in previous years, considering that it is 
an existing program since 2013, in accordance w ith the information provided by  India in 
the annex to notification G/AG/N/IND/18, in accordance with  paragraph 3 inc. c of the Bali 
Decision.  
c. If India  could provide information on the volume and notification of stocks, in accordance  
with the inc. 3.b.  
d. What measures  has India taken to ensure that purchases of stocks that are later sold on 
the domestic market (approx. 850 thousand tons, as notified) are not subsequently  
exported.  
e. As India  considers that it has complied with the requirements of the Bali De cision,  
paragraph  3, inc. a), as it is a Notification corresponding to 2018 -2019.  
f. If India is  considering adjusting its notifications to adjust the totality of the eligible  
production, and not only the production actually purchased, in accordance with  the 
provisions of the AsA and the existing jurisprudence on the matter.  
Answer by India  
 
a. As mentioned in the  Annex of India 's domestic support notification in G/AG/N/IND/18, 
India procures food grains at the applied administered price for food security  purposes 
and not at the market prices. As per footnote 5 and 5&6 of  Annex 2 of the AoA, such 
support is to be shown under the AMS.  
b. Para 3 (a) of the Bali Ministerial Decision on  Public stockholding for food security purposes 
states that a developing  Member be nefitting from this Decision must "have notified the 
Committee on  Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of exceeding either or both  of 
its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the Member 's Bound  Total AMS or 
the de minimis  level) as a re sult of its  programmes mentioned above ". Since India 
exceeded the de minimis  for rice  for the year 2018-2019, it has notified the same and the 
Annex, as required  by the Bali Decision, in its notification for the same year. For the  
previous years, India did not exceed its de minimis  limit as is  also reflected in India 's past 
notifications.  
c. The information requested is available in India 's DS:1 notification G/AG/N/IND/18.  
d. For sales under Open Market Sales Scheme (OMSS -D), exports are not allowed.  Guidelines 
for empanelment and registration under the Open Market Sales  Scheme stipulate that the 
wheat so purchased from the Food Corporation of  India (FCI) under will be utilised 
domestically and will not be exported  by the bidder. The said guidelines are available at 
FCI's website at the  web-link: http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 . 
e. India has already submitted its Domestic Support  notifications in accordance with the Bali 
Decision. Given  the fact that  India has crossed its de minimis  limit in case of rice, all the 
relevant  information has been provided in Domestic Support notification  G/AG/N/IND/18 
for taking recourse to the Bali Decision.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 138 - 
 
  f. India has been consistently notifying its Domesti c Support notifications based  on eligible 
production, which is the portion of the marketable surplus  meeting specifications 
prescribed by the government.  
AG-IMS ID 93290: Question by Canada - Market price support  
In its 2018/2019 domestic support notificat ion, India reported support for rice in excess of its 
de minimis  level for rice. By doing so, India breached is WTO domestic support commitment to limit 
its support for rice at 10% of its value of production. a.  Please indicate what concrete steps India is 
taking to rectify the situation and fulfil its WTO domestic sup port commitment for rice in the future.  
 
Answer by India  
 
India has notified more than 10%  of the  Value of Production (VoP) as product -specific support to 
rice for 2018-2019. To remain consistent with its WTO obligations,  India has taken recourse to the 
Bali Ministerial Decision on PSH, which has  been notified in our DS:1 notification No. G/AG/N/IND/18.  
India is constantly monitoring and evaluating its public stockholding  programme for food security 
purposes.  
AG-IMS ID 93198: Question by European Union - Market price support  
a. STOCKS AND RELEASE  
Based on the figures in notification in the statistical annex the EU has drawn up the following balance 
sheet for the rice public stockholding programme.   
 
Mio. t.   2016 -17 2017 -18 2018 -2019  
Opening stocks  a 28,811  29,784  30,043  
Annual purchase  b 38,110  38,130  44,330  
Total availability  c=a+b  66,921  67,914  74,373  
Annual releases  d 33,52  34,2 34,4 
Open market sales  e 0,190  0,460  0,850  
Total release  f=e+d  33,71  34,66  35,25  
Total availability - total release  g=c-f 33,211  33,254  39,123  
End stocks IND/18  h 29,784  30,043  29,390  
      
Discrepancy  i=g-h 3,427  3,211  9,733  
 
Can India explain in detail the discrepancies in this table? Where have these quantities of rice gone? 
Notably, the discrepancy for 2018-2019 is 25% of total annual purchases which seems extremely 
large.   
 
b. TOTAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS  
India claims that no imports to or exports from public stocks occurred.   
 
However, in order to examine compliance with paragraph 4 of the Bali Ministerial Decision, it is 
necessary to examine import and export figures for the entire production of India for each year 
concerned.   
 
Can India indicate the total quantities and value of rice imported and respectively exported for each 
year concerned.   
 
c. RESPECT OF PARAGRAPHS 3C AND 3D OF THE BALI MINISTERIAL DECISION  
"Paragraph 3c of the Bali Ministerial Decision requires the Member to provide on an annual basis, 
additional information by completing the template contained in the Annex, for each public 
stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes " 
In point 2b of the Annex India indicates that its public stockholding programmes cover rice, wheat, 
coarse grains and pulses. However, the statistical Annex only includes rice.   
Can India submit the required statistical annex for wheat, coarse grains and pulses.   
 
d. SUPPORT OTHER THAN PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR RICE  
In footnote 3 in Supporting table 5 India indicates that "Other support for rice, that is, other than 
public stockholding for food security purposes, will be notified subsequently ". However, this  
information is necessary to verify whether India has respected paragraph 5 of the Bali Ministerial 
Decision which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes other than 
public stockholding.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 139 - 
 
  i. Can India indicate what types of supp ort are concerned   
ii. Can India indicate when this notification will be submitted.  
iii. Will this notification also include revisions of prior notifications (for instance for  2014 
and subsequent years) to include this type of support for the years in question?   
Answer by India  
 
a. The information requested under question (a) will be provided in due course . 
b. India's export and import data can be accessed from the web -link: https://commerce -
app.gov.in/eidb/ . 
c. India has taken recourse to the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for rice. 
Thus, the related data for rice has been notified. For other products, covered under India's 
food security programmes, product specific -support was less than the pre scribed 
de minimis  limit, and information regarding the same has been given under the Supporting 
Tables 4 -5 of India's Domestic Support notification in document G/AG/N/IND/18.  
d. 'Other support' for rice will be notified in due course.  
Follow -up: The EU noted  that India's notification G/AG/N/IND/18 was the first DS:1 notification 
which invoked the Bali provisions on public stockholding programmes (PSH). The EU looked forward 
to reviewing India's responses in writing as it was not fully convinced India had resp ected all 
requirements of the Bali Ministerial Decision on PSH. The EU highlighted the following four points:  
 
1. India has exceeded the de minimis limit only for rice but the annex is required for all products 
for which PSH existed, i.e. wheat, coarse grains , pulses and sugar.  
2. India should submit notifications including all other support measures as indicated in 
footnote 5 to its DS:1 notification. In the EU's view, this was  primordial to verify if India had 
respected paragraph 5 of the Bali Decision. India s hould also inform Members on the reasons 
why the measures were not included in the previous DS:1 notification.  
3. In light of India's continued increase in the support price for rice in the latest years, Members 
need to analyse the impact on production level of rice in India. Whether the price increases 
led to the invocation of the Bali Decision should also be examined. If so, India's compliance 
with Paragraph 2 of the Bali decision would be questionable.  
4. More details are appreciated regarding the measures Ind ia took to ensure products sold from 
the stock is not exported.  
 
The EU looked forward to notifications on all the measures referred to in footnote 5 to India's 
notification. The EU underlined the importance of this information in accessing if the programm e 
fulfils the conditions set out in the Bali Decision. In the EU's view, Members can only determine the 
measure's compliance with the Bali Decision when there is full transparency.  
 
Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members c ould assess whether 
India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's efforts to 
notify its updated Table DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one of the most 
up-to-date Members with its transparen cy obligations. Brazil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide additional 
information about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 93233: Question by Paraguay  - Market price support  
The Republic of Paraguay wishes to thank India for submitting notification G/AG/N/IND/18. We note 
with concern that India has exceeded its de minimis  levels for rice production and that it has 
submitted an annex to the notification pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision. We therefore request 
that India provide clarification on the following points:  
 
a. Could India please explain why these PSH programmes could not be included under the 
Green Box, like the USD 17.2  billion worth of PSH measures already notified as such in 
the same notification?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 140 - 
 
  b. Why was this annex not submitted in previous years, as required under paragraph 3(c) of 
the Bali Decision, given that it concerns a programme in existence s ince 2013, according 
to information provided by India in the Annex to notification G/AG/N/IND/18?  
c. Could India please provide information on the volume and notification of stocks, in 
accordance with paragraph 3(b);  
d. What steps has India taken to ensure tha t purchased stocks subsequently sold in the 
domestic market (approximately 850,000  tonnes, according to the figures notified) are 
not later exported?  
e. How does India consider itself to have met the requirements of paragraph 3(a) of the Bali 
Decision by sub mitting a notification covering the period 2018 ‑2019?  
f. Is India considering reviewing its notifications to amend the total amount of eligible 
production, and not only the production actually purchased, in accordance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture and existing jurisprudence in this area?  
Answer by India  
 
a. As mentioned in the Annex of India's domestic support notification in G/AG/N/IND/18, 
India procures food grains at the applied administered price for food security purposes 
and not at th e market prices. As per footnote 5 and 5&6 of Annex 2 of the AoA, such 
support is to be shown under the AMS.  
b. Para 3 (a) of the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public stockholding for food security purposes 
states that a developing Member benefitting from this  Decision must "have notified the 
Committee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of exceeding either or both of 
its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the Member's Bound Total AMS or 
the de minimis  level) as a result of its program mes mentioned above". Since India 
exceeded the de minimis  for rice for the year 2018-2019, it has notified the same and the 
Annex, as required by the Bali Decision, in its notification for the same year. For the 
previous years, India did not exceed its de minimis  limit as is also reflected in India's past 
notifications.  
c. The information requested is available in India's DS:1 notification G/AG/N/IND/18.  
d. For sales under Open Market Sales Scheme (OMSS -D), exports are not allowed. Guidelines 
for empanelment and registration under the Open Market Sales Scheme stipulate that the 
wheat so purchased from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) under will be utilised 
domestically and will not be exported by the bidder. The said guidelines are available at 
FCI's website at  the web -link: http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 . 
e. India has already submitted its Domestic Support notifications in accordance with the Bali 
Decision. Given the fact that India has crossed its de mini mis limit in case of rice, all the 
relevant information has been provided in Domestic Support notification G/AG/N/IND/18 
for taking recourse to the Bali Decision.  
f. India has been consistently notifying its Domestic Support notifications based on eligible 
production, which is the portion of the marketable surplus meeting specifications 
prescribed by the government.  
AG-IMS ID 93311: Question by Thailand  - Market price support  
Thailand appreciates India 's notification to the Committee on Agriculture. In this regard, Thailand 
seeks clarification on the notification of public stock holding for food security purposes as follows:  
 
a. Thailand notes that the Bali Decision requires a developing Member benefiting from this 
Decision to notify the Com mittee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of 
exceeding either or both of its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the 
Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis  level) as result of such programmes.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 141 - 
 
  Could India please clarify wheth er such notification has been submitted to the COA prior to the 
implementation?  
 
b. Could India provide further details on how purchase prices and release prices on public 
stock holding for food security purposes for rice were determined?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Para 3 (a) of the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding  states that a developing 
Member benefitting from this decision must "have notified the Committee on Agriculture 
that it is exceeding or is at risk of  exceeding either or both of its Aggrega te Measurement 
of Support (AMS) limits  (the Member 's Bound Total AMS or the  de minimis  level) as result  
of its programmes mentioned above ". Since India exceeded the de minimis  for rice in the 
year 2018-2019, it has notified the breach as well as the Annex  required by the Bali 
Decision in its notification for the same year. For the previous  years, India did not exceed 
its de minimis  limit as is also reflected in  India's past notifications.  
b. Purchase  prices or the Minimum Support Price are announced by the government following  
the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP),  which 
takes into account various factors including the cost of  cultivation/production, changes in 
input prices, input/output price parity,  inter-crop price parity, effects on the cost of living, 
effects on general  price level, parity between prices paid and prices received by farmers. 
The release prices are provided under India 's National Food Security  Act, 2013.  
This information is also provided in India 's DS:1 notification in document  G/AG/N/IND/18.  
AG-IMS ID 93271: Question by United States  of America - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5 the methodology for calculating Market Price Support  is same as previous 
notifications, despite concerns raised by various Members over a number of years, including but not 
limited to aggregation of applied administered prices across separately supported products and the 
inclusion of sub -national support.   
 
a. For each product for which India announced a Minimum Support Price (MSP) for marketing 
year 2018/19, please identify the corresponding MSP.  
b. If applied administered prices in Supporting Table DS:5 do not include additional bonuses 
above the MSP that certai n states may provide, please specify the values of any bonuses 
provided by each state and to which products bonuses applied during marketing 
year 2018/19.  
Answer by India  
 
a. The Minimum support price for products notified in India 's DS:1  notification for 2018-2019 
can be accessed from the web -link: http://agricoop.gov.in/ . 
b. The information requested in question b will be submitted in due course.  
AG-IMS ID 93272: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
 
Supporting Table DS:5  India has notified in footnote 3 of Supporting Table DS:5 that "other support 
for rice " will be notified subsequently.  When will this support be notified in a revised Table DS:1 
notification?  
 
Answer by India  
 
This information will be provided in due course.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 142 - 
 
  1.2.4.15   India (G/AG/N/IND/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93278: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
 
India has notified $17.2 billion for the "allocation for distribution and buffer stock ". According to 
G/AG/N/IND/19, this value represented the "Public Distribution System, National Food Security 
Act, 2013. " Further, G/AG/N/IND/19 states outlays are covered by both paragraph 3 and 4 of 
Annex  2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
a. Please provide a  breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks 
of products " under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
b. Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of 
products " under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
c. Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic 
food aid to sections of the population in need " under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
Answer by India  
 
The information requested in this question will be  submitted in due course.   
 
AG-IMS ID 93294: Question by Canada  - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
In its last notification, India notified a program called Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -
KISAN) under paragraph 6 of the Ann ex 2 of the AoA.  
 
a. Could India clarify who is eligible for this program and what are the criteria that determined 
eligibility for a payment?  
b. Could India indicate if payment levels are determined by income of producers and if so, 
what is the defined and fixe d base period used to define eligibility?  
Answer by India  
 
The information asked for may be accessed from the  web-link https://pmkisan.gov.in/ . 
AG-IMS ID 93293: Question by Canada - Classification  of measures  
In its last notification, India classified the measure called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) 
as Green Box under paragraph 8 of the annex 2 of the AoA. In its DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/IND/19) 
India explained that:  
"Provisions are consistent with criteri a in Annex 2, paragraph 8, as the government subsidies are on 
premium of agricultural insurance for production loss exceeding 30% of the average of yield of past 
years. " 
 
a. Could India indicate what is the period used to calculate average past yield under this 
program? More specifically, what is the methodology on the number of "past years " used 
to calculate the average reference period yield?  
b. Could India explain how it meets  the base period requirement to calculate the average 
production level, as defined by Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a)?  
A program described as Insurance premium subsidy is also reported for in supporting table DS:9 for 
government subsidies on premiums of agricultur al insurance for production loss not exceeding 30% 
of the average of production.  
 
c. Could India indicate if the support reported is part of the same insurance program of the 
one reported under Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a)?  
d. Please indicate how the two support prog rams are related and how they interact with each 
other.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 143 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
The details requested under questions (a) and (b) may be accessed  at the 
web-link https://pmfby.gov.in/ .  
 
The response to questions (c) and (d) is that government support in  respect of the premiums of 
agricultural insurance under the Pradhan Mantri  Fasal Bima Yojana for production loss 
exceeding  30% of the average of  production is covered under the Green box a nd for production loss 
not exceeding  30% of the average of production, this support has been notified as non -product  
specific support.  
 
1.2.4.16   Indonesia (G/ AG/N/IDN/67)  
AG-IMS ID 93039: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table D S:2) 
The United States notes two measures notified in ST/DS:1 for 2018 under Public  stockholding for 
food security purposes that were not notified in Indonesia 's notification for 2017: the "Storage and 
maintenance costs " and "Reserve fund  for government to  purchase foodstuff at market prices " 
programs.   
 
a. Please confirm the effective date of the new  measures.  
b. Please confirm whether a  DS:2 notification will be submitted.  
c. Please confirm what foodstuffs are purchased  for the reserve fund at market prices.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
a. and b.  There are two measures notified in ST/DS:1 for 2018 under Public stockholding for food 
security purposes that were not notified in Indonesia's notification for 2017 because of in 2018 there 
is a separation of records between government and commercial rice reserves. Therefore, Indonesia 
does not need to notify DS:2 because "Storage and maintenance costs" and "Reserve funds for 
government to purchase foodstuff at market prices" are not new measures.  
 
c. Only rice in the  2018 is purchased for the reserve fund at market prices.   
AG-IMS ID 93040: Question by United States of America  - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In ST/DS:1 Indonesia notified a new measure for 2018, "Cash -based food aid for Poor and Low-
Income  Society (BPNT)", that was not included in its 2017 notification.  
 
a. Please confirm this is a new measure. If so, please confirm whether a DS:2 notification 
will be submitted.  
b. Does BPNT replace some or all of the in -kind food aid provided under "Rice for Poor and 
Low-Income Society (RASTRA)" with cash -based food aid to consumers or does it 
supplement food aid provided by RASTRA?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
a. BPNT is a transformation program of the RASTRA and has been implemented in stages 
in 2017. Therefore, Indonesia has not notified DS:2 (new or modified domestic support 
measures exempt from reduction) because BPNT is not a new measure.  
b. Yes, it does.  
AG-IMS ID 93119: Question  by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States would like to repeat parts of question 2 for Indonesia from AG -IMS ID 89041, for 
which we only received partial responses:  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 144 - 
 
  a. In response to question 2a which asked "Supporting Ta bles DS:5 in Indonesia 's 
notifications are notified on a calendar year basis rather than marketing year. Please 
confirm the dates for which the applied administered price is applicable. ", Indonesia 
responded that the date of the applied administered price is in accordance with the 
applicable regulation. Please provide a copy of the applicable regulation and confirm 
whether the dates contained in the applicable regulation are based on calendar year or 
marketing year.  
b. The US reiterates question 2d ( "Please e xplain how the procurement target quantity is 
determined and when. ") as no response was received.  
c. The US reiterates 2e ( "Please confirm whether the applied price and the eligible production 
notified are on a milled basis or paddy basis. ") as no response w as received.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
a. The applicable regulation to confirm the dates for which the applied administered price on 
calendar year are stated in Minister of Finance Regulation Number 116/PMK.02/2015 as 
amended by Minister of Finance Regulation Num ber 207/PMK.02/2017.  
b. The determination of procurement target quantity is based on the assignment given by 
the government, according to APBN/State Budget (Calendar Year).  
c. The applied price and the eligible production notified are on a milled rice basis.  
AG-IMS ID 93041: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
It is noted that the eligible production quantity for MPS for rice in 2018 is nearly 10 times larger 
than in 2017 quantity, resulting in an 800% increase in market price support.  
 
Please explain the reason behind the significant change in the quantity of eligible production and 
whether eligible production was notified as the procured quantity, as noted by Indonesia in response 
to AG -IMS ID 89041.  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
In 2017, Perum BULOG held an OP because it still manages Raskin (ST/DS:1). In 2018, the OP was 
replaced by KPSH where Perum BULOG can sell rice for price stabilization. With the transformation 
between the 2017 's and 2018 's programs, there was a significant difference. The difference was 
used in 2018 to be compounded with the procurement stock . Therefore, MPS for rice in 2017 is 
smaller than 2018.  
  
Note:  
OP: Operasi  Pasar  (market operation) . 
Raskin: Beras  untuk Rumah Tangga Miskin  (rice for low-income  household).  
KPSH: Ketersediaan Pasokan untuk Stabilisasi Harga  (availability stockholding f or price 
stabilization).  
 
1.2.4.17   Israel (G/AG/N/ ISR/74)  
AG-IMS ID 93120: Question by Australia  - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia notes that Israel has reported domestic support in excess of its annual commitments for 
the 2018 calendar year. Australia notes t hat Israel has exceeded its domestic support for the 
calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2017. Australia appreciates Israel's commitment to 
transparency and the information provided in the notification G/AG/N/ISR/74 for 2018.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 145 - 
 
  a. Could Israel provide an update on the concrete steps it is taking, and the progress made 
with respect to the additional reforms in its dairy and egg sectors so that Israel is in 
compliance with its WTO obligations in the future?  
b. Does Israel expect to be n otifying a further breach for the calendar year 2019?  
Answer by Israel  
 
a. The submission of the reform process is still withheld until a new government is formed. 
In the meantime, dairy production quota for 2020 is set to be reduced by at least  2%, 
from 1 .569 billion tonnes  in 2018 and 2019 to 1 ,537 or less in 2020. This will apply to 
both tradable and non -tradable dairy production, reducing the tradable production even 
further below Total AMS commitments (tradable production in 2018 was 
894 million  tonnes ).  
b. The data for 2019 has not yet been gathered and calculated, but regrettably, a breach can 
be assumed until the reform takes place.  
AG-IMS ID 93122: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that for 2018 Israel has notified domestic s upport over its annual commitment and 
that the amount reported is an increase of USD 18.5 million above the amount notified in 2017 when 
Israel also exceeded its domestic support commitment. Canada appreciates the transparency and 
the information provided in its domestic support notification G/AG/N/ISR/74 and in previous 
notifications when it exceeded its commitment (G/AG/N/ISR/66 for 2017 and G/AG/N/ISR/55 for 
the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014). In Israel 's response to Canada 's questions AG -IMS ID 91102,  
Israel indicated that it was taking specific steps to comply with it its WTO domestic support 
commitment. Could Israel provide an update on the additional reforms under discussion in the dairy 
and egg sectors which will bring Israel 's Current Total AMS ba ck to its annual commitment?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
The submission of the reform process is still withheld until a new government is formed. In the 
meantime, dairy production quota for 2020 is set to be reduced by at least 2%, from 1 .569 billion 
tonnes in 2018 and 2019 to 1 .537 or less in 2020. This will apply to both tradable and non -tradable 
dairy production, reducing the tradable production even further below Total AMS commitments 
(tradable production in 2018 was 894 million ton nes). 
AG-IMS ID 93123: Que stion by European  Union - Scheduled commitment level  
The EU is disappointed to see a further increase in the overshoot of Israel's AMS commitments 
in 2018. The increase of $19  million in current Total AMS to $631  million leads to an overshoot in 
the year 2 018 of $62  million or 11% of Israel's AMS commitment. Further, this increase is not only 
due to increased production of eggs and milk, but also due to increased administered support prices 
for the two products in question. The EU is disappointed to see a W TO Member taking decisions that 
lead to an even greater overshoot of its WTO commitments.  
 
a. Can Israel explain the reasoning for the increased administered support prices for eggs 
and milk that has led to this greater overshoot of its AMS commitments? Was respect of 
Israel's AMS commitment part of the decision -making process leading up to the increase 
in administered prices?  
b. b. Can Israel explain what measures will be taken to ensure that Israel will respect its 
WTO obligations?  
Answer by Israel  
 
a. The administered prices for eggs and milk are directly derived from input costs, which are 
external to the local producers. Israel is seeking to reform its dairy and table egg sectors 
to respect its AMS  commitment.   
b. The submission of the reform process is stil l withheld until a new government is formed. 
In the meantime, dairy production quota for 2020 is set to be reduced by at least 2%, G/AG/W/216  
 
- 146 - 
 
  from 1 .569 billion tonnes  in 2018 and 2019 to 1 .537 or less in 2020. This will apply to 
both tradable and non -tradable dairy production, reducing the tradable production even 
further below Total AMS commitments (tradable production in 2018 was 894 million 
tonnes ).  
AG-IMS ID 93124: Question by United  States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
Supporting Table DS:5   
 
The Unit ed States welcomes Israel's transparency on the issue  of breaching its Total 
AMS commitment level in 2018. Israel has noted that AMS  is expected to fall below Israel 's 
commitment level. The United States remains  concerned with the multi -year breach of 
comm itments.  Please provide an  update on the reform process.  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
The submission of the reform process is still withheld until a new government is formed. In the 
meantime, dairy production quota for 2020 is set to be reduced by at least 2%, from 1.569 billion 
tonnes  in 2018 and 2019 to 1.537 or less in 2020. This will apply to both tradable and non -tradable 
dairy production, reducing the tradable production even further below Total AMS commitments 
(tradable production in 2018 was 894 million ton nes). 
AG-IMS ID 93121: Question by Brazil - Market price support  
First of all, Brazil would like to congratulate Israel for including an explanatory note "background 
and adjustments in policy" in its latest DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/ISR/74). Considering this  
information:  
 
Could Israel provide comparative data on the international price of feed that it has been using to 
define its administered prices for milk and eggs in recent years?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
Israel is  using indices provided by its Central Bureau of Statistics.  
 
Year 2000 average = 100 (the chart cannot be posted on the AGIMS currently. Please  contact the 
WTO Secretariat  at agims@wto.org  should you wish to  review  such information).   
AG-IMS ID 93125: Question by United  States of America - Market price support  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 90066, it is still unclear as to  how total quality improvement for milk are 
determined using the protein, fat  and water coefficients provided.  Is there a formula Israel is able 
to provide that would  allow the US to verify these calculations?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
The formula used to calculate total quality improvement for milk is as follows: 
∆=P_coef∙P_2018/P_base +F _coef∙F_2018/F_base Whereas Pcoef=Protein coefficient  (54%), 
Fcoef=Fat coefficient (36%), P2018=Calculated normative protein content in milk in 2018  (3.41%), 
F2018=Calculated normative fat content in milk in 2018 (3.82%), Pbase=Average 1986 -1988 for 
calcul ated normative protein content in milk (2.98%), Fbasr= Average 1986 -1988 for calculated 
normative fat content in milk (3.18%).  
AG-IMS ID 93126: Question by United  States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
 
Please explain the reason for the increase behind "growers support" for flowers, which accounts for 
most of the 27% increase in support for flowers.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 147 - 
 
  Answer by Israel  
 
Budget was allocated to increase the support given to flower growers in 2018 and 2019. Growers 
eligible for this support were flower growers introducing new varieties or improved 
agro-technologies.  
 
1.2.4.18   Korea, Republic  of (G/AG/N/KOR/60/CORR.1 , G/AG/N/KOR/6 3/CORR.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 93130: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In the corrigendum to Korea's domestic support notifications the value of production values were 
modified for several products. For example, the value of production for a number of products in 2012 
increased significantly, such as white radish, sweet potatoes, red pepper, potato, pear, onion, green 
onion, etc. Meanwhile, there was a significant decrease in the value of production for ginseng and 
small downward adjustments for several other commodities. The total value of production remains 
unchan ged.  
 
Please explain how value of production is determined and the reason for these significant changes.  
 
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
Value of production is calculated by multiplying annual average selling price by annual volume of 
production of a certain product. The modification in value of production was made due to simple 
mistake. Please check the website of Statistics Korea for value of production information.  
 
1.2.4.19   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/ KOR/61, G/AG/N/KOR/62, G/AG/N/KOR/6 3) 
AG-IMS ID 93129: Qu estion by Australia  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea (ROK) for submitting a number of corrigenda to its 
DS:1 notifications for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. With respect to Korea's original 
DS:1 for 2015 - G/AG/N/KOR/63, Australia would be grateful if the ROK can respond to the following 
questions:  
 
a. In the ROK's Supporting Table DS:1, under Decoupled income support, the ROK notifies a 
fixed payment scheme for paddy fields. Can the ROK provide d etails of this programme, 
including eligibility criteria and how the payments are calculated?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:2, the ROK notifies payments under Article 6.2 measures. Can the 
ROK provide further details on this expenditure, including what sectors a nd products were 
aided through these investment subsidies and details of the investment subsidies 
provided?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. Fixed payment scheme for paddy fields refers to subsidies that are granted to the farmers 
irrespective of the yields and price fluctuation of agricultural products.  
- Target: The paddy fields under the Farmland Act which are used for rice farming 
between  1998 and 2000 are the targets of "a fixed payment scheme for paddy fields".  
- Eligibility criteria: Farmers and/or agric ultural enterprises who engage in farming in 
targeted farmlands (including fallow period) eligible for "a fixed payment scheme" and 
meet the requirements stated in the "Act on preserving agricultural income" can 
receive the payment. The requirements are as  follows: (1) Person who duly received 
direct payments one or more times for the period from 1 January 2005 to 
31 December  2008: (2) person who is a junior agricultural manager or a person 
specialized in agriculture, etc.  
- Total payments are calculated by multiplying fixed rate (average one million won) by 
targeted field area.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 148 - 
 
  b. In the 91st CoA meeting, the Republic of Korea provided Australia with detailed information 
on "Seedling Infrastructure development program", carried out by the Korea Forest 
Service. Please refer to AG -IMS ID 91148.  
1.2.4.20   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  
AG-IMS ID 93131: Question  by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow -up with Nigeria with respect to question AG ‑IMS ID 90034 that Australia 
asked at the 90th CoA and question AG ‑IMS ID 92117 that Australia asked at the 92nd CoA: Nigeri a's 
domestic support notifications for the period 2012 to 2016 (G/AG/N/NGA/17) notified that it did not 
provide domestic support during this period.  
 
a. Australia would like to know if Nigeria plans to include key agricultural elements of its 
Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support 
notifications.  
b. Specifically , how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving  
access to markets?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria wishes to thank Australia for its questions regarding Nigeria 's outstanding DS Notifications 
especially the Domestic Support programme under the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan 
(ERGP  2017-2020). We believe timely and effective notifications of measures as well as transparency 
are essential for the proper functioning of the Multilateral trading system. We wish to state that the 
delay in fulfilling our DS Notification obligation is not w illful. It is due to our resources and capacity 
constraints. This notwithstanding, our government has set in motion an inter -Agency process for 
detailed compilation of our Agriculture Domestic Support programmes for the year 2017 
to 2020 (ERGP) to enable u s notify them accordingly. We are also in the process of reviewing our 
Domestic Support programmes for the period 2012 to 2016 with a view to submit a revised 
notification for these periods where necessary. Nigeria will in the coming days fulfill its 
DS Notifications obligations.  
 
1.2.4.21   Norway ( G/AG/N/NOR/108 , G/AG/N/NOR/108/C orr.1 and 
G/AG/N/NOR/108/C orr.2) 
AG-IMS ID 93063: Question by Paraguay  - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Norway for the submission of  the second corrigendum of the 
notification contained in document G/AG/N/NOR/108 concerning domestic support commitments 
(Table DS:1) for the calendar year 2018.  
 
We note that the value of NOK 3,066.5 million has been corrected to NOK 3,889 million for th e 
National Environmental Programme. Could Norway please explain this difference of over NOK 800 
million and give the reasons for the miscalculation of the amount disbursed for this programme in 
the original notification?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
We thank Paragu ay for the question and for the unofficial translation of the question. The amount 
spent on the national environmental programme was almost the same in 2018 as in 2017. The 
amount increased from 3,861.8 million NOK in 2017 to 3,889.0 million NOK in 2018. I n the original 
notification an important part of the programme was omitted. This was due to insufficient quality 
control when submitting our first electronic DS:1 notification. Once we discovered the error, we 
submitted a corrigendum with the correct infor mation. We apologize for any inconvenience this may 
have caused.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 149 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93132: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Australia thanks Norway for the submission of DS:1 for Calendar year 2018 (G/AG/N/NOR/108) a nd 
its corrigenda.  
 
With respect to Supporting Table DS:1 (Green Box measures), can Norway provide additional 
information on the 'Subsidy to organic production', including whether there is a requirement for 
producers to engage in (apply for/use?) the prog ramme, and how the subsidy is calculated?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway would like to thank Australia for their interest in the Norwegian support to organic 
production. In order to be eligible to receive support to organic production the farmers are required 
to apply for support and to be certified as an organic producer. The payments represent 
compensation for additional costs and loss of income due to fulfilling the requirements. In order to 
be certified as an organic producer, you have to fulfil the require ments laid down in Regulation 
relating to organic production and labelling of organic agricultural products, aquaculture products, 
foodstuffs and feedings stuffs. The Norwegian Regulation is based on EU legislation 
(i.e., Regulation  834/2007 and amending a cts). All providers of organic products in Norway have to 
apply for certification and be certified by the Norwegian control body Debio. Debio has been 
delegated authority from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority to carry out official control and make 
individual decisions about the production and sale of organic products.  
AG-IMS ID 93134: Question by New Zealand  - Direct payments: other  
New Zealand welcomes Norway's Domestic Support notification for calendar year 2018. New Zealand 
notes that Norway has noti fied 1,259.6 NOK million for a "vacation and replacement scheme".  
 
Can Norway please clarify the criteria that determines the value of payments under this scheme and 
explain the consistency of this scheme with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway thanks New Zealand for the question related to the "vacation and replacement scheme". 
The objective of the program is to enable livestock producers to hire workers for replacement during 
vacations and time off in line with national  regulations related to the work environment. The 
maximum payment, which takes the form of an annual lump sum per farm, aims at partly 
compensating a full -time farmer. Part time farmers are granted an accordingly reduced payment. 
Farmers get a refund of ex penses up to a maximum amount calculated for each farm. Refunds are 
calculated on the basis of a rate per animal, within a maximum amount of NOK 83 400 per farm per 
year (in 2019). The amount calculated for each farm, is not payable until the hiring expens es are 
legitimized, in order to avoid misuse of the scheme. The scheme thus gives an opportunity to farm 
families to take some time off without production being affected. The production factors employed 
are not influenced by the scheme. The scheme has thus  no or at most minimal trade distorting 
effects on production, in accordance with the fundamental requirements of Annex 2.  
AG-IMS ID 93133: Question by European  Union - Classification of measures  
The European Union notes that Norway's Amber Box support for beef has increased from 
132.2  million NOK in 2017 to 409 million NOK in 2018. This relatively large increase could be 
explained by a change of classification of the measure "quality incentive programme for beef" from 
blue box support (Supportin g Table DS:3) to amber box support (Supporting Table DS:6).  
 
What changes have been made to the quality incentive programme between 2017 and 2018 that 
leads to this change of classification?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
We thank the European Union for the question  concerning the quality incentive program for beef.  
 
There has been no change in the program for 2018. However, due to extraordinary circumstances 
and force majeure, the program did not comply with the blue box criteria in 2018 and therefore had 
to be not ified as amber box support. The extraordinary circumstances were caused by extreme G/AG/W/216  
 
- 150 - 
 
  drought in 2018 and consequently increased early slaughter of bovine animals which led to a slightly 
higher quantity slaughtered in 2018 than 85% of the base level, ref DS:2  notification 
G/AG/N/NOR/80.  
 
1.2.4.22   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 93221: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Panama for the submission of its DS:1 for 2019.  Australia notes Panama is reporting 
a breach of de minimis  for suppor t provided to rice during this reporting period.   
 
a. Can Panama explain what caused this breach and how it has worked to prevent a similar 
breach in the subsequent reporting periods?  
Answer by Panama  
 
In its duty to guarantee national food security, Panama d oes not envisage substantial changes to 
the measures related to Law No.  17 of 22  February  2018 declaring rice to be a national food security 
crop. Article 4 of this Law provides that the State shall adopt the following measures to guarantee 
rice production :  
 
a. It shall establish support for rice produced in the national territory at 7.50 balboas (PAB) 
per quintal of paddy rice, dirty or wet. This amount shall be reviewed every three years.  
AG-IMS ID 93295: Question by Canada  - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that Panama has exceeded its annual domestic support commitment for a third 
consecutive year by PAB 41.7 million in 2017, by PAB 54.3 million in 2018 and by PAB 22 .5 million 
in 2019, as a result of Panama exceeding its product specific de minimis for rice.  
 
At the 92nd session of the Regular Committee on Agriculture, Canada questioned Panama on what 
actions it would be taking to ensure compliance with its domestic support commitments (question  
AG-IMS ID 92062). Panama did not clarify what steps it would take. Canada would like to reiterate 
its question to Panama.  
 
What steps will Panama take to come back into compliance with its domestic support commitment?  
 
Answer by Panama  
 
In its duty to guarantee national food security, Panama does not envisage substantial changes to 
the measures related to Law No.  17 of 22  February  2018 declaring rice to be a national food security 
crop. Article 4 of this Law provides that the State shall adopt the following measures to guarantee 
rice production:   
 
a. It shall establish support for rice produced in the national territory at 7.50 balboas (PAB) 
per quintal of paddy rice, dirty or wet. This amount shall be reviewed every three years.  
AG-IMS ID 93196: Question by European Union  - Scheduled commitment level  
Again the notification from Panama shows an overshoot of its de minimis  limit for rice and so a 
failure to respect its WTO commitments.  
 
a. Can Panama explain the reason behind the decrease in eligible production from 
328,628 tonnes to 135 ,815 tonnes?  
b. Which meas ures has Panama taken to ensure that it will respect its commitments in the 
future?  
Answer by Panama  
 
a. The decrease in supported production from 328,628 tonnes to 135,815 tonnes between 
2018 and  2019 (representing 41%) can be explained on the basis that in previous years 
Panama notified that payments in support of rice production in a given agricultural year G/AG/W/216  
 
- 151 - 
 
  are not necessarily made in the corresponding calendar year. Consequently, payments 
were made that had been pending since  2015. Regarding 2019, we obser ve that payments 
for sold production for previous years have decreased.  
b. For the short ‑term future, Panama does not envisage substantial changes to the measures 
related to Law No . 17 of 22  February  2018 declaring rice to be a national food security 
crop. Ar ticle 4 of this Law provides that the State shall adopt the following measures to 
guarantee rice production:  
It shall establish support for rice produced in the national territory at 7.50 balboas (PAB) per quintal 
of paddy rice, dirty or wet. This amount s hall be reviewed every three years.  
 
1.2.4.23   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/67, G/AG/N/PHL/68, G/AG/N/PHL/69)  
AG-IMS ID 93135: Question by New Zealand - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
New Zealand thanks the Philippines for its Domestic Support notifications for calendar 
years  2016‑2018. New Zealand seeks clarification from the Philippines regarding payments for relief 
from natural disasters - crop insurance. From 2012 to 2015 the monetary value of crop insurance 
was consistent at PHP 1,183,771 thousand each year. This amount increased in calendar year  2016 
to PHP 1,600,000 thousand, increased again in 2017 to PHP 2,500,000, and again in  2018 
to PHP 3,500,000. Can the Philippines explain why the value of crop insurance  remains the same for 
the three -year period 2012 -2015, and why it increased nearly 200% between 2015 and 2018?  
 
Answer by Philippines  
 
The Philippines thanks New Zealand for its interest on our Domestic Support notifications for calendar 
year 2016 -2018.  
  
The dramatic increase in relief payments from natural disasters can be attributed to the destructive 
typhoons and earthquakes which occurred in the Philippines. Below is the list of natural disasters 
from 2016 -2018:  
  
Year Strongest Typhoon  Earthquake  
2016 Koppu (Lando)  Magnitude 5.3  
2017 Lan (Paola)  Magnitude 6.9  
2018 Mangkhut (Ompong)  Magnitude 6.4  
  
In addition, the Philippines had an outbreak of H5N6 avian influenza in 2017 which had a devastating 
effect in the poultry sector.  
  
The Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC), an attached agency to the Department of 
Agriculture, has the principal m andate to provide insurance protection to agricultural producers, 
particularly the subsistence farmers. This includes payments against losses of their crops and 
produce, including their livestock, farm machineries and equipment, transport facilities and ot her 
related infrastructure arising from natural calamities (such as typhoons, floods, droughts, 
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions), pests and diseases, and other perils beyond their effective 
control.  
  
In summary, the extraordinary increase in natural c alamities, six during the 2016 -2018 period and 
the avian influenza outbreak have visibly contributed to the increase in relief payments.  
 
1.2.4.24   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom  of (G/AG/N/SAU/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93136: Question  by European Union - Transparency issues (including  
Table  DS:2)  
In the Methodological Note point 4 it is indicated that the support price for common wheat since  2004 
has been 1000 SAR/t. However, in Supporting Table 4 no administered price is mentioned, and no 
eligible production indicated.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 152 - 
 
  Can the Kingd om of Saudi Arabia explain whether any common wheat has benefitted from the 
1000 SAR/t support price and if so, for what quantity?  
 
Answer by Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
 
In light of the scarcity of water resources in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the government issued 
Resolution No. 335 of 19 November 2007, which among other things, aims to phase out local wheat 
production within eight years and to become fully dependent on  importing wheat from abroad, 
therefore no eligible production of local wheat is received by the government in 2017 and  no 
administered price is applied, as it is shown in Supporting Table DS:5.  
 
1.2.4.25   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/34)  
AG-IMS ID 93269: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States takes note that Singapore has introduced its first notified domestic support 
measures. According to Singapore Food Agency 's (SFA) website, in order to buffer from supply 
disruptions, Singapore aims to produce 30% of its nutritional needs by 2030 by implementing its 
"30 by 30" Food Production Target.  Through funding and technology transfer, SFA assists local 
farmers transfer and adopt technology to increase and inten sify their output.  The United States 
understands that the Basic Capability Upgrading (BCU) scheme for example co -funds up to 50 % of 
the cost of purchasing equipment and other qualifying costs.  Similarly, the Productivity 
Enhancement Standard (PES) scheme p rovides up to 30 -70% of the cost of purchasing equipment 
and other qualifying costs.  
 
a. Please describe how all notified measures comply with relevant exemption criteria set out 
in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Will Singapore be submitting a Tabl e DS:2 notification providing full information on how 
the measure meets specific eligibility criteria?  
Answer by Singapore  
 
• Singapore imports more than 90% of our food from over 170 countries/regions. Our high 
dependency on food imports, coupled with our s mall domestic market, makes us structurally 
disadvantaged and vulnerable to disruptions in the global food supply chain and price volatility. 
The Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) is a programme to strengthen Singapore 's food 
resilience through facilitat ing the adoption of technologies to enhance productivity level.  
• The APF schemes, administered by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA), help farmers in 
Singapore develop higher technology farming capabilities and conduct R&D on innovative 
technologies. The APF c omprises the (i) Research and Development (R&D) Open Call; (ii)  Basic 
Capability Upgrading (BCU) Scheme; (iii) Productivity Enhancement (PE) Scheme; and 
(iv) Cash Advancement.  
• The R&D Open Call is a scheme that funds research and development in commerciall y viable 
food farming technology with direct practical industry application to local agricultural industry. 
The BCU, PE and Cash Advancement schemes are one -off payments from the government, 
made on a project basis, to assist producers who are structurally  disadvantaged in their 
operation so that they can adopt technologies to enhance their productivity level. The criteria 
for the assistance are published. There are no requirements/eligibility criteria specifying 
(a) the type or volume of production to achi eve, and (b) the prices for these products (i.e. , the 
prices are left to market conditions).  
• The APF schemes fall within the Green Box under paragraph 2(a) (R&D Open Call) and 
paragraph  11 (BCU, PE and Cash advancement) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agric ulture, 
and we have notified the scheme as a domestic support measure under DS:1. We will not be 
submitting another notification on the APF under DS:2.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 153 - 
 
  1.2.4.26   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/ TPKM /181)  
AG-IMS ID 93116: Question by Australia  - De minimis  
Australia thanks Ch inese Taipei for its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2016 (G/AG/N/TPKM/181). 
Australia notes that Chinese Taipei provided product -specific domestic support for a number of 
products in excess of product -specific de minimis  commitments, but within is Tot al AMS commitment 
level. Australia understands this support is provided under the "Adjusting the Cultivation System 
and Revitalizing Fallow Land Program", which looks to support rice farmers move away from rice 
production. This Program appears to have oper ated (including under different names) for a decade 
or more. Despite this Program, Chinese Taipei's eligible production of rice appears to have grown 
significantly. Based on Chinese Taipei's DS:1 from reporting period 2006, eligible rice production in 
2006 totalled 245,660 tonnes. In the most recently submitted DS:1 from Chinese Taipei for the 
reporting period 2016, eligible rice production appears to have reached almost 400,000 tonnes.  
  
a. Can Chinese Taipei provide more detail on the purpose and objective o f this Program? and  
b. Can Chinese Taipei explain if the Program is achieving its purpose and objective?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
In light of climate change and instability in international food supplies, Chinese Taipei rolled out the 
"Project for Cultivation Adjustment and Farmland Revitalization" in 2013. Farmlands that had been 
fallow for two consecutive crop periods in 2011 were prioritized for revitalization. The goal of this 
policy is to revitalize under -utilized farmlands and increase domesti c food supply. According to the 
official statistics, fallow land decreased from 123,000 hectares in 2011 to 77,000 hectares in  2016. 
This proves that the policy has been effective in making productive use of fallow farmlands, and is 
therefore increasing do mestic food supply and safeguarding food security.  
 
1.2.4.27   Tunisia (G/AG/N/ TUN/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93137: Question by Brazil - Excessive  rates of inflation  
Tunisia has stated, in its DS:1 notification for calendar year 2018 (G/AG/N/TUN/58), that it has used 
the referen ce prices of the reference period and adjusted them to take account of inflation and 
exchange rate movements. Brazil recognizes that developing countries may be vulnerable to higher 
domestic inflation rates and currency volatility that renders its fixed ex ternal reference price (FERP) 
values in domestic currency outdated. Nonetheless, Members, to fulfill their notification obligations, 
have to abide by the terms of their domestic support commitments. Article 18, paragraph 4 of the 
AoA, establishes that "In the review process Members shall give due consideration to the influence 
of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support 
commitments." Thus, it is the review work in the Committee on Agriculture that has to be carried 
out taking into account excessive general increases in prices.  
 
a. Would Tunisia consider submitting its DS tables concurrently on both an unadjusted and 
an inflation -adjusted basis, as suggested previously by WTO Secretariat (G/AG/W/45)?  
b. Could Tuni sia provide data on its domestic inflation rate for recent years?  
Answer by Tunisia  
AG-IMS ID 93138: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada notes that Tunisia has unilaterally adjusted its fixed external reference price for inflation.  
 
Canada notes that under Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, it is the responsibility of the 
Committee during the review process, and not of Tunisia, to give consideration to excessive rates of 
inflation. In response to question AG ‑IMS ID 82022, T unisia provided its Current Total Aggregate 
Measurement of Support between 2002 and 2015 without any adjustments to its fixed external 
reference prices.  
  
a. Could Tunisia please update this table by including the Current Total Aggregate Measurement of 
Support for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 without any changes to its external reference prices?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 154 - 
 
  Canada notes that a written response is outstanding for the question AG -IMS ID 91105 regarding 
G/AG/N/TUN/56. It is copied below for reference:  
 
a. In response t o question AG ‑IMS ID 82022, Tunisia provided its current total 
aggregate measurement of support level between 2002 and 2015 without any changes 
to its external reference prices. Could Tunisia please update this table by including the 
current total aggregate measurement of support for the years 2016 and 2017 without 
any changes to its external reference prices?  
b. Canada wishes to remind Tunisia that under Article 18.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, it is the responsibility of the Membership as a whole, and not of Tuni sia, to 
give consideration to excessive rates of inflation. In response to question 
AG‑IMS ID 82048 from Canada, Tunisia stated as follows: "Regarding the steps to be 
taken to address this situation so that the external reference prices will no longer be 
adjusted in the future, the investigations under way will identify alternative options for 
notifying support and the steps to be taken".  
c. Could Tunisia please provide an update on its investigations under way to identify 
alternative options for notifying  support and the steps to be taken?  
d. Could Tunisia please indicate when it will notify its domestic support without 
adjustments to its external reference prices?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
1.2.4.28   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36  - G/AG/N/TUR/3 9) 
AG-IMS ID 93147: Question by Japan  - De minimis  
According to the Turkey' s notification concerning the domestic support commitments (Table DS :1 
and the relevant supporting tables), most product specific subsidies are below the de minimis  level. 
At the same time, some product subsidies exceed the de minimis  level and the notification shows 
the support for such products as the current total AMS. Japan would like to ask how Turkey 
rationalize this situation in terms of consistency with the Agreement of Agriculture.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Please refer to the respon ses to AG -IMS ID s 93152 and 93153 (a).  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis commitment, its response 
that "Turkey intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the 
support were highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include in the notification 
percentage of VoP (value of production) for the purpose of transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 93154: Question by Paraguay - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Republic of Paraguay thank s Turkey for the submission of the notification contained in document 
G/AG/N/TUR/36 concerning domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) for the year 2010. We 
would like further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:2: (i) the total amount of support for e ach of the three types of 
support notified in section (a) which amount to USD 550,775,029; (ii) the type of support 
provided in the context of investment support within the framework of the development 
of animal husbandry; and (iii) the manner in which Tur key considers that the support to 
promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies as falling under 
Article  6.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Supporting Table DS:4: (i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
produ ction; (ii) the reasons for which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for sunflower; (iii) Turkey's current levels of subsidies for these products; 
(iv) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish government to bring its sub sidy 
levels into line with its WTO commitments and obligations.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 155 - 
 
  c. Supporting Table DS:9: (i) the reasons for which support is provided for diesel; (ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsidy; (iii) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish 
government t o reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. For Table DS:2 : 
 
i. Investment Subsidies Generally Available to Agriculture are listed in detail below:  
 
Organic Agriculture Support Payment  4,900,000 USD  
Good Agricultural Practice Support Payment  1,204,667 USD  
Support for Animal Husbandry  461,538,274 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Usage  36,224,000 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Production  12,052,667 USD  
Support for Certified Sapling Usage  19,963,333 USD  
Support for Hybrid Seeds  14,892,088 USD  
Total  550,775,029 USD  
 
ii. These supports are given in order to improve livestock and ensure sustainability, to increase 
efficiency in the implementation of livestock policies, to protect and develop domestic animal genetic 
resources on site, to keep the  records up to date, to support animal breeders to fight animal diseases 
and healthy animal production.  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93145 (b).  
 
b. For Table DS:4 : 
 
i. The total amount of support and production value for each product is given in the DS -4 table and 
can be calculated using these figures.  
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93152.  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iv. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (a).  
 
c. For Ta ble DS:9 :  
 
i. Diesel support, which is a non -specific support, is below the commitments of Turkey.  
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iii. Turkey officially became a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
(UNFCCC) in 2004. Turkey 's national vision within the scope of climate change is to develop fully 
integrated climate related objectives in its policies, disseminate energy efficiency, increase the use 
of clean and renewable energy resources, participate in  efforts for tackling climate change within its 
special circumstances and provide its citizens with a high quality of life and welfare with low -carbon 
intensity. Therefore, Turkey is dedicated to protect the environment and mitigate the negative 
effects of  climate change.   
 
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that it was still examining Turkey's replies and its preliminary 
observations were as follows: It was not clear how Turkey's response to part d could respond to the 
question. It would follow the question up at t he next Committee meeting.  
AG-IMS ID 93064: Question by United States of America - Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture  
Supporting Table DS:2, G/AG/N/TUR/36  
 
Turkey notified investment subsidies of more than USD $1 billion in 2013. This  value is increased 
substantially from USD $500 billion in 2009. Further, the notification describes investment subsidies 
and includes the following description "Support given to increase usage of hybrid seed and certified 
seed and seedling."  
 
a. Please expl ain the reason behind the significant increase in expenditures between 2009 
and 2013.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 156 - 
 
  b. Please explain how support for use of hybrid and certified seed/seedlings is implemented, 
including how eligibility for the support is determined and how payment rates a re 
determined.  
c. Please  clarify why this measure is not classified as an input subsidy.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. First of all, Turkey wants to correct the subsidy amount of the year 2009 mentioned in the 
question as USD 500 million. Turkey follows a policy to increase its investments in 
technology use, reliability and environmental protection.  
b. Within the framework of sustainability principle, quality, technology use, reliability and 
environmental  protection are determined as priority areas and this support is a pplied in 
order to increase the production and use of high quality, fertile and reliable seeds that are 
free from diseases and pests and compatible with the phytosanitary criteria, to enhance 
registration and to develop environmentally friendly alternative  agriculture techniques. In 
accordance with the Seed Law No. 5553 enacted in 2006, only registered seeds are allowed 
to be traded. Since the trade of non -certified seeds is not allowed, support has arisen to 
increase the use of certified seeds and seedling s. Therefore, there has been an increase 
in certified seed and seedling support between 2009 and 2013. In addition, this support is 
given not to hybrid seed but to certified seed. Certified seed usage support is provided per 
decare to farmers registered in  the Farmer Registration System.   
c. This support is given  not to hybrid seed but to certified seed and implementation of 
international standards such as OECD Seed Scheme and ISTA Rules and EU legislation are 
essential for this support. In this context, the m ain aim of this support is to increase the 
usage high quality seeds and to implement phytosanitary rules.  
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis commitment, its response 
that "Turkey intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the 
support were highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include in the notification 
percentage of vop (value of production) for the purpose of transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 93145: Question by United States of America - Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture  
Turkey – G/AG/N/TUR/36 -39  
 
The ST/DS:2 describes investment subsidies and includes the following description "Support given 
to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices. "  
 
a. Please explain how this support is implemented, including how payment rates are 
determined.  
b. Please clarify why this measure is notified as an investment subsidy under Article 6.2.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. The works and procedures regarding to organic agricult ure and good agricultural practices 
support payments are determined by the Presidential Decree published annually and the 
Communiqué prepared accordingly. Support payments are made on area based in 
accordance with unit support amounts determined for catego rized products. Criteria such 
as food security and consumption frequency are taken into consideration in determining 
these products and the amount of unit support of those products. Organic Agriculture and 
Good Agricultural Practices Support Payment is pai d to farmers who produce in accordance 
with the Organic Agriculture and Good Agricultural Practices legislation, are registered to 
Farmer Registration System and Agriculture Information System, and have the conditions 
specified in the relevant communique.  
b. Article 6.2 of the Agreement on agriculture:  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 157 - 
 
  "In accordance with the Mid -Term Review Agreement that government measures of assistance, 
whether direct or indirect, to encourage agricultural and rural development are an integral part of 
the development pro grammes of developing countries, investment subsidies which are generally 
available to agriculture in developing country Members and agricultural input subsidies generally 
available to low -income or resource -poor producers in developing country Members sha ll be exempt 
from domestic support reduction commitments that would otherwise be applicable to such measures, 
as shall domestic support to producers in developing country Members to encourage diversification 
from growing illicit narcotic crops. Domestic su pport meeting the criteria of this paragraph shall not 
be required to be included in a Member's calculation of its Current Total AMS."  
 
In order to sustain agricultural production without having any harm to environment, human or 
animal health, to develop e nd extend organic agriculture and good agricultural practices that 
contribute to the protection of natural resources, to provide sustainability and traceability in 
agriculture and to provide food security, producers which perform organic agriculture and go od 
agricultural practices are given support payments. The purpose of developing organic agriculture 
and good agricultural practices overlaps the abovementioned article of the agreement.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis  commitment, its response 
that "Turkey intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the 
support were highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include in the notification 
percentage of vop (value of production)  for the purpose of transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 93146: Question by United States  of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Turkey – G/AG/N/TUR/36 -39  
 
Supporting Table DS:9  
 
Please explain the factors that caused the $500 million increase for agricultural credit between 2009 
and 2013.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The credits aim to ensure sustainability in production, to promote agricultural and rural development, 
to establish modern a gricultural practices, to use agricultural potential more effectively and 
efficiently and to increase quality in production. Turkey has not exceeded its commitments in the 
aforementioned table DS:9, but the difference has been high since the subsidized int erest rate was 
increased in order to ensure abovementioned purposes.  
AG-IMS ID 93148: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Turkey – G/AG/N/TUR/36 -39  
 
Supporting Table DS:1  
 
The United States notes a number of changes in measures notified in G/AG/N/TUR/36  - 
G/AG/N/TUR/39 as compared to Turkey's last notification G/AG/N/TUR/20.  
 
a. Research expenditures increased substantially in 2013 as compared to 2008. Please 
provide an explanation for this increase. In addition , please confirm whether any new 
measures were introduced or old measured modified that contributed to the change in 
support.  
b. In 2010 Turkey introduced a decoupled income support and a structural adjustment 
measure for hazelnuts. Please provide informatio n on how the measure was implemented.  
c. For each of the above identified new or modified measures, as well as any other relevant 
exempt measures, please indicate when this Committee can expect a 
Table  DS:2 notification.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 158 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
a. In 2011, the Minis try of agriculture and forestry entered a restructuring process and 
redefined the duties and priority areas of the research units under its responsibility in 
order to increase productivity and efficiency in research and development services and to 
ensure e fficient use of resources. In addition, among the targets of 2023, which is the 
100th year of establishment of the Republic Turkey, is to increase the R&D budget in all 
sectors to 3% of GDP. As a result, research expenditures in the agricultural field have  
increased, but no new measures have been introduced in this area or any changes have 
been made in the old measures.  
b. As per the Decision of the Council of Ministers, owners of the parcels which are licensed 
and allowed to produce hazelnut in 16 provinces a nd 123 districts benefit from this 
support. Gardens with an area of one decare or above, at least thirty hazelnut pits or one 
hundred and eighty hazelnut branches can benefit from support. In terms of land use 
capability, 1st and 2nd class hazelnut parcels  and 3rd class parcels that has a slope less than 
6% are not included in the scope of support.  
c. In the field of research expenditures, no new measures have been introduced in this area 
or any changes have been made in the old measures.  
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis commitment, its response 
that "Turkey intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the 
support were highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include i n the notification 
percentage of vop (value of production) for the purpose of transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 93149: Question by Thailand - Scheduled  commitment level  
Thailand thanks Turkey for submitting its Domestic Support Notifications.  Thailand noticed that the 
Total AMS used between 2010 -2013 exceeded Turkey 's commitment.  
 
Thailand would like to therefore seek Turkey's plan on the current policy on this related issues.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Please refer to the responses to  AG-IMS ID 93152 and 93153 (a).   
AG-IMS ID 93178: Question by Paraguay - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Turkey for the submission of the notification contained in document 
G/AG/N/TUR/37 concerning domestic suppor t commitments (Table DS:1) for the calendar 
year 2011. We would like further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:1: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section 12, "Environmental programmes", which are Green  Box 
subsidies and which total USD 60,500,000; (ii)  the functioning, characteristics and 
purpose of the disbursements made under the biological combat support programme.  
b. Supporting Table DS:2: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section (a)  which amount to USD 686,832,130; (ii) the reasons for the 
increase of more than USD 130,000,000 in one year for this type of subsidy; (iii) the type 
of support provided in the context of investment support within the framewo rk of the 
development of animal husbandry; (iv) the manner in which Turkey considers that the 
support to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies as falling 
under Article 6.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. Supporting Table DS:4: (i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
production; (ii) the reasons for which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for soybeans, and the reasons for the significant increase in the support 
provided for  this product in one year; (iii) Turkey's current subsidy levels for this product; 
(iv) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish government to bring its subsidy 
levels into line with its WTO commitments and obligations.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 159 - 
 
  d. Supporting Table DS:9: (i) th e reasons for which support is provided for diesel; (ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsidy; (iii) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish 
government to reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. For Table DS:1 , 
i. Support amounts for each element under Environmental Programmes are listed below:  
 
Soil Analysis Support  50,107,186 USD  
Biological Control support  247,305 USD  
Support for Agricultural Land Program for Environmental Purposes  10,145,509 USD  
Total 60,500,000 USD  
 
ii. The function, features and purpose of the payments made within the scope of the Biological 
Control Support Program (Biological Control) for 2011 -2012-2013 in the questions asked by the 
Republic of Paraguay regarding the support of biological and biotec hnical control in crop production, 
which has been carried out since 2010 are:  
 
Objective: Alternative methods to chemical control are recommended and encouraged in order to 
reduce the use of pesticides in the fight against harmful organisms in plant produ ction, prevent 
residue and protect the ecosystem and ensure sustainable production. In this regard, support 
payments are made to agricultural producers engaged in biological and biotechnical control 
since 2010.  
 
Support in question covers biological and bi otechnical applications in tomato, pepper, eggplant, 
cucumber and zucchini in greenhouses and citrus, tomato, apple, vineyard, olive, pear, quince, 
apricot, pomegranate, peach and nectar in the open field. Works and procedures are carried out 
according to the application notification of the support, application conditions, financing and 
payments.  
 
b. For Table DS:2,  
i. Investment Subsidies Generally Available To Agriculture are listed in detail below:  
 
Organic Agriculture Support Payment  36,359,880 USD  
Good Agricultural Practice Support Payment  3,202,994 USD  
Support for Animal Husbandry  572,407,784 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Usage  40,092,216 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Production  10,949,102 USD  
Support for Certified Sapling Usage  11,595,808 USD  
Support for Hybrid Seeds  12,224,346 USD  
Total 686,832,130 USD  
  
ii. Turkey has been supporting his best to increase its investments. This increase can be evaluated 
within this scope.  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (a -ii). 
iv. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93145 (b).  
 
c. For Table DS:4 , 
i. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (b -i). 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93152.  
iii. Please refer t o the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iv. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (a).  
 
d. For Table DS:9 , 
i. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (c -i). 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (c -iii). 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 160 - 
 
  Follow -up: Paraguay noted that it was still examining Turkey's replies and its preliminary 
observations were as follows: It was not clear how Turkey's response to part d could respond to the 
question. It would foll ow the question up at the next Committee meeting.  
AG-IMS ID 93150: Question by Brazil  - Scheduled commitment level  
(Questions comprise also G/AG/N/TUR/36)  
 
According to notifications G/AG/N/TUR/36 -39, Turkey has provided domestic support in excess of 
its "de minimis " for cotton, sunflower, rapeseed, safflower, leading to a Current Total AMS that 
breaches its commitments.  
 
a. What is Turkey's justification for such level of domestic support under its 
WTO commitments?  
b. Could Turkey provide details on the agr icultural policies not exempted from reduction 
commitments (the premium payments) that were in place for cotton, sunflower, soybeans, 
rapeseed, safflower between 2010 and 2013?  
c. Are the programmes indicated above still in place? If not, when were they term inated?  
d. Which other policy changes has Turkey implemented, since 2013, to ensure that its 
domestic support commitments will be upheld?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
The products mentioned in the question are supported by Deficiency Payment Support in the scope 
of Tur key's Agriculture Basins Production and Support Model.  
 
a. When examined carefully, none of the mentioned products excessed of their "de minimis " 
continuously between 2010 and 2013. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93152.  
b. For cotton, sunflower, soybe ans, rapeseed and safflower, the eligibility for support is 
subject to the following  conditions: producer and the product should be registered to 
Farmer Registration System and the production of the product should have been 
completed. All documents specifi ed in the related communiqué should be delivered to 
district management of the Ministry for issuing, calculation and payments. In the 
meantime, Ministry  should confirm that the yield was produced in the declared location. 
Production, budgeting and payment of supports are not conducted within the same year. 
While the support is registered based on actual payments, the support will be paid after 
the production year. Turkey aims to increase registration and ensure food security by 
providing this support.  
c. The specified programs are still in effect.  
d. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (a).   
Paraguay noted that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis  commitment, its response that "Turkey 
intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the support were 
highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include in the notification percentage of vop 
(value of production)  for the purpose of transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 93156: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Republic of Panama thanks Turkey for the submission of the notification contained in document 
G/AG/N/TUR/38 concerning domestic support  commitments (Table DS:1) for the calendar 
year 2012. We would like further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:1: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified under point 12, "Environmental programmes", which are Green Box 
subsidies and which total USD 69,219,553; (ii) the functioning, characteristics and purpo se 
of the disbursements made under the biological combat support programme.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 161 - 
 
  b. Supporting Table DS:2: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section (a) which amount to USD 907,867,165; (ii) the reasons for the 
increase of more than USD 220,000,000 in one year for this type of subsidy; (iii) the type 
of support provided in the context of investment support within the framework of the 
development of animal husbandry; (iv) the manner in which Turkey considers that the  
support to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies as falling 
under Article 6.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. Supporting Table DS:4: (i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
production; (ii) the reason s for which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for soybeans, and the reasons for the significant increase in the support 
provided for this product in one year; (iii) Turkey's current subsidy levels for this product; 
(iv) plans  or programmes implemented by the Turkish government to bring its subsidy 
levels into line with its WTO commitments and obligations.  
d. Supporting Table DS:9: (i) the reasons for which support is provided for diesel; (ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsi dy; (iii) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish 
government to reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. For Table DS:1 , 
i. Support amounts for each element under Environmental Programmes are listed below:  
 
Soil Analysis Support  54,489,944 USD  
Biological Control support  968,156 USD  
Support for Agricultural Land Program for Environmental Purposes  13,761,453 USD  
Total 69,219,553 USD  
 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93178 (a -ii).  
 
b. For Table DS:2 , 
i. Investment Subsidies Generally Available To Agriculture are listed in detail below:  
 
Organic Agriculture Support Payment  38,033,520 USD  
Good Agricultural Practice Support Payment  3,585,475 USD  
Support for Animal Husbandry  778,316,759 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Usage  48,722,905 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Production  19,276,536 USD  
Support for Certified Sapling Usage  10,412,290 USD  
Support for Hybrid Seeds  9,519,678 USD  
Total 907,867,165 USD  
  
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93178 (b -ii). 
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (a -ii). 
iv. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93145 (b).  
 
c. For Table DS:4 , 
i. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (b -i). 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93152.  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iv. Please refer to t he response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (a).  
 
d. For Table DS:9 , 
i. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (c -i). 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (c -iii). 
 
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that it was still examining Turkey's replies and its preliminary 
observations were as follows: It was not clear how Turkey's response to part d could respond to the 
question. It would follow the question up at the next Committee meeting.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 162 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93151: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada appreciates Turkey providing more recent domestic support notifications to this Committee, 
which brings Turkey up to 2013 and providing an accurate account of its domestic support. Canada  
encourages Turkey to continue its work to submit its domestic support notifications. However, 
Canada continues to be concerned that Turkey's domestic support is in excess of its annual 
commitment. Canada notes the extremely large increase in its Current T otal AMS from 2011 
(USD 17,577,492) to US D 479,096,942 and US D 400,721,589 in 2012 and 2013, respectively.  
 
a. What concrete, meaningful steps has Turkey taken to ensure that it complies with its 
WTO domestic support commitment?  
b. What is the current situatio n with Turkey's domestic support commitment?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (a).  
b. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
Paraguay noted that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis  commitment, its response that "Turkey 
intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the support were 
highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include i n the notification percentage of vop 
(value of production) for the purpose of transparency.   
AG-IMS ID 93157: Question by Paraguay  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey – G/AG/N/TUR/39  
 
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Turkey for the submissio n of the notification contained in document 
G/AG/N/TUR/39 concerning domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) for the calendar 
year 2013. We wish to have further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:1: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section 12, "Environmental programmes", which are Green Box 
subsidies and which total USD 73,656,316; (ii)  the functioning, characteristics and 
purpos e of the disbursements made under the biological combat support programme.  
b. Supporting Table DS:2: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section (a)  which amount to USD 1,047,159,664; (ii) the reasons for 
the in crease of more than USD 130,000,000 in one year for this type of subsidy; (iii) the 
type of support provided in the context of investment support within the framework of the 
development of animal husbandry; (iv) the manner in which Turkey considers that th e 
support to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies as falling 
under Article 6.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. Supporting Table DS:4: (i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
production; (ii) the reaso ns for which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for soybeans, and the reasons for the increase in these subsidies from 2012 
to 2013; (iii) Turkey's current subsidy levels for this product; (iv) plans or programmes 
implemented by the Turkish government to bring its subsidy levels into line with its 
WTO commitments and obligations.  
d. Supporting Table DS:9: (i) the reasons for which support is provided for diesel; (ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsidy; (iii)  plans or programm es implemented by the Turkish 
government to reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. For Table DS:1 , 
i. Support amounts for each element under Environmental Programmes are listed below:  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 163 - 
 
  Soil Analysis Support  51,750,526 USD  
Biological Control support  2,556,842 USD  
Support for Agricultural Land Program for Environmental Purposes  19,348,947 USD  
Total 73,656,316 USD  
 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93178 (a -ii).  
 
b. For Table DS:2 , 
i. Investment Subsidies Generally Available To Agriculture are listed in detail below:  
 
Organic Agriculture Support Payment  19,992,632 USD  
Good Agricultural Practice Support Payment  5,692,632 USD  
Support for Animal Husbandry  952,527,368 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Usage  32,818,947 USD  
Support for Certified Seed Production  17,804,737 USD  
Support for Certified Sapling Usage  8,665,789 USD  
Support for Hybrid Seeds  9,657,558 USD  
Total 1,047,159,664 USD  
  
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93178 (b -ii). 
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (a -ii). 
iv. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93145 (b).  
 
c. For Table DS:4 , 
i. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (b -i). 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93152.  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iv. Please refer to t he response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (a).  
 
d. For Table DS:9 , 
i. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (c -i). 
ii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93153 (c).  
iii. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 93154 (c -iii). 
 
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that it was still examining Turkey's replies and its preliminary 
observations were as follows: It was not clear how Turkey's response to part d could respond to the 
question. It would follow the question up at the next Committee meeting.  
AG-IMS ID 93152: Question  by European Union - Scheduled commitment level  
G/AG/N/TUR/39  
 
The EU thanks Turkey for reducing its backlog in notifications. However, as in the previous 
DS:1 notification, Turkey did not respect its commitments. For this notificatio n, three sectors did not 
respect the 10% de minimis  limit.  
 
Can Turkey for the three sectors in question, cotton, soybeans and rapeseed, state for how long 
these support schemes have been applied after 2012 and whether they have been replaced by other 
support measures?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Within the scope of domestic support, the said products are given deficiency payment support 
according to Turkey 's Agricultural Basins Production and Support Model.  
 
Turkey intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds, which are imported intensively, but at 
the same time needed for food security and strategic reasons. Production of oilseeds is insufficient 
in Turkey and the support provided over " de minimis " ratio in some years is closely related to the 
sustain ability of production. However, Turkey is well aware of its " de minimis " commitment, and 
doing its utmost to fulfill its obligations, but it has to continue to provide support in order to ensure 
the continuity of production for food security purposes.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 164 - 
 
  The notifications for the years 2014 -2016 are in the final stages of being completed and will be 
submitted at the earliest time possible. Turkey is still working on notifications for 2017 and onwards 
and plans to submit them as soon as possible.  
 
Paraguay not ed that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis  commitment, its response that "Turkey 
intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the support were 
highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include in the notifi cation percentage of vop 
(value of production) for the purpose of transparency.   
AG-IMS ID 93153: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia welcomes Turkey's submission of their DS:1 notifications for the calendar years 2010 -13. 
 
Austral ia notes that Turkey has reported domestic support in excess of its annual commitment for 
each of these calendar years. Australia notes that Turkey also previously notified it exceeded its 
domestic support for the calendar years 2005, 2007, and 2009.  
 
a. Does Turkey expect to be notifying further breaches of its WTO commitments in 
notifications for its remaining overdue DS:1 notifications?  
b. Could Turkey advise if it has reformed those programmes that resulted in the recorded 
breaches? If so, could Turkey provi de the relevant details for each programme?  
c. Could Turkey provide an update on its preparations to submit domestic support 
notifications for 2014 and onwards?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Turkey is well aware of its commitments and doing its utmost to fulfill its obligations.  
b. Please refer to the previous response in subparagraph (a).  
c. The notifications for the years 2014 -2016 is in the final stages of being completed and will 
be submitted at the earliest time possible. Turkey is still working on notifications for 20 17 
and onwards and plans to submit them as soon as possible.  
Paraguay noted that, despite Turkey's breach of de minimis  commitment, its response that "Turkey 
intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds" and its intention to continue the support we re 
highly concerning. Paraguay encouraged Turkey to include in the notification percentage of vop 
(value of production) for the purpose of transparency.  
 
1.2.4.29   United Arab Emirates  (G/AG/N/ARE/16, G/AG/N/ARE/17)  
AG-IMS ID 93270 : Question by United States of Amer ica - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
While the United States thanks United Arab Emirates for continuing to regularly provide its 
Table  DS:1 notifications in a timely manner, the United States notes that United Arab Emirates has 
not responded to any question it has ever been asked in this Committee.  The United States would 
encourage United Arab Emirates to bring its responses to these questions up to date, many of which 
also apply to its current notifications.   
 
When can Members expec t United Arab Emirates to provide responses?  
 
Answer by United Arab Emirates  
AG-IMS ID 93279: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In notification G/AG/N/ARE12 covering the United Arab Emirates ' 2016 domestic su pport spending, 
line 2 (d) "Extension and advisory services " is accompanied by the description "Support for 
agricultural research and to facilitate the transfer of information and the results of research to 
producers and consumers " and with the data source  of the Abu Dhabi Food Control Authority. In 
notifications G/AG/N/ARE/16 and G/AG/N/ARE/17, covering calendar years 2018 and 2019, no G/AG/W/216  
 
- 165 - 
 
  description is given under the extension and advisory services and spending is reported by the 
Ministry of Climate Change and Environment and the Dubai Municipality, as well as the Abu Dhabi 
Food Control Authority.  
 
Please describe the spending in line 2 (d) Extension and Advisory Services for calendar years  2018 
and 2019, including whether this is a new measure compared to the outlays identified for 2016 and 
if a Table DS:2 notification will be made for this measure.  
 
Noting that the United Arab Emirates has not notified a Table DS:1 for calendar year 2017, please 
indicate when that notification will be submitted to this Com mittee.  
  
Answer by United Arab Emirates  
 
1.2.4.30   Vanuatu (G/AG/N/ VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  
AG-IMS ID 93155: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
A number of measures notified in G/AG/N/VUT/1 for 2015, V/AG/N/VUT/9 for 2014, and 
V/AG/N/VUT/10 for 2017 including "research " and "training services " have the same monetary value 
for each year.  
 
a. Please confirm whether notified values are actual or project ed budgetary outlays or 
expenditures.  
b. If values are not actual budgetary outlays, please provide such values for all notified years.  
Answer by Vanuatu  
AG-IMS ID 93158: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The Un ited States notes Vanuatu 's submission of domestic support notifications for 2014, 2015, and 
2017, but not 2016. When will Vanuatu be submitting its notification for 2016? Why was it withheld?  
  
Answer by Vanuatu  
 
New or modified domestic support measures  (Table DS:2)  
1.2.5.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93280: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Could India please confirm whether any activities under the measures below include input subsidi es 
to farmers and, if so, whether these subsidies are being notified under Supporting Table DS:2 ; 
Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY);  Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY);  National 
Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA);  Mission for Integra ted Development of Horticulture 
(MIDH);  Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN).  
 
Answer by India  
 
India notifies input subsidies under Article  6.2. Aggregate input subsidies under various programmes 
including those of  fertiliser, irrigation and electricity are notified at an all India level.  
 
Follow -up: The US asked India to clarify whether the programmes listed in the question were 
included in the values reported in the DS:1 notification.  
AG-IMS ID 93296: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Could India please provide information on additional financial assistance and direct input subsidies 
provided by any state governments, including those provided as matching grants under any central G/AG/W/216  
 
- 166 - 
 
  government progr ams, and any additional state programs supporting the provision of seed, 
chemicals, agriculture machines, etc.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The information requested  regarding input subsidies and other types of assistance is notified in  
Supporting Table DS: 2 in Indi a's latest DS:1 notification.  
AG-IMS ID 93297: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
India has notified Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana – Per Drop More Crop component 
(PMKSY -PDMC) in Table DS:2. India stat es the scheme meets the general criteria of paragraph  1 
and the general criteria in paragraph 2 of Annex 2.  According to the PMKSY website, categories of 
beneficiaries under the measure include "small and marginal farmers " and "other than small and 
margina l farmers " and the subsidy payment will be limited to unit costs specified in the guidelines 
of the PMKSY -PDMC.  It is also unclear where India has notified this value in Supporting Table  DS:1 
of G/AG/N/IND/15 and G/AG/N/IND/18.   
 
a. Please identify where in S upporting Table DS:1 the PMKSY -PDMC is notified, inclusive of 
the related monetary value for 2018/19.  
b. Please confirm whether the PMKSY -PDMC provides payments or other benefits directly to 
producers.  
c. Noting that PMKSY -PDMC, among other things, aims to "improve on -farm water use ", 
please confirm whether the measure provides benefits for on -farm facilities.  
Answer by India  
 
India's DS:2 notification may be referred to access the information requested. The Pradhan Mantri 
Krishi Sinchayee Yojana programme is notified under para 2 of Annex 2.  For 2018-2019, an amount 
of USD  417.37 million has been notified under this programme in India's DS:1 notification. The 
PMKSY aims to achieve convergence of investments in irrigation at the field level, expand  cultivable 
area under assured irrigation, and improve on -farm water use efficiency to reduce wastage of water, 
enhance the adoption of precision -irrigation and other water saving technologies (Per Drop More 
Crop), enhance recharge of aquifers and introduc e sustainable water conservation practices.  
 
1.2.5.2   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/1)  
AG-IMS ID 93159: Question by Australia  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia welcomes the United Kingdom's submission of its first notification pursuant to the 
Agreement on Agriculture notification obligations. Australia looks forward to having the UK engage 
fulsomely in this important transparency work. Australia hopes the UK can set a new standard of 
best practice in terms of quality and timeliness of notificat ions, drawing on the extensive discussions 
in the Committee on Agriculture on how to provide the most relevant, fulsome and timely information 
to facilitate other Members' review and understanding of the UK's agricultural sector.  
  
With respect to G/AG/N/G BR/1, Australia notes the notification states 'the territorial application of 
this instrument is England only'. Can the UK confirm the notification is only applicable to England 
and can the UK provide further information on how programmes in Scotland, Nort hern Ireland and 
Wales will be notified to this Committee?  
  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
The United Kingdom  can confirm the notification is only applicable to England. The United Kingdom 
government (UKG) represents the United Kingdom, including the Devolved Administrations at the 
WTO, as the UKG is responsible for international trade. Co -ordination takes place between all 
Administrations to ensure that the UKG delivers an approach to agricultural measures that is 
consistent with WTO rules. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the 
UKG department responsible for representing the four UK Administrations at the Committee on G/AG/W/216  
 
- 167 - 
 
  Agriculture (CoA). Future agricultural programmes meeting the criteria for DS:2 will be notified to 
the CoA by De fra in accordance with the timelines stipulated in G/AG/2.  
AG-IMS ID 93160: Question  by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Can the United Kingdom explain whether this or similar programmes will be implemented in 
Scotland, Wales,  and Northern Ireland?  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
Scotland, Wales,  and Northern Ireland have not finalised their plans for their future agricultural 
policies. Any programmes meeting the criteria for DS:2 adopted in those territories will be notified 
to the Committee on Agriculture (CoA) by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural 
Affairs  (Defra) in accordance with the timelines stipulated in G/AG/2.  
AG-IMS ID 93287: Question by United States of America - General services: other  
The United States welcom es the United Kingdom 's first notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  The notification states that Countryside Stewardship (England) Regulations 2020 "will 
be a simplified version of the current EU scheme designed to encourage more applicants; increa se 
delivery of environmental benefits and decrease the administrative burden… " 
  
Please provide additional details with regards to how this measure differs from the EU scheme with 
regards to increasing delivery of environmental benefits.  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
The new Country Stewardship Scheme will provide funding for farmers, woodland owners, foresters 
and land managers in England to make environmental improvements.  A number of administrative 
changes have been implemented to ensure that the environmen tal benefits are increased in the new 
iteration of the scheme. The new scheme, which has been open for applications since  11/02/2020 
and will come into force 01/01/2021, will provide more advice and guidance to beneficiaries to 
ensure that they are able to  deliver the environmental outcomes set out in their agreement.  For 
example, where the timing of particular activities is important, we will provide communications to 
farmers and land managers during the year to support this. General and specialist advice will be 
provided.   
  
Additionally, if beneficiaries do not fulfil the environmental benefits stated in their agreement, 
payments under the scheme will be suspended until the necessary improvements have been made, 
instead of a financial penalty being applie d immediately. The aim of this is to increase the delivery 
of environmental benefits compared to the previous iteration of the scheme by providing agreement 
holders with a further opportunity to deliver their agreement outcomes.  The scheme 's new focus will  
concentrate on providing additional support to beneficiaries through advice and guidance to help 
them deliver the environmental outcomes outlined in their agreement.  
  
We are also increasing the options that can be applied for as part of the scheme 's "Wildlife Offers " 
in this new iteration.  The Wildlife Offers are sets of options and minimum requirements that support 
wildlife by creating sources of nectar and pollen for insect pollinators as well as winter food for 
seed-eating birds and improved habitats for farmland birds and pollinators in particular. Under the 
new scheme, to increase the number of applications, all Wildlife Offers may now be applied for 
online, thus reducing the administrative burden on the applicant.  More information on the Wi ldlife 
Offers can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/wildlife -offers -countryside -
stewardship . 
 
1.2.5.3   United States of America  (G/AG/N/USA/134)  
AG-IMS ID 93313: Question by European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU thanks the US for the notification of the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 168 - 
 
  According to the notification, under point (5) the date  of entry into effect was 18 July 2018, and 
under point (6) on period of application "The Bipartisan Budget Act made funding for this program 
available through 31 December 2019 ".  
 
a. Does this mean that funding for the measure expired on 31 December 2019?  
b. Can the US explain the reason behind this very late notification of a measure whose 
funding has already expired?  
c. Can the US elaborate of the usefulness of a notification submitted exactly two years after 
the measure entered into force and after its funding h as expired?  
d. Can the US elaborate whether the submission of DS:2 notifications two years after a 
measure has entered into force and indeed after a measure has expired is how it would 
wish other Members to respond to their transparency obligations under the  Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 (P.L. 116 -94), enacted on 20 December  2019, 
rescinded the remaining unobligated balances of funds made available under the Bipartisan Budget 
Act of 2018 for the 2017 WHIP. However,  the 2020 Act also appropriated an amount equal to the 
rescinded funds for fiscal year 2020, to remain available until 30 December  2021, for new eligible 
loss categories established by the Additional Supplemental Appr opriations for Disaster Relief Act 
of 2019 (P.L. 116 -20), which was enacted on 6 June 2019. The 2019 Act expanded eligibility 
for 2017 WHIP for additional weather -related losses, including those due to Tropical Storm Cindy. 
The sign -up for 2017 WHIP covera ge for these new eligible causes did not open until 11 Sept.  2019 
and as of 31 August  2020, there is no ending date for applications. Therefore, funding is still 
available for certain losses under the 2017 WHIP and the program is still in operation. The 
United  States has revised G/AG/N/USA/134 accordingly.  
  
The United States endeavours  to notify all domestic support programs to the WTO in a timely and 
accurate manner. The 2017 WHIP is a new program that is being implemented over several ye ars. 
Therefore, it was justified and prudent of the United States to submit this notification after 
completing a careful review of the program to ensure compliance with the criteria for exemption 
from reduction commitments.  
 
Export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3 ) 
1.2.6.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42)  
AG-IMS ID 93161: Question by India  - Quantity of total exports  
Argentina is the highest exporter of Soybean oil in the world. [Source: 
https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/1507/ ; WITS - 2017 data]. Argentina has notified soya bean oil 
under its export subsidy notification documents G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42 
for years since 2015 -16, 2016 -17 and 2017 -18. Howeve r, Argentina is not entitled to provide export 
subsidies as per its schedule. Could Argentina clarify the following:  
  
a. How does Argentina ensure its compliance under Article  9 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
b. Kindly provide the outlays for each product not ified in the ES:2 tables provided in 
G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42.  
c. How does Argentina ensure that its subsidized soybean oil is not displacing or impeding 
the soya exports of other Members?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 169 - 
 
  Answer by Argentina  
 
As indicated in Table ES:1 corresponding to notifications of total exports G/AG/N/ARG/37, 
G/AG/N/ARG/38 and G/AG/N/ARG/39, Argentina did not grant any export subsidies to agricultural 
products (including soya bean oil) in the periods 2015 ‑16, 2016 ‑17 and 2017 ‑18. 
  
In Table ES:2 (no tifications G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41 and G/AG/N/ARG/42), Argentina 
merely notified the quantities of total exports (for the crop years 2015 ‑16, 2016 ‑17 and 2017 ‑18) 
for the four products subject to mandatory notification by Argentina in accordance with  existing 
WTO notification requirements, and the quantities of total exports for products in respect of which 
Argentina is considered a "significant exporter" pursuant to the list in Annex 1 to document 
G/AG/W/123 (Review of the List of Significant Exporte rs – Report by the Chairperson).  
 
Table ES:2 provided disaggregated export data in accordance with the guidance in Annex  3 to 
document G/AG/W/123, both for the categories in which Argentina was originally included and for 
the categories in which Argentina has recently been considered a "significant exporter".  
 
1.2.6.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/ 54) 
AG-IMS ID 93162: Question by Australia  - International food aid  
Australia welcomes Brazil's submission of its ES:3 for calendar year 2018, in which it notified 
14,478.7  tonnes of rice provided as food aid. Australia fully supports the provision of assistance to 
address humanitarian emergencies and to support food security in locations that have poor access 
to sufficient nutrition. With respect to this food aid, can Brazil  advise:  
  
a. Which Member/country was the recipient of that food aid?  
b. If Brazil is considering moving to only cash -based food aid?  
c. How it ensures the physical food aid does not cause adverse effects on recipient Members' 
agricultural industries, nor on their  region's production and commercial markets of either 
like-products, or substitute products?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. The food aid destination was the Gaza Strip. Donation was made through WFP/UNRWA.  
b. Law no. 12.429, of 20 June 2011, authorizes the government to offer international food 
aid of certain food products to the countries listed therein. Such aid shall be offered in 
kind, and made effective through the World Food Programme. Brazil understands that both 
its legislation and its international practice regar ding food aid comply with the Agreement 
on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision.  
c. Brazilian law allows for the provision of humanitarian cooperation in order to support 
countries or populations undergoing armed conflict, natural disaster, public calamity, food 
and nutritional insecurity or other situations of emergency or vulnerability, including 
serious threat to life, health and human or humanitarian rights of the recipient population. 
In Brazil, international food aid for humanitarian cooperation purpose s are the result of 
close collaboration between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its Brazilian 
Cooperation Agency (ABC), and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food 
Supply  (MAPA) through its National Food Supply Company  (CONAB). ABC  coordin ates the 
donations, which may include food, medicines, and other items of need. The 
aforementioned actions are based on the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality 
and independence, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly 
Resolutions  46/182 and 58/114 and with article 4 of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, 
which determines that Brazilian international relations are governed by the principles of 
the prevalence of human rights and cooperation among peoples for the progress of 
humanity, a mong others. In line with Brazil 's foreign policy, ABC 's cooperation and aid 
policies are demand -driven. For the donation to be carried out, Brazil must receive an 
official request for assistance, via Brazilian diplomatic posts abroad, or through the 
embas sies of other countries in Brazil. The received demands are analyzed and are only G/AG/W/216  
 
- 170 - 
 
  addressed, among other criteria, if they do not jeopardize the national food supply. The 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs defines the quantities and respective recipients of food,  in 
coordination with the World Food Programme (WFP). Brazil 's demand -driven policy is in 
line with the transition currently taking place within the United Nations to Country 
Strategic Plans. They represent the recognition that effective programs require i ntegrated 
intervention strategies, specific to each country and directed by the local government. 
That is, the programs must be adapted to the local context.  
1.2.6.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/135)  
AG-IMS ID 93223: Question by Australia  - Transparency issues  
Australia tha nks Canada for the submission of its ES:1 for 2018. Australia welcomes this good 
example of a fulsome notification, with clear information on the ongoing implementation of the 
Nairobi Decision outcomes by Canada, including confirmation that the remaining e xport subsidies in 
Canada 's schedule will be eliminated by the end of this year.  
  
With respect to the notification, Australia notes that Canada provided producer financed subsidies 
for butter, cheese and other dairy products.  
 
Can Canada provide further information on these measures, including the funding organisation, any 
operational details of these subsidies?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) administers the subsidized exports of dairy products, 
including butter, cheese and  other dairy products, in accordance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, 
under a specified milk class price, 5(d).  
 
While the CDC administers these exports, they are not funded by the government of Canada. The 
funding organizations are the dairy produce rs of Canada, as represented by provincial milk 
marketing boards operating in each province.  
AG-IMS ID 93197: Question  by European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that Canada 's export subsidies for butter increased in  2018/2019 
compare d to the year before and that both the outlays and quantity of subsidised exports exceeded 
the average level of the past five years.  
 
How does Canada consider this to respect the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canad a's modified export subsidy schedule was submitted to the WTO on 11 December 2017. This 
export subsidy schedule established Canada 's export subsidies quantity commitment level in 
accordance with the Nairobi decision. In Canada 's export subsidy notification for 2018/2019, levels 
for all products were within these export subsidies quantity commitment. Consequently, Canada is 
respecting the Nairobi Ministerial decision. Canada will eliminate all remaining export subsidies by 
the end of 2020.  
AG-IMS ID 93199: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
Canada 's ES:1 notification for Marketing Year 1 (August 2016  - 31 July 2017) confirmed no outlays 
on butter, despite Canada having a scheduled commitment of 905 tonnes. Canada 's ES:1 notification 
for Marketing Year 2018 confirms the reintroduction of a subsidy on 151 tonnes of its scheduled 
commitment for butter. New Zealand also notes that Canada continues to subsidise exports of 
cheese.  
 
How is Canada ensuring that export subsidies on butter and ch eese (as well as skim milk powder 
and products using dairy ingredients) will be effectively eliminated by 31 December 2020, as per 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition?  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 171 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) administers th e exports of dairy products, including butter, 
under milk class 5(d) in accordance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision through its permitting 
system. Permits will not be issued under milk class 5(d) for any exports taking place 
after 31 December  2020.   
 
1.2.6.4   Morocco  (G/AG/N/MAR/46, G/AG/N/MAR/44, G/AG/N/MAR/47)  
AG-IMS ID 93163: Question by Australia  - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Australia welcomes Morocco's submission of its ES  :1 notification for 2014, 2016 and 2017. Noting 
Morocco's export subsidies are provided subject to Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, can 
Morocco provide responses to the following questions:  
  
a. Can Morocco provide details on the cost -reduction measures provided for vegetables, 
fruits, flowers and ornamental plants, olive oil and hatching eggs and day -old chicks?  
b. Can Morocco provide details on how these export subsidies meet Morocco's commitments 
under Nairobi Ministerial Decision, particularly paragraphs 9, 10 and 11?  
Answer by Morocco  
 
1.2.6.5   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/4 0 to G/AG/N/TUR/4 3) 
AG-IMS ID 93164: Question by Brazil  - Transparency issues  
(Question comprises also G/AG/N/TUR/40)  
 
Taking into due account that Turkey 's notifications relates to calendar years 2010 to 2013, hence 
before MC10, and that, ac cording to the notifications, none of its export subsidy reduction 
commitments have been disregarded, it is worth noticing that there is a considerable array of 
agricultural products that were entitled to subsidies.  
 
Could Turkey provide information on the  reforms it has implemented on its agricultural policy related 
to export subsidies comply with the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
In accordance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, Turkey's revised schedule 
(document symbol; G/MA/TAR/RS/588) circulated on 18 June 2019. Currently, Turkey implements 
the export subsidy program in compliance with this revised sche dule. Within this context, subsidy 
payments for "Honey" and "Preserved poultry meat products" have already been suspended as of 
1 January 2019, as they are not included in the latest export subsidy notifications of Turkey 
examined by the Committee on Agric ulture before the date of adoption of Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition.  
AG-IMS ID 93165: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia welcomes Turkey's submission of its ES:1 notifications for 2010 through to 2013. This is 
an imp ortant demonstration of Turkey's commitment to transparency.  With respect to Turkey's 
remaining overdue ES notifications:  
 
a. Can Turkey advise when it expects to submit its outstanding notifications (for  2014 
onwards).  
Further, with respect to Schedule XXXV II – Turkey – Part IV – Section II – Export Subsidies 
(document G/MA/TAR/RS/588), which outlines Turkey's export subsidy reduction 
commitments, the Schedule indicates Turkey will cease to provide export subsidies as of 
1 January 2019 for a range of agricul tural products, including beef (0201, 0202), sheep 
meat (0204), milk (0401.30) and tomatoes  (0702).  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 172 - 
 
  b. Can Turkey confirm that no export subsidies have been provided for those commodities 
consistent with the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Turkey has submitted its export subsidy notifications for the period of 2010 -2013. Turkey 
is working on the notifications for the following years and hopes to complete them very 
soon. Turkey eliminated its export subsidy entitlements as of 1 January 2019 f or 25 
products or groups of products (including 0201 -0202; meat of bovine animals, fresh or 
chilled; frozen, 0204; meat of sheep, 0401.30; milk, 0702; tomatoes) which are not 
included in one of its three latest export subsidy notifications examined by the Committee 
on Agriculture before the date of adoption of Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition.  
b. Currently, Turkey implements the export subsidy program in compliance with its revised 
schedule (document symbol; G/MA/TAR/RS/588) circulated on 18 June 2019 and Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.  
Export prohibitions  and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
1.2.7.1   Myanmar  (G/AG/N/MYN/21)  
AG-IMS ID 93222: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks Myanmar for the submission of an ER: 1, notifying an export restriction on rice from 
1 May to 30 June to prevent critical shortages of rice.  
  
Can Myanmar advise if the measures ended as notified – on 30 June – and if any further measures 
are being considered or developed with respect the exp ort of rice from Myanmar?  
 
Answer by Myanmar  
 
Notifications  in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1) 
1.2.8.1   Korea, Republic  of (G/AG/N/KOR/74, G/AG/N/KOR/74)  
AG-IMS ID 93298: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks the Republic of Korea for the transparency provided in notifying its 
table NF:1 for 2018 and 2019.  
  
As a follow up to  AG-IMS ID s 93170 and 91123:  
  
The United States notes that the Republic of Korea provided food aid donations to the WFP for all 
years between 2008 and 2017 but did not notify any table NF:1 for this period or table ES:3 
since 2013. Also, we noted that the Republic of Korea through the Asean Plus Three Emergency Rice 
Reserve's  (APTERR) food aid program provided in -kind food aid in year 2017.  
  
a. Please indicate when the Republic of Korea will be providing NF:1  notifications for 
years  2008 to 2017.  
b. Please explain whether food aid donations to APTERR in 2017 should be notified in 
tables ES:3 and NF:1. If not, why not.  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
With regard to the question a, the Republic of Korea joined the Food Assistance Convention  (FAC) 
for overseas aid in 2018. Since then, it has been providing humanitarian food aid to developing 
countries. Before 2018, several Ministries of the Republic of Korea occasionally provided emergency 
relief through  WFP. We are currently under review whet her or not this donation before 2018 is also 
subject to notification requirement.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 173 - 
 
  For the question number b, under the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR), Member 
countries, including the Republic of Korea, earmarked and stockpiled rice rese rves in advance, and 
earmarked rice stocks were provided in the form of sales, long -term loans or grants in times of 
crises. The Republic of Korea has provided 15,000 tonnes to five countries through APTERR 
since 2017.  (See the following table for details.)  Finally, how and when Korea 's contribution will be 
notified is under review.  
 
Year Recipients  Contribution Quantity (ton)  
2017  Myanmar ;·Cambodia  750 (500 for Myanmar, 250 for Cambodia)  
2018  Viet Nam 10,000  
  Myanmar  1,300  
  Lao People's Democratic Republic  1,000  
2019  Myanmar ;· Lao People's Democratic Republic  1,000 (500/each)  
2020  Philippines  950 
 
1.3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  
Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
1.3.1.1   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/ 10, G/AG/N/BHR/11, 
G/AG/N/BHR/14)  
AG-IMS ID 93308: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States notes that Bahrain has not responded to any of the questions it has been asked 
since 2014 and would encourage Bahrain to bring its responses to these questions up to date.  
  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 89035/88101, for which the Kingdom of Bahrain has not 
responded and also applies to G/AG/N/BHR/11 and G/AG/N/BHR/14:  
  
In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2012 and 2014 Bahrain notified "plant protection" as a pest and disease 
control measure under Annex 2. No pest and disease control measure was notified for 2013 
in G/AG/N/BHR/7, but Bahrain did notify "Land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services" as 
a general services measure for that year as well as in 2011 and previous years. In 2015, 2016 
and 2017, Bahrain notified "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm weevil" 
as a pest and disease cont rol measure.  
  
a. It is unclear whether the intermittent use of some of these measures (e.g., "plant 
protection" and "land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services") indicates whether 
the same programme received funding in only certain years or if a  new programme was 
introduced with the same name. Please clarify.  
b. For each measure notified in Supporting Table DS:1 by Bahrain in G/AG/N/BHR/10, please 
provide a short description of how the measure is implemented.  
c. Please confirm when a Table DS:2 notification for each new exempt measure (e.g., "plant 
protection" and "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm weevil") 
will be submitted to this Committee.  
Answer by Bahrain, Kingdom of  
 
a. We would like to  clarify that since 2015, a  new and separate measure was introduced for 
the control of the red  palm weevil, as per the Ministers Council's decision of 15  June 2015.  
b. For greater  clarity, measures under Pest and Disease control are all public support 
programmes  that do not  involve dir ect payments to farmers, and are as follows:  
i. Plant Protection measures: Includes  diagnosis of plant diseases, subsidized sale of 
pesticides, with the aim of  control the spread of pests and  plant diseases as part of a 
comprehensive  agricultural development strategy that supports small scale farmers.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 174 - 
 
  ii. Control of Red Palm Weevil measures: A specific program approved by  the Ministers 
Council that aims  to reduce the pest infestation rate to the lowest level. The relevant 
division conducts pest surveys and  pest co ntrol measures, if needed.  
c. Regarding notifying  new measures under DS:2, we believe that the Pest and Disease 
Control measures  are considered Green Box support programmes, and therefore we will 
be notifying  them under DS:1.  
AG-IMS ID 93309: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The United States notes that Bahrain has not responded to any questions it has been asked 
since 2014 and would encourage Bahrain to bring its responses to these quest ions up to date.  
 
The United States notes no response has been provided for AG -IMS ID 88100/74038 regarding 
G/AG/N/BHR/7 and also applies to G/AG/N/BHR/11 and G/AG/N/BHR/14. Bahrain has notified input 
subsidies for crops and animal products inputs generall y available to low -income or resource -poor 
producers.  
 
a.  How does Bahrain define "low -income or resource -poor"?  
b.  What percent of Bahraini agricultural producers meets this definition?  
c.  Please describe what inputs are eligible to receive a subsidy, how the s upport measure 
implemented, and how the subsidy is calculated.  
Answer by Bahrain, Kingdom of  
  
a. The overall arable land in the Kingdom of Bahrain is 5 ,110 ha. The actual cultivated land 
area is 3 ,730 ha, which makes most of the Bahraini farmer's small farme rs due to the 
small size of farms. The agricultural season is limited only in the winter and spring seasons 
and not throughout the year.  
b. The subsidy provided through the ministry providing the requirements for the 
establishment of green houses at discounte d price for farmers from plastic sheets and 
irrigation systems to encourage them to invest in agriculture and the exploitation of arable 
land 
1.3.1.2   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/ 32) 
AG-IMS ID 93177: Question by Australia  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow up with Singapore with respect to question AG -IMS ID 92120 that 
Australia asked at the 92nd CoA:  
 
Australia thanks Singapore for its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/SGP/32), in 
which it confirms no domestic support was provided or maintained. Singapore has not notified the 
provision of any domestic support for the last decade.  
 
On Sin gapore's Food Agency website, there are a number of programmes that may fall within the 
Agreement of Agriculture commitments made by Singapore, for example: the Agriculture 
Productivity Fund; the Productivity Enhancement Scheme; the Research & Development scheme; 
and the Cash Advancement program.  
 
Can Singapore confirm that it has not provided any domestic support under these programmes, or 
explain how any expenditure under these programmes do not fall under Singapore's Agreement on 
Agriculture commitments .  
 
Answer by Singapore  
 
The Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF), a programme administered by the Singapore Food 
Agency  (SFA), helps farmers in Singapore develop higher technology farming capabilities and G/AG/W/216  
 
- 175 - 
 
  conduct R&D on innovative technologies. The APF comprises the (i) R&D Open Call; (ii) Basic 
Capability Upgrading Scheme; (iii) Productivity Enhancement Scheme; and (iv) Cash Advancement. 
Singapore takes our WTO obligations seriously, including those under the Agreement of Agricultu re. 
In line with our obligations, we have notified the APF to the WTO as a domestic support measure 
falling within the green box for calendar year 2019.  
 
1.3.1.3   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93141: Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues (i ncluding 
Table DS:2)  
The United States repeats AG -IMS ID 91195, noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
 
The United States notes that Tunisia only notifies product specific support for milk in the form of 
market price support. Ho wever, the United States understands that Tunisia operates several 
additional programmes related to milk which were not notified at all.  
 
a. For the three measures identified below, please confirm how the measure is notified in 
Tunisia's most recent domestic  support notification or provide the basis for exclusion.  
b. Please also provide  the same information for any other programs related to milk not 
already identified including programs that:  
i. Provide a subsidy for dairy projects.  
ii. Provide funding of approximatel y USD 17 million for milk collection and cooling.  
iii. Provide US D 8 million  to process milk stocks when there is overproduction. Please also 
confirm for the most recent five notified years whether such funding was used and if 
so, how much.  
The United States un derstands for certain commodities (e.g., sugar and tobacco) the government 
operates a public storage program intended to stabilize market prices.  
 
c. Please provide the measure and additional details as to how this program is operated and 
please specific how this program is notified in Tunisia's domestic support notifications.  
Tunisia provides support to farmers in the form of agricultural input subsidies for items such as 
fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation at rates below cost.  
 
d. For each type of input, fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation, as well as any others not 
identified by the United States, please explain how the program is administered and the 
basis for not including such measures in Tunisia's domestic support notification.  
Answer by Tuni sia 
AG-IMS ID 93140: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States repeats AG -IMS ID 91191 noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
 
In Tunisia's response to AG -IMS ID 87041 re garding production levels in 2016 compared to notified 
eligible production, Tunisia indicated that it would provide a response at a later stage. The 
United  States repeats the question in the context of both 2016 and 2017. It is the United States 
understand ing that Tunisia produced 840,000 MT of durum, 150,000 MT of common wheat, 
390,000  MT of barley and over 900,000 MT of milk in 2016.  
 
a. Please explain what the volume of eligible production notified represents.  For example, 
in 2016 Tunisia notified eligible production of 5,300 MT for durum, 500 MT for common 
wheat, 1,100 MT of barley and 865,000 MT of milk in 2016.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 176 - 
 
  b. Please provide the relevant measures and explain how the measures limit the quantity of 
eligible production of each of these commodities.  
Answer b y Tunisia  
AG-IMS ID 93139: Question by United  States of America - Excessive rates of inflation  
The United States repeats AG -IMS ID 91190 noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
 
In Tunisia's response to AG -IMS ID 87040, Tunisia i ndicated that it would provide a response at a 
later stage. The United States repeats the question and notes that Tunisia has also adjusted the 
fixed external reference price for 2017 for the same commodities. For the reporting period of 2016, 
Tunisia has adjusted the fixed external reference prices for durum wheat, common wheat, barley 
and milk to take account of inflation and exchange rates. The same was done for products notified 
for 2014 in G/AG/N/TUN/47, at which time, in response to AG -IMS ID 62036, T unisia stated that it 
considered the rate of inflation between 1998 -2014 to be excessive.  
 
a. Please provide additional information for Members to consider with the request, including 
inflation rates for all years since 1986, noting that Tunisia's inflation rates are well within 
the range of most other Members' rates.  
b. Please provide information and data that shows all calculations regarding inflation in 
Tunisia's most recent notification (G/AG/N/TUN/52).  
c. Please submit a revised notification showing domestic s upport calculated with an 
unadjusted FERP.  
d. Is Tunisia considering making substantive reforms to its policies that will bring it into 
compliance with its obligations?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
Export prohibitions and restrictions  (Table ER:1)  
1.3.2.1   Kyrgyz Republic  (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  
AG-IMS ID 93230: Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Kyrgyz Republic introduced export prohibitions on certain food 
products including wheat and meslin, wheat flour, rice, and sugar on 22 March 2020, and 
appreciates the measure was notified to the Committee on Agriculture on 31 March  2020. 
Japan would appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why the notification 
was not made before the measure was taken while "prior notification" is required in 
Article  12 of the Agre ement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if  Kyrgyz Republic could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of 
domestic supply and demand.  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
 
Currently, certain work is being done to ensure the country's food security and promptly respond to 
internal and external threats to the stability of the food market of the Kyrgyz Republic.  
 
It is important to note that one of the main indicators  of ensuring food security is the food 
independence of the Republic, where the physical and economic availability of food for the population 
is guaranteed. However, given the high level of dependence of the domestic market of the 
Kyrgyz  Republic on the imp ort of certain types of food products, the introduction of restrictions on G/AG/W/216  
 
- 177 - 
 
  the export of food products from neighbouring states in the context of the coronavirus pandemic has 
led to certain difficulties in providing the population with food products.   
 
In this regard, in order to prevent critical shortage and ensuring food goods, including national 
security of the Republic's population in a pandemic coronavirus infection COVID -19, decision of the 
government of the Kyrgyz Republic «On introduction of tempora ry ban on the export (import) certain 
types of goods from the Kyrgyz Republic» of 22 March  2020 No. 174  introduced a temporary ban 
for a period of six months on the export of wheat, flour, vegetable oil, rice, pasta, sugar, salt, eggs, 
feed, napkins, antib acterial and disinfectants. This regulation was valid until 22 September  2020.  
 
1.4  OVERDUE  NOTIFICATIONS  
China  
AG-IMS ID 93166: Question  by United States of Americ a 
Table ES:3 and Table NF:1 Notifications  
  
Taking into account China has not responded to AG ‑IMS ID 92029 and 88082, the United  States 
notes that China in responding to the ECQ and AG ‑IMS ID 92031, China stated that it has provided 
food aid through both multilateral and bilateral channels through 2018 but has never notified 
table ES:3 (showing the  total volume of food aid provided). Further China stated in response 
to AG‑IMS ID 90080 that it would study whether a table ES:3 notification is necessary.  
 
a. Has China determined if notification of table ES:3 is necessary?   
b. If not necessary, please explain . 
The United States notes that the volume of international food assistance provided by China as 
reported in the export competition questionnaire from 2015 to 2018, is over 2 billion RMB per year, 
making China the third largest food donor, after the United States and the European Union and its 
member States.  As a food aid donor or donors of technical and financial assistance:  
 
c. When can Members expect China to notify table NF:1?  
d. If China does not plan to notify, please explain why.  
Answer by China  
 
Study is still underway.  
 
Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 93167 : Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Egypt's last notification (G/AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export subsidy 
commitments ( table ES:1) is for the year 1998. As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 90081, E gypt stated 
that it was undertaking the necessary steps to update its ES notifications.  Please provide an update 
on the steps being taken by Egypt to submit its overdue notifications.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
European  Union  
AG-IMS ID 93180 : Question by India  
The European Union has notified its DS:1 notification up to marketing year 2016 -17. In this regard, 
India requests the European Union the following:  
 
a. When is it planning to file DS:1 notifications for years post 2016 -17?  
b. What are the reasons for delay in  the notification?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 178 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
EU DS:1 notification for the 2017/18 marketing year will be submitted soon. The EU has on several 
occasions in this Committee and other WTO forums stated that the 90 days limit in G/AG/2 is not 
realistic. As sh own in Room document RD/AG/71 only two WTO Members (both without AMS) have 
been able to respect this unrealistic deadline. The EU has on several occasions including in this 
Committee stated that the EU aims to submit its DS:1 notification within 15 months of the end of 
the budget year for which the notification concerns. For the notification covering the  2017/18 
marketing year the EU budget year ends on 31 December 2018. As further background information 
on the challenges in meeting the unrealistic DS:1 dea dline, the certified EU budget will normally not 
be available before the end of the summer following the end of the budget year (end July). 
EU member States need to collect their national data, which includes data from several ministries. 
In member States with a federal structure, this includes collecting data from sub -national entities, 
which again may be from several ministries or authorities. The European Commission has recently 
introduced an electronic data notification system for this data coming from member States and 
hopes to further improve data collection as well as automation of data processing in the future. For 
the EU, the accuracy and completeness of the notifications has priority over unrealistic timelines. 
Finally, the EU would like to underli ne that for all other agricultural notifications the EU is fully up to 
date.  
 
India  
AG-IMS ID 93200: Question by European Union  
ES:1 notifications  
 
The latest ES:1 notification for India covers the year 2009.  
 
a. Can India indicate when the outstanding ES :1 notifications will be submitted?  
b. Can India indicate whether it will include all Article 9:4 subsidies granted at Federal and 
State level in these notifications as suggested in earlier discussions in the Committee?   
Answer by India  
 
India will submit its ES:1 notifications in due  course.  
 
Follow -up: The EU pointed out that the notifications in question referred to 2009 and hoped India 
could strive to update the notifications despite the concentration of resources on fighting the 
COVID -19 crisis . 
 
AG-IMS ID 93168: Question  by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG ‑IMS ID s 92030, 91143 and 88085, India states the preparation of notifications 
are underway and it would notify its export subsidies "shortly". Please provide an update on the 
status of preparation of its numerous years of overdue notifications and tell Members when the 
Committee can expect to be notified.  
 
Answer by India  
 
At the moment, the resources of our authorities have  been focussed towards containing the 
COVID -19 pandemic. India will submit its  ES:1 notifications in due course.   
AG-IMS ID 93169: Question  by United States of America  
The United States noticed that the Food Corporation of India has provided humanitarian food aid, 
on behalf of the government on India, for example to Afghanistan in 2018-2019, (see: 
http://fci.gov.in/app/webroot/upload/Import/ENGLISH%202011 -2020.pdf ).  
 
a. Please provide additional information on FCI 's activi ties, including in what years 
humanitarian food aid has been provided.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 179 - 
 
  b. Please indicate whether India will be submitting ES:3 notifications for all relevant years. 
If not, please explain why not.  
Answer by India  
 
Information regarding the activities of the Food Corporation of India can be accessed from the 
following link:  http://fci.gov.in/ . India has not provided the food aid being referred to in the link in 
the question in the year 2018-2019. Relevant notifications will b e made by India, as  required.   
 
Kenya  
AG-IMS ID 93201: Question by European Union  
DS:1 notification  
 
The latest notification submitted in 1998 by Kenya concerns the year 1996.  
 
Can Kenya indicate when its outstanding notifications will be submitted, in particular for recent 
years?  
 
Answer by Kenya  
 
Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 93170: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to  AG-IMS ID 91123, the Republic of Korea stated that ES notification for food aid will 
be submitted in due course after the data collection.  
 
a. Please explain when the Republic of Korea will finish collecting its food aid data and submit 
Table ES:3 notification for foo d aid for all relevant years?  
b. Since the Republic of Korea is a food aid donor and donors of technical and financial 
assistance, will the Republic of Korea provide a Table NF:1 Notification? If not, please 
explain why not.  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. Since joining FAC in 2018, the Republic of Korea has provided food aid. Because all food 
aid is provided in cash, ES:3 is not a relevant notification form for Korea's food aid. 
However, the Republic of Korea plans to provide NF:1 notification for 2018 and 20 19 during 
the second half of this year.  
b. The Republic of Korea will provide NF:1 notification in 2020.  
Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 93171 : Question by European Union  
The EU appreciates the efforts Morocco has made in reducing the backlog of notifications in particul ar 
on export subsidies. However, Morocco's most recent DS:1 notification is from 2012 covering the 
years 2003 to 2007.  
  
Can Morocco indicate any timetable for submission of its outstanding DS:1  notifications?  
 
Answer by Morocco  
 
Like the notifications on market access and export subsidies recently submitted by Morocco, 
notifications on domestic support are being prepared and will be submitted as soon as they are 
finalized.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 180 - 
 
  
South  Africa  
AG-IMS ID 93172 : Question by European Union  
South Afr ica's most recent DS:1 notification is from 2016 covering the year 2014.  Can South Africa 
indicate any timetable for submission of its outstanding DS:1 notifications?  
 
Answer by South Africa  
 
South Africa thanks the European Union for the Question. We are aware of the outstanding answer 
to the question from the EU.  South Africa needs to disaggregate expenditure statistics from another 
Department going back a few years and this has proven to be a challenging process. We are working 
on the reply and we will r espond as soon as possible.  
 
United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 93202 : Question by European Union  
ES:1 Notifications  
 
The latest ES:1 notification submitted covers 2017/18.  
 
Can the US indicate when the outstanding ES:1 notifications will be submitted?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Table ES:1 notification covering 2018/2019 will be notified in due course.   
AG-IMS ID 93246: Question  by India  
India notes that the United States submitted its last domestic support notification (DS:1 notification) 
as contained in document G/AG/N/USA/123 in 2018, for the marketing year 2016. According to the 
G/AG/2 document, the United States is required to submit its domestic support notification no later 
than 90 days following the end of the calendar (or marketing, f iscal, etc.) year in question.  
  
Lately, the United States has announced a number of programmes for supporting its domestic 
agriculture sector. These programmes may have significant implications for the international prices 
of agricultural goods.  
  
In th is context, India requests the United States to elucidate the reasons for not submitting 
its DS:1 notification for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. By when can WTO Members expect the 
United  States to notify its domestic support for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States submitted its domestic support notification for 2017/18 to the WTO in 
mid-July. The United States is currently working on the 2018/19 notification.  The 2019/20 marketing 
year is ongoing.  
AG-IMS ID 93310: Question  by Mexico  
The review process, which is conducted on the basis of Members' notifications to the Committee on 
Agriculture, is the principal means of reviewing compliance with Uruguay Round commitments. As a 
result, the Secr etariat, Mexico and numerous developed and developing Members have combined 
their resources and technical efforts to keep abreast of the reporting of budgetary outlays for 
domestic support. We note with concern that the last DS:1 notification from the Unit ed States was 
for the marketing year 2016 and therefore ask:  
  
a. When will the United States submit domestic support notifications for the years 2016/17, 
2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The United States 2016/17 domestic sup port notification was issued 
23 September  2018.  The United States submitted its domestic support notification G/AG/W/216  
 
- 181 - 
 
  for 2017/18 to the WTO in mid -July 2020.  The United States is currently working on 
the 2018/19 notification.  The 2019/20  marketing year is ongoing .  
1.5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
China  
AG-IMS ID 93024: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks China for the transparency provided in responding to the export 
competition questionnaire.  
 
As a follow up to AG ‑IMS ID 92031, China stated that SINOSURE export insurance programmes 
covered a total value of USD 13.9 billion, USD 13.6 billion and USD 15.95 billion of agricultural 
products exports in calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.  
 
Please provide the programme use (i.e., the total v alue of exports) by product or product group 
(i.e., agricultural products) from 2016 to 2018.  If China is unable to provide this data at this time, 
please explain if China is taking steps to provide this data after the end of 2020 when the 
Nairobi  Decision  Annex should be fully adopted by all Members.  
 
Answer by China  
 
China will provide relevant data as required by the Decision.  
 
Japan  
AG-IMS ID 93173: Question by United States of America   
In response to AG -IMS ID 91158 and AG -IMS ID 89028, Japan stated that certain "Subsidies for the 
Creation of Production Areas" under the "Direct Payment for Full Rice Paddy Utilization" program do 
not constitute export subsidies because they are not contingent on export performance.  
  
The United States seeks to u nderstand how Japan has reached this conclusion, as the payments are 
made in specific cases where rice is planted for new market development overseas (e.g., for export). 
The previous responses discussed how decision -making is conducted between the local ag ricultural 
councils, prefectural governments, and national government, and pointed out that there is no 
requirement to allocate a certain amount for new market development overseas, i.e. , exports. 
However, the responses did not explain how there is no "pro vision by governments or their agencies 
of direct subsidies… contingent on export performance" for those payments that are made for this 
purpose.  
  
Please provide details on how subsidies for new market development in overseas markets are 
structured and wh at requirements or conditions apply.  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
Grant for Production Area is a program which aims to support local initiatives for agricultural 
development and covers not only rice but also other crops. Its basic procedures are as follows:  
  
1) The national government allocates the upper limit of usable funds to local agricultural councils 
through prefectural governments, taking account of local agricultural situations;  
  
2) Local agricultural councils determine specific criteria of payments to far mers reflecting their 
individual policies for crop production within the allocated limit of funds;  
  
3) Payments are made to farmers when they grow products in accordance to the criteria established 
in the second step. In this program, rice planted for "n ew market development" constitutes one of 
the elements which the national government considers in the first step to calculate the amount of 
usable funds to prefectural governments, but it is not a category which relates to payments to 
farmers in the third step, while "subsidies for new market development" are discussed in the 
question. Moreover, this funding allocation is judged by whether rice is planted for new market 
development, including for domestic sale, and does not distinguish domestic and overseas  markets. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 182 - 
 
  Furthermore, since this funding allocation is based on the area of rice intended to be sold for new 
market at the time of planting, the national program neither mandates export performance nor 
accompanies financial penalties to farmers in case ri ce is not exported. Therefore, the national 
program does not require export performance and is not integral to export. It is only a type of normal 
domestic support which does not include any payment to farmers contingent on export performance.  
 
Myanmar  
AG-IMS ID 93174: Question by Australia  
Australia would like to follow up with Myanmar with respect to question AG-IMS ID 92124 that 
Australia asked at the 92nd CoA: 
  
Australia welcomes Myanmar 's submission of ten overdue ES:1 notifications. Australia welcome s this 
commitment to bringing notification submissions up to date and the transparency that comes with 
that. Australia looks forward to the submission of the ES:1 notifications for 2015 and onwards, and 
in the absence of these:  
 
Can Myanmar advise if it has provided any export subsidies in those reporting periods 
(2015  onwards)?  
 
Answer by Myanmar  
 
Russian Federation  
AG-IMS ID 93175: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks the Russian Federation for the transparency provided in resp onding to the 
export competition questionnaire.  
 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 92032, the United States would like to repeat question (c) as the 
Russian  Federation has not provided a written response:  
 
The United States notes that according to the website of the Russian Agricultural Bank 
(Rosselkhozbank), the bank provides trade financial products and services for the export of 
agricultural products. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank's trade financing activities should be 
reported in the ECQ.  
 
Answer b y Russian Federation  
 
As it was noted in the ECQ, in accordance with the Resolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation of 24 May 2017 No. 620 the government provides subsidy for JSC Russian Export Center 
for compensation interest rates on export c redits and other financing products similar to loan. 
RosSelkozBank as an authorized bank provides financing, such as export credit, to borrowers under 
the funding agreement. JSC Russian Export Center compensates interest rates on export credits and 
other f inancing products similar to loan for an authorized bank under agreement for payment of 
compensation afterwards.  
 
Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 93176: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks Thailand for the transparency provided in responding to the export 
competition questionnaire.  
 
The United States noted in Thailand's ECQ response that Export -Import Bank of Thailand 
(EXIM  Thailand) covered a total value of THB 5,2 82.49 million (USD  147.7  million), 
THB 8,322.5  million (USD  246.1  million), and THB 13,732.3 (USD  424.5  million) of agricultural 
product exports in calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.  
 
Can Thailand please provide the programme use (i.e., the total value of exports) by product or 
product group (i.e., agricultural products) from 2016 to 2018.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 183 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
 
The list of agricultural products covered by Export Credits and Export Credit Insurance Programmes 
were stated in the notification G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.2. For further information, please visit EXIM 
Bank's website at https://www.exim.go.th/th/Home.aspx . 
 
Viet Na m 
AG-IMS ID 93142: Question by United States of America  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 91109 on export competition for which Viet Nam has not 
provided a written response:  
 
The United States  notes that Viet  Nam has not updated its response to the Secretariat's 
Questionnaire since 2016 and has not provided data for export financing support programs run by 
The Vietnam Development Bank for years 2016, 2017 and 2018. When will Viet Nam provide da ta 
updates for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to the ECQ? If Viet Nam is not able to provide this data, 
please explain why.  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Regarding the reply on the Export Competition Questionnaire for the period 2016 -2018, Viet Nam is 
currently finaliz ing this questionnaire and will soon send the notification to the WTO.  
 
With respect to the activities of the Vietnam Development Bank (VDB), in accordance with Decree 
No.32/2017/NĐ -CP dated 31 March 2017 on State investment credit, since 15 May 2017 unti l now, 
VDB has not provided any loans for export activities. For the previous period, the providing of loans 
extended to export contracts was in accordance with the Decree No.75/2011/NĐ -CP dated 
30 August  2011 on State investment credit and loans extended to export contracts. Accordingly, the 
lending interest rate would be reported by the Chairman of the VDB Board of Directors to the Ministry 
of Finance to announce on the principle of matching with the market interest rate; and enterprises 
must implement lo an security measures in accordance with the government regulations on security 
transactions. Viet Nam confirms that these loans was provided completely on market basis, not a 
government subsidy, and did not cause market distortion. According to the VDB sta tistics, total loans 
extended to export contracts in the agricultural sector disbursed in 2016 and 2017 were VND  2,833 
billion and VND 75.77 billion respectively.  
 
_______________  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 184 - 
 
  2  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE SPECIAL MEETING ON 18 JUNE 2020  
2.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  
Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
2.1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 94034)  
Australia announced the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM), an AUD 110  million 
programme that provides government assistance "by meeting a portion of the airfreight costs" of 
the export of high -value agriculture and fisheri es productions. According to the relevant Australian 
government factsheet v4.0 on the IFAM 
(https://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/10562/cov id-19-relief-and-recovery -
fund.pdf.aspx ): "exporters will need to make a financial contribution towards the cost of their freight" 
and "this cost may be more than pre -COVID airfreight rates". Furthermore, on an Australian 
government website ( https://www.agriculture.gov.au/coronavirus/export/air -freight#air -freight -
service -providers ) it is stated that: "[The IFAM] will operate until ordin ary commercial markets 
return, or for six months, whichever is earlier".  
  
a. Could Australia provide more precision on how it will determine the level of government 
assistance for each quantity of agricultural goods exported? Please provide a detailed 
formu la, and any element specific to the type of agricultural product exported.  
b. How will the financial contribution of exporters will be calculated?  
c. Australian government factsheet v4.0 mentioned that the financial contribution towards 
the cost of the flight "may" be more than pre -COVID airfreight rates. Could Australia give 
more precision as to whether it is possible under this program that the financial 
contribution of exporters could be less than pre -COVID airfreight rates?  
d. Please indicate what "ordinary c ommercial markets return" means, and how the 
government of Australia plans to determine when the ordinary commercial markets have 
returned?  
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks Canada for its question and the opportunity to provide all Members with further 
information on the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM). Australia first notes to 
Members that it has submitted notifications on IFAM to the WTO a s part of the WTO's Trade 
Monitoring Report process in late April, and in the form of an ad hoc  COVID -19 notification for the 
WTO COVID -19 tracker of goods measures last week - both of which have not yet been made public 
- in an effort to provide as much t ransparency as possible concerning COVID -19-related measures. 
Australia encourages other WTO Members to do the same. As all Members are acutely aware, the 
impact of COVID -19 on society has been profound. It has exposed weaknesses and pressure points 
in glo bal supply chains and presented challenges on how to keep these vital supply chains 
functioning. As an island nation separated by great distances from global centres of production and 
consumption, Australia relies on sea freight, and to a lesser degree, ai rfreight for all of its trade. 
Less than 1% of Australia's annual two -way trade is conducted by airfreight, by a small, but globally 
important group of importers and exporters trading in time -critical, essential and/or perishable 
goods. That airfreight tra de relied overwhelmingly on Australia's inbound and outbound commercial 
passenger flights. Following the outbreak of COVID -19 and the subsequent health and border 
restrictions implemented globally, international passenger flights in and out of Australia co llapsed 
by around 85 %. In response, Australia developed IFAM as a temporary, targeted and proportionate 
emergency measure to try to keep open a critical number of pre -COVID -19 international airfreight 
supply chains into and out of Australia. This has ensur ed the continued provision of essential goods 
into Australia, including vital medical supplies, medicines and equipment critical to the ongoing 
health response and the flow of perishable products where businesses had established international 
customers. A key feature of IFAM is the logistical and administrative support for international freight 
movements it provides by aggregating cargo loads, negotiating with airlines and dealing with partner 
governments to facilitate clearances and improve transparency of  freight costs during the pandemic. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 185 - 
 
  With respect to Canada's questions, Australia provides the following responses: a) IFAM does not 
differentiate the level of government assistance based on the product. i. IFAM has been designed 
not to provide funding to individual exporters or importers. ii. In all cases, exporters and importers 
are expected to pay for airfreight as well as freight charges. The total cost will always be more than 
pre-COVID airfreight rates. iii. This approach ensures that commercially unv iable, ineffective or 
unsustainable exports are not incentivised nor facilitated. Similarly, IFAM is not creating new export 
pathways for goods that previously would not have gone as airfreight. b) See response to a). c) As 
set out in the response to a), a n exporter will always pay more than their pre -COVID -19 airfreight 
costs. d) Australia is continually monitoring the market for airfreight, including on individual routes, 
and will cease IFAM assistance on specific routes once the market re -adjusts airfrei ght prices – even 
if they remain significantly higher than pre -COVID -19 rates. This will ensure that support is not 
provided to inefficient, unviable or uncompetitive businesses, nor would IFAM incentivise exports or 
imports in a manner that distorts trade flows or production.  
 
Follow -up: In light of the export orientation of the programme, Canada noted its high level of interest 
in how it operates.  
 
2.1.1.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94048)  
Australia has implemented a programme called the International  Freight Assistance Mechanism 
(IFAM). According to the relevant Australian government factsheet v3.0 on the IFAM 
(https://www.austrade.gov.au/Arti cleDocuments/10562/covid -19-relief-and-recovery -
fund.pdf.aspx ) the IFAM is an AUD  110 million "scheme designed to assist Australian agricultural 
and fisheries producers to export their premium produce to priority markets". The factsheet states: 
"by meeting  a portion of the airfreight costs, the government is helping ensure Australian exporters 
can recover and adapt quickly when the COVID -19 crisis begins to abate". According to the factsheet, 
eligible products include:  
 
• seafood (including lobsters);  
• premi um red meat (including beef, lamb and pork);  
• dairy (such as fresh milk and yoghurt);  
• horticulture (such as premium fruits and packaged salad or vegetables . 
 
This appears therefore to be an aid provided to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultu ral 
products, namely the costs of international transport and freight. As such, it appears to be an export 
subsidy as defined in Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture which covers "the provision of 
subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing export s of agricultural products (other than widely 
available export promotion and advisory services) including handling, upgrading and other 
processing costs, and the costs of international transport and freight". For developed WTO Members 
such as Australia, pa ragraph 6 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision of 19  December  2015 
(WTO  document WT/MIN(13)/40) provides for the elimination of export subsidies as of the date of 
adoption of that Decision.  
 
a. Can Australia explain how the IFAM respects its WTO obligations o n agricultural export 
subsidies as set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Will Australia immediately terminate any prohibited agricultural export subsidies?  
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks the European Union f or its question and kindly refers the EU to the response to 
Canada's question AG-IMS ID 94034. IFAM is consistent with Australia's WTO obligations.  
 
Follow -up: The EU was not fully convinced with Australia's response and looked forward to the 
termination of the programme.  
 
2.1.1.3   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 94033)  
In April 2020, Australian government announced the establishment of a AUD 1 billion COVID -19 
Relief and Recover Fund to support the export sectors affected by the economic impacts of the 
COVID -19 E pidemic. Under the mentioned Fund, the Australian government will allocate G/AG/W/216  
 
- 186 - 
 
  AUD 110 million to help the agriculture and seafood export sectors by creating a new freight 
assistance mechanism in order to recommence the Australian local shipments to other coun tries.  
In this regard, Thailand would like to request further details from Australia regarding the above -
mentioned  measure and how it complies with Australia's export subsidies commitment schedule.  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks Thailand for its question and kindly refers it to the response to Canada's 
question  AG-IMS ID  94034 and the EU's question 94048.  
 
2.1.1.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94049)  
In response to the impact the reduction in commercial flights is having on exports o f Australian 
agriculture and seafood products, the government announced a $110 million AUD programme to 
help exporters get their products to markets.  
  
Please elaborate on how these funds are distributed, noting specifically how freight rates are 
determin ed for agricultural exporters and whether any of the funds can be received by exporters 
directly.  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks the United States for its question and kindly refers it to the response to Canada's 
question AG-IMS ID 94034.  
 
Cambodia's prohibition of rice exports  
2.1.2.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94002)  
a. Japan recognizes that Cambodia introduced export proh ibition on rice on 5 April 2020 but 
finds that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Cambodia could provide the reason behind.  Japan would also appreciate it if Cambodia 
could explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Cambodi a could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of rice, and ii) criticalness of the shortage. Japan would also appreciate it if 
Cambodia could provide the r eason why it resorted to the export prohibition on rice, rather 
than arranging quota which reflects the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
Answer by Cambodia  
 
Follow -up: Japan reminded Cambodia of its obligation to notify the export ban despite the lifting of 
the ban. Chinese Taipei registered systemic interest in the application of export restriction  measures 
during the pandemic.  
 
Canada's agriculture support package  
2.1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94001)  
Australia notes that Canada's federal gov ernment announced a CAD  252 million support package for 
farmers and agri -businesses on 5 May.  
 
a. Noting the Canadian Prime Minister described the measures as an "initial investment", 
does this mean Canada is considering further support measures? Noting the support 
package is reported to include CAD 50 million for a Surplus Food Purchase Program to 
redistribute surplus commodity inventories to foods banks.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 187 - 
 
  b. Can Canada confirm if the intention is to purchase surplus food in Canada for the purpose 
of domestic food aid?  
c. Can Canada please outline the commodities which will be eligible for the Surplus Food 
Purchase Program and provide any other relevant details of the programme?  
Answer by Canada  
 
The Canadian Federal Government is closely monitoring the COVID -19-related emergency needs of 
Canada's agriculture and agri -food sector. Federal support remains fl uid as challenges within the 
agricultural value chain continue to unfold. There are three core objectives of the $50 million Surplus 
Food Rescue Program: (1) Provide assistance to organizations to acquire and process surplus 
commodities and food that would  otherwise be lost or destroyed and distribute them to populations 
in need; (2) Assist producers and processors to dispose of such surpluses; and (3) Connect surplus 
commodities to food vulnerable populations to avoid food waste. The approach to this progr am 
encompasses the essential steps of acquiring, processing, transporting and distributing the product 
to ensure the shelf -life stability of the surplus products (in frozen, canned or dried formats), resulting 
in the least amount of food waste. Consultatio ns with industry and government stakeholders 
identified several products that are in surplus, falling under horticulture, livestock, fish and seafood, 
dairy, poultry and eggs. The list contains estimated volume and value of excess product, as well as 
risk assessments of how much time remains for each product to be viable, including after packaging 
or freezing. The list contains estimated volume and value of excess product, as well as risk 
assessments of how much time remains for each product to be viable, i ncluding after packaging or 
freezing. The list is evergreen in nature, as circumstances with Canada's producers and processors 
continue to evolve and unfold. In other words, the surplus product situation is very fluid and the list 
of surplus commodities is  updated, as more data becomes available.  
 
Canada's dairy policies  
2.1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94003)  
Australia notes the Canadian Dairy Commission's borrowing limit has been increased to 
CAD 500 million (from CAD 300  million) to fund the purchase an d storage of surplus butter and 
cheese from farmers and processors during the pandemic.  
  
a. Will the butter and cheese temporarily stored using this additional funding be exported?  
b. Can Canada confirm if there is a time limit on the 'temporary' storage of b utter and cheese?  
c. Australia notes this measure requires legislative change, could Canada please provide an 
update on the required changes?  
Answer by Canada  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic is having a major impact on the Canadian dairy industry. As a result of 
these challenges, dairy producers needed to dispose of significant volumes of surplus raw milk at 
the end of March and the first half of April 2020. In view of halting the disposal of raw milk, the 
government of Canada announced in May its intent to increase the CDC's borrowing limit to provide 
the flexibility needed to further support the sector during this challenging time. On 15 May 2020, 
the Parliament of Canada passed legislation to increase the statutory borrowing limit of the  CDC 
from $300 to $500 milli on. This legislative change does not directly provide additional funds to 
the CDC.  
 
In response to the specific questions posed by Australia, Canada offers the following response:  
 
a. Any dairy product purchased under this initiative will be sold back to dai ry processors at 
the same price. It will then be a business decision on the part of industry, to determine 
whether to market these products in domestic or international markets.  
b. Given the market uncertainties, it is too early to provide firm timeframes fo r when dairy 
products purchased by the CDC for storage will be sold back to dairy processors. The CDC G/AG/W/216  
 
- 188 - 
 
  continues to have the ability to purchase and sell any dairy product and to store any dairy 
product that it has purchased. The ability of the CDC to exerc ise its authorities, under the 
Canadian Dairy Commission Act, is not tied to the market conditions related to COVID -19.  
c. As previously noted, on 15 May 2020, the Parliament of Canada passed legislation to 
increase the statutory borrowing limit of the CDC f rom $300 to $500 million.  
2.1.4.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94004)  
An amendment to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act has undergone its first reading. If the 
legislation is passed, the Canadian Dairy Commission  (CDC) will have its budget almost doubled to  
CAD 500 million which will be used to finance increased volumes of butter to be placed in storage 
and expand the product range available for purchase to include cheese to be placed in storage. 
Media reporting suggests this is a permanent increase to the b udget, and not just a temporary 
measure to recover from the effects of COVID -19. The funding allows the CDC to buy surplus butter 
and cheese, store it until demand increases, and then sell it back to processors who will distribute it 
to market. We apprecia te that these measures have been put in place to support the agriculture 
sector during a time of crisis, and we respect the need of countries to support agribusiness during 
these difficult times. We would be interested in the following:  
  
a. Can Canada confirm that the amendment to the legislation and corresponding increase to 
the budget means that the policy allowing the CDC to buy surplus butter and cheese, store 
product, and sell it back to processors is a permanent measure?  
b. Alternatively,  if the policy is intended to be temporary while Canada recovers from the 
effects of COVID -19, can Canada confirm the timeframe for how long the CDC will be 
entitled to buy surplus butter and cheese, store product, and sell it back to processors?  
c. Can Cana da confirm the stored butter and cheese is sold back to processors at the same 
price as it was bought from them, regardless of how the market has changed in the 
intervening period?  
d. Can Canada confirm the maximum amount of time the CDC will store the butte r and cheese 
it has purchased?  
e. How will Canada ensure that the release of any dairy stocks will not be placed on the global 
market and therefore constitute a de facto export subsidy?  
Answer by Canada  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic is having a major impact on the Canadian dairy industry. As a result of 
these challenges, dairy producers needed to dispose of significant volumes of surplus raw milk at 
the end of March and the first half of April 2020. In view of halting the disposal of raw milk, the 
government of Canada announced in May its intent to increase the CDC's borrowing limit to provide 
the flexibility needed to further support the sector during this challenging time. On 15 May 2020, 
the Parliament of Canada passed legislation to increase the statutory borrowing limit of the  CDC 
from $300 to $500 million. This legislative change does not directly provide additional funds to 
the CDC.  
 
With respect to the specific questions posed by New Zealand, Canada offers the following response:  
 
a. Bill C -16, An Act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, only changes the 
maximum amount of loans that the CDC can hold at any given time. In the event a decision 
is made to provide additional funds, it will follow the normal budgetary process to secure 
loans fr om the consolidated revenue fund.  
b. The Canadian Dairy Commission Act currently provides the CDC with the authority to 
purchase and sell any dairy product and to store any dairy product that it has purchased. 
The ability of the  CDC to exercise its authoriti es is not tied to the market conditions related 
to COVID -19.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 189 - 
 
  c. Any stored dairy products purchased by the CDC will be bought and sold at the same price.  
d. Given the market uncertainties, it is too early to provide firm timeframes for when dairy 
products purc hased by the CDC for storage will be sold back to dairy processors.  
e. Any dairy product purchased under this initiative will be sold back to dairy processors at 
the same price. It will then be a business decision on the part of industry, to determine 
whethe r to market these products in domestic or international markets. Canada's 
initiatives are consistent with its international obligations.  
Follow -up: New Zealand noted that trade distortive measures should be carried out in a temporary, 
transparent and WTO -consistent manner.  
 
Canada - Farm Credit Canada  
2.1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94053)  
In late March 2020, Canada announced Farm Credit Canada (FCC) can extend up to CAD  5 billion of 
additional loans to agricultural and food businesses. A ccording to FCC, these funds can be used to 
1) defer principal and interest payments up to six months for existing loans or defer principal 
payments up to 12 months and 2) provide access to a 24 -month credit line of up to CAD 500,000 
(at "prime plus 1%t").  What criteria must agricultural and food businesses satisfy to qualify?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Existing and potential FCC customers must meet FCC's eligibility criteria ensuring the current or 
projected activity to be financed must benefit Canadian agricultu re and agri -food industries, and be 
direct agriculture, agri -food or agriculture related business activities. Individuals and businesses 
applying for FCC financing are subject to industry standard lending due diligence, which considers 
business viability, credit history, and management integrity and experience.  
 
China's measures to ensure agricultural inputs supplies  
2.1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94054)  
The United States understands that China is taking steps to ensure supplies of agricultural inputs 
needed for production are available to producers, including through delivery of inputs by the Ministry 
of Industry and Information Technology and National Su pply and Marketing Corporation in Hubei, 
connecting producers to fertilizer companies in Beijing through the Municipal Agricultural and Rural 
Bureau, and local government is bulk purchasing inputs for distribution.  
 
a. Please describe how these different eff orts are implemented.  
b. Please identify any financial benefit, direct or indirect, that is provided to agricultural 
producers, including through the distribution of inputs at lower costs.  
Answer by China  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic not only presents serious cha llenges for public health, but also adversely 
affected the agriculture production in various aspects, including the supply of agricultural inputs. In 
order to help entities restore production and stabilize supply, pertinent departments of national and 
sub-national governments of China took a series of measures to solve the problems arising in the 
production, sales and transportation of agricultural inputs. Regarding fertilizer, the Ministry of 
Industry and Information Technology, together with the National Development and Reform 
Commission, the Ministry of Transport, the People's Bank of China, the National Supply and 
Marketing Cooperation and the Railway Corporation, established a daily coordination mechanism, 
covering key phosphate fertilizer producers in Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan and Hubei provinces, to 
solve problems related to transportation, raw materials and supplementary materials, and cash flows 
in a timely manner. Meanwhile, close cooperation between the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Affairs and the National Supply and Marketing Cooperation was carried out to collect market 
information with a view to strengthen the connection between the supply side and the demand side, G/AG/W/216  
 
- 190 - 
 
  which effectively facilitated the function of market mechanism. These efforts helped to guarantee 
the supply of inputs needed and minimize the impact of the pandemic on agricultural production 
effectively.  
 
Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  
2.1.7.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94005)  
a. Japan recognizes that Egypt introduced  export prohibitions on leguminous vegetables and 
products thereof (with the exception of peanuts, fresh or chilled peas, etc.) on 
28 March  2020, and appreciate the measure was notified to the Committee on Market 
Access on 14  April 2020, but also finds tha t the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made. Japan would appreciate it if Egypt could provide the reason 
behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Egypt could explain how it has given due 
consideration to the effects of th e measure on importing Members' food security, as 
required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Egypt could explain how the measure meets the conditions 
required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of leguminous vegetables and products thereof, ii)  criticalness of the 
shortages, and iii)  temporality of the measure. Japan would also appreciate it if Egypt 
could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitio ns on the products, rather 
than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
Answer by Egypt  
 
2.1.7.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94006)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Egypt has 
introduced export prohibitions on several agricultural products.  
 
a.  Can Egypt please give an update on whether the export prohibitions will be terminated at 
the end of June 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?   
b. Will Egypt submit a notification to the Com mittee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information . These notifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
El Salvador's export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  
2.1.8.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94007)  
Japan would appreciate it if El Salvador could explain how export prohibitions on dried leguminous 
vegetables introduced by the Member on 26  March  2020 meet the conditions required in Article  XI 
of General Agreement on Tariffs and T rade (GATT): namely i)  essentiality of the products, and 
ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also appreciate it if El Salvador could provide the reason 
why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas whic h reflect 
the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 191 - 
 
  Answer by El Salvador  
 
The following statement was made at the 94th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  Thank you, 
Madam Chair.  We thank the delegation of Japan for its questions. The replies wer e received from 
our capital this morning and have been sent to the WTO Secretariat.  Regarding the essentiality of 
beans, El Salvador has a per capita consumption of red beans of around 20 kg per year. In order to 
satisfy domestic demand, 30% of the red beans consumed domestically have to be imported 
(around  600,000 quintals per year). Salvadoran households spend more than USD  84 million on 
beans each year, which accounts for around 13% of the value of the basic food basket in urban 
areas and 18% of the b asic food basket in rural areas. In terms of household budget, the 
consumption of red beans is much more economical than the consumption of any other product in 
the basic food basket, and the importance of this product is such that demand in El Salvador is  
inelastic.  Socially and culturally, the consumption of this product is strongly rooted in the diet of the 
Salvadoran population, not only on account of its taste and nutritional characteristics, but also 
because it forms part of ancestral culture.  Regardi ng the critical nature of the shortages, the 
domestic production of beans amounts to some 2  million quintals, and around 600,000 quintals have 
to be imported to satisfy domestic consumption. 56.3% of bean producers grow the product for their 
own consumptio n, 16.8% grow it for sowing purposes and 26.9% for sale. These data are based on 
historical trends that could be affected by the measures taken by the government of El Salvador to 
address the pandemic and by the damage caused by recent tropical storm Amand a. Consideration 
should also be given to the fact that there are very few suppliers of the red bean variety consumed 
in El Salvador. This variety is mainly grown in Central America and, according to FAO, has been 
subject to price increases ‑ the price in M ay 2020 was 40% higher than that recorded in May  2019.  
 
EU's private storage aid  
2.1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94008)  
Australia understands that the European Union (EU), in response to the COVID -19 crisis, has granted 
private storage aid for dairy (sk immed milk powder, butter, cheese) and meat (beef, sheep and goat 
meat) products. It appears the scheme allows the temporary withdrawal of products from the market 
for a minimum of 2 to 3 months (90 days), and a maximum period of 5 to 6 months (180 days).  
  
a. What volumes have been applied for, and have been successful in securing private storage 
aid?  
b. Is the EU considering expanding private storage aid to other commodities? If so, which 
commodities?  
c. Australia understands the scheme opened from 7  May 2020, when will applications for the 
scheme close?  
d. What is the total estimated budgetary cost for the private storage aid?  
e. The amount of aid is fixed as follows: (i) EUR  5.11 per tonne of storage for fixed storage 
costs; (ii) EUR 0.13 per tonne per day of cont ractual storage. How does this compare with 
commercial rates?  
f. Given the global pandemic is likely to cause deflated demand beyond six months, is the  EU 
considering extending the scheme beyond the current maximum of 180 days?  
g. Once the private storage peri od has ended, are there any limitations on how the stock is 
sold?  
h. What practical steps is the EU taking to ensure that goods currently receiving private 
storage aid do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other 
WTO Members?  
i. How will  the EU notify this measure to the WTO?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 192 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
a. Such information is publicly available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/aacdfe67 -6e5e-
4f84-8f3a-b61b10f38d42/PSA -covid19.pdf .  
b. There are currently no such proposals.  
c. For dairy products, 30 June 2020 . For meat products there is no time limit. All details in 
the corresponding regulations available at: https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2020:140:T OC. 
d. This will depend on the uptake and the month of storage. The maximum amount 
mentioned in the EU ad hoc  report G/AG/GEN/159 is EUR 80 million.  
e. This question refers to aid rates for skimmed milk powder. The proposed aid rates are the 
standard amounts fo r financing the expenditure related to storage. The daily storage costs 
have been increased to cover also financial costs.  
f. There are currently no such proposals.  
g. No. The stocks remain at all times the property of the private sector owner.  
h. See the detail ed reply to question AG -IMS ID 94012.  
i. Private Storage Aid schemes have since 1995 been included in Supporting Table 8 of the 
EU DS:1 notifications. The EU would not anticipate any changes as regards these schemes.  
Follow -up: New Zealand looked forward to  detailed response  to part h of the question and flagged 
concern about the measure's impact to the market. Paraguay sought EU's response on the following 
questions: (1) whether the mechanism had been extended to other products in addition to meat; 
(2) the cost of the measure ; (3) the amount of stock; (4) whether any limitations would be made 
to the sale of stock; and (5) if the EU had taken any measures to avoid the negative impact.   
 
EU's aid to the potato sector  
2.1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94009 ) 
As per European Union (EU) Regulation 2020/593, the EU production of potatoes amounts to 
approximately 52 million tonnes, of which 19.5 million tonnes correspond to potatoes for processing. 
Exports of frozen potatoes and, in particular, frozen chips, are  particularly significant under normal 
market conditions: 64 % of frozen potatoes exported worldwide come from the EU and the value of 
exports of frozen chips from the EU to third countries was estimated at EUR 1.85 billion in 2019.  
  
Australia understands that due to the current pandemic of COVID -19 there has been a sharp drop 
in demand for potatoes for processing, which has had a severe impact on the market. Australia 
understands there are still large volumes of potatoes for processing in storage from the 2019 
campaign. It is reported that the EU Commission, in response to the COVID -19 crisis, has allowed 
the potato sector temporary exemptions for certain EU competition rules. In addition, a number of 
member States are compensating companies in the potato s ectors for the loss of revenue or 
additional costs related to collapse in demand, for example, the Netherlands will allocated EUR 50 
million to compensate potato growers affected by the outbreak.  
  
a. Is the EU considering private storage aid for the potato sector?  
b. What practical steps is the EU taking to ensure future exports of processed potato products 
do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other WTO Members?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. There are currently no such proposals. Commissio n Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2020/593 does not provide for any subsidies for the sector. It provides for certain G/AG/W/216  
 
- 193 - 
 
  derogations from anti -trust competition law for a limited period as regards agreements 
and decisions of certain economic actors in the sector . Anti -trust competition law is not 
regulated by WTO Agreements.  
b. In the absence of any subsidies for storage or withdrawal from the market, market forces 
will determine the decisions of economic actors in the sector, including as regards exports.  
Follow -up: In light of the sizable support granted by the EU, Australia registered concern by its 
potato farmers and processing industries on the potential subsidies granted by the EU to exports of 
chips and potato products. Australia welcomed the EU's assurance that they were not dumping 
products into the market and that products receiving subsidies were not eligible for processing in 
the EU. Australia would continue monitoring how the EU implement the regime. New Zealand 
expressed interest in the subject.  
 
EU- Czech guarantee scheme  
2.1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94010)  
Australia understands the European Commission has approved an approximately EUR 5.2  billion 
(CZK 142 billion) Czech guarantee scheme for large companies with export activities affected 
by COVID‑19.  
  
a. Are companies required to continue to export to be eligible for the scheme?  
b. What percentage of companies that have applied for the scheme so far are involved in the 
primary agricultural sector?  
c. How will the scheme be classified under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The Czech scheme of COVID -19 related loan guarantees of 15 May 2020 consists of aid in the form 
of guarantees on loans for enterprises of up to 500 employees. The state guarantee will cover losses 
incurre d on new working capital loans to the eligible undertakings. The scheme is general across the 
economy and is not targeted at agricultural companies. It is not an export credit scheme and is not 
contingent on exports. The measure aims at ensuring that suffi cient liquidity remains available in 
the market, to counter the liquidity shortage faced by undertakings because of the COVID -19 
outbreak, to ensure that the disruptions caused by the outbreak do not undermine the viability of 
the undertakings and thereby to preserve the continuity of economic activity during and after the 
outbreak.  
 
EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
2.1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94011)  
Australia notes the European Commission has introduced a number of measures in response 
to COVID -19, including proposed support of up to EUR 5,000 per farmer and EUR  50,000 per small 
agri‑business from remaining unspent rural development funds under the Common Agricultural 
Policy Pillar  II (estimated between EUR 6 – 17 billion) to assist in of fsetting the effect of COVID -19 
on farm businesses. Australia notes that payments under Pillar 2 of the CAP are generally notified 
as 'Green Box'.  
  
a. Could the EU please provide an update on the approval of this measure?  
b. Has the EU placed limitations arou nd how the unspent rural development money can be 
provided to limit the impacts on trade and third country markets?  
c. Do EU member States have the discretion to decide how the support is provided? Does it 
have to be in the form of a single payment or could it be in the form of other types of 
market measures?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 194 - 
 
  d. Given the possible flexibility on how the payments will be delivered, how will the EU classify 
these payments under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. This is a proposal. Discu ssion is currently on -going between the co -legislators: the 
European Parliament and the Council.  
b. The proposed support is targeted towards those farmers and small and medium sized 
enterprises active in processing, marketing and/or development of agricultur al products 
that have been particularly affected by the COVID -19 crisis. It will be a partial 
compensation limited in time.  
c. The support by the member States must be provided in the form of a one -off lump sum 
payment, to be paid to the beneficiaries by 31. 12.2020. Member States must apply 
eligibility criteria and may apply selection criteria for further targeting. Member States can 
also modulate the level of support among categories of beneficiaries according to the 
criteria referred to above. d) This will depend on how member States implement the 
measures. The EU will notify spending appropriately.  
2.1.12.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94042)  
In April, the European Commission relaxed rules for member States to use resources from the 
European Structural and Investment Funds  (ESIF), including the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development  (EAFRD), which is traditionally notified as a Green Box programme. According 
to information publicly available in the press, it seems that this flexibility is what has allowed the 
announcement of large programmes by member States, such as the launch by the Austrian 
government of a EUR 38 billion economic ai d package for its farmers. The European Commission has 
also announced aid programmes for the private storage of dairy products (skimmed milk powder, 
butter and cheese) and meat (beef, sheep and goat). At the same time, France and Italy have 
adopted unilate ral measures to support the dairy markets in their own countries, despite 
CAP regulations that state that all support must be adopted at EU level. In view of this, the EU could 
explain:  
  
a.  
i. What measures are underway to ensure that the increased flexibilit y afforded to 
member States does not change the pattern of recent EU DS:1 notifications?  
ii. In the case of resources traditionally notified as Green or Blue box, such as those from 
the EAFRD, is there any obligation that national programmes maintain the 
characteristics established in Annex  2 of the AoA and/or Article 6.5?  
b.  
i. How does the EU ensure the consistency between national and EC  authorized 
programmes supporting private stockholding?  
ii. Have rules for stock release, such as an export ban, been defined?  
c. Could the EU provide further details on the policies that are included in the Austrian 
programme to support the agricultural sector, whose announced value is EUR 38 billion?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a.  
i. EU has and will continue to respect all its WTO commitme nts on domestic support. 
This will also be the case as regards the COVID -19 measures. See the EU ad hoc  report 
in document G/AG/GEN/159 for more information.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 195 - 
 
  ii. Current rules governing existing rural development support measures are designed to 
ensure these measures fulfil Green Box criteria. State aid granted by EU  member 
States is not restricted to any particular Box. State aid to the agricultural sector is and 
will continued to be notified by the EU in the relevant Supporting Table.  
b.  
i. There are no na tional private storage schemes in the dairy or meat sector.  
ii. The EU private storage aid is a scheme whereby the EU pays compensation for the 
costs of storage for predetermined period to the private owner of the products in 
question. The products never ente r public ownership. The private owner of product is 
solely responsible for the marketing of the product at the end of the storage period. 
Ad III Austria has not implemented a programme of EUR 38 billion for the agriculture 
sector. Austria has implemented a  set of measures for the whole economy that 
amounts to EUR 38 billion. The agricultural sector may be able to benefit from some 
of these measures along with other sectors.  
2.1.12.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94035)  
On 4 May 2020, the European Commission adopted a package of exceptional measures to further 
support the agricultural sector most affected by the COVID -19 virus. One of the measures is 
temporary framework for state aid where a farmer can benefit from a maximum of EUR  100,000 per 
farm and where food proc essing or marketing companies can benefit from a maximum of 
EUR 800,000 per company.  
 
a. Could the European Union clarify if this temporary aid is in the form of a grant or a loan 
that will be repaid at a future date?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria for t hese three entities to access this state aid? The package 
of exceptional measures also includes private storage aids for dairy (skim milk powder, 
butter and cheese) and meat (beef, sheep and goat meat). The storage aid will withdraw 
these products from the  market for a minimum of two to three months and a maximum 
of five to six months.  
c. Could the European Union indicate what conditions will determine the release of these 
products back onto the market and will there be limits on the volume that is released a t 
any one time?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The eligibility criteria for direct grants to farmers under the Temporary Framework are as follows:  
 
- the aid is granted on the basis of a scheme with an estimated budget;  
- the aid is not granted to undertakings that were in financial difficulty on 31 December 2019;  
- the aid is granted no later than 31 December 2020;  
- the total nominal value of the aid must  not exceed the overall cap of EUR 100,000 per 
undertaking; - the aid must not be fixed on the basis of the price or quantity of products put on 
the market;  
- if the recipient farmer is also involved in other economic activities, the member State must 
ensur e that the relevant ceiling is respected for each of those activities and that the overall 
maximum amount per undertaking is not exceeded. See also reply to question AG -IMS ID 94056.  
 
b. Any products which receive aid for private storage do not change owne rship during the storage 
period. The owner of the stock is responsible for marketing and sale of the products at the end of 
storage period.  
 
2.1.12.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94012)  
We note the EU has introduced Private Storage Aid  (PSA) for both meat an d dairy, state aid subsidies 
for the agriculture sector totalling more than EUR 1 billion, flexibility in national support programmes, G/AG/W/216  
 
- 196 - 
 
  and derogations from competition rules for some sectors. We appreciate the measures have been 
put in place to support the  agriculture sector during a time of crisis, and we respect the need of 
countries to support agribusiness during these difficult times. Can the EU please advise how they 
will ensure that these measures do not negatively impact global markets?  
 
Answer by E uropean Union  
 
The EU would underline that the market measures adopted are carefully targeted within limited 
budget availability – less than EUR  80 million. The flexibility provided as regards the implementation 
of certain other EU programmes is within alr eady budgeted amounts. So if spending increases on 
some measures, there will be decreases for others. The COVID -19 pandemic has severely strained 
some agricultural sectors. Many of the EU member State aid schemes approved by the EU under its 
internal compe tition law, as included in the EU's ad hoc  report, are aimed at ensuring the farming 
sector has sufficient liquidity during this extreme situation. The EU believes that the carefully 
targeted measures taken by the EU and its member States have a minimal ef fect on the global 
market, and fully respect WTO rules. This may be compared to measures recently applied by other 
WTO Members.  
 
2.1.12.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94055)  
On 22 April 2020, the European Commission launched a support package in cluding 1) private aid 
storage for the dairy and meat, fruit and vegetable sectors to temporarily withdraw products from 
markets to help increase prices, 2) flexibility in the implementation for market support programs for 
wine, fruits and vegetables, oliv e oil, apiculture, and the EU's school scheme for milk, fruit and 
vegetables, and 3) exception derogation from EU competition rules for the milk, flowers, and 
potatoes sectors.   
  
Please provide additional details for the actions taken under the support pa ckage, including specific 
actions taken with regards to the three areas previously discussed, and how any new measures or 
increased flexibilities are being implemented.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The EU has opened up private storage for 140,000 tonnes of butter, 100,000 tonnes of cheese 
and 90,000 tonnes of SMP. See the answer to question AG -IMS 94008 for the latest information on 
uptake. For beef and sheep meat no maximum quantities have been fixed. The end date of the 
measure will depend on market dev elopments. The flexibility package for fruit and vegetables allows 
recognised producer organisations to implement withdrawals measures under approved operational 
programme, within the limit of EU aid scheme. At this stage, the EU does not know the quantiti es 
withdrawn from the market.  
 
b. For the school scheme, the 2019/2020 school year is extended until 30 September 2020. Member 
States may use this flexibility to make up for the period in which schools were closed and the supply 
of fruit, vegetables and milk as well as the educational measures could not take place as planned. 
Payments for the prolonged activities shall be made before 15 October 2020 . The temporary 
derogations in the fruit and vegetable sector aim at:  
- ensuring that producer  organisations retain their recognition and are not affected by possible 
irregularities as regards their recognition, which could result in administrative procedures and 
penalties;  
- ensuring that operational programmes can be continued and adapted to the c ircumstances of 
each individual case (e.g. , amendments or suspension of operational programmes);  
- enabling producer organisations to allocate more than one third of their expenditure to crisis 
management and prevention measures;  
- making it easier for produ cer organisations to implement the non -harvesting measure; and  
- enabling member States to submit an evaluation report to the Commission at a later date.  
 
c. The three implementing regulations provide for certain derogations from anti -trust competition 
law for a limited period as regards agreements and decisions of certain economic actors in the 
sectors. Anti -trust competition law is not regulated by WTO Agreem ents. The regulations allow for 
private sector agreements and decisions on market stabilisation measures in the milk, potatoes for 
processing and live plants and flowers sectors for a maximum period of six months. The stabilisation G/AG/W/216  
 
- 197 - 
 
  measures which farmers a nd their associations are authorised to take are tailored to the sector 
concerned and allow production planning, market withdrawal of products and free distribution, 
storage, transformation and processing as well as joint promotion. If such measures are us ed, they 
must be reported to the member State, which will inform the European Commission. The 
implementing regulation does not allow measures which lead to market partitioning, price fixing or 
discrimination based on nationality.  
 
2.1.12.6   Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 94056)  
The European Commission under the State Aid Temporary Framework adopted on 19  March  2020, 
as amended on 3 April and 8 May 2020, is allowed to enable member States to use the full flexibility 
foreseen under State aid rules to s upport the economy in the context of the coronavirus 
outbreak.  This could allow direct grants, equity injections, selective tax advantages and advance 
payments of up to EUR  100,000 to a company active in the primary agricultural sector. Member 
States can a lso give, up to the nominal value of EUR 100,000 per company, zero -interest loans or 
guarantees on loans covering 100% of the risk in the primary agriculture sector.  
 
a. Please specify what EU member States have taken advantage of this increased flexibility 
to date.  
b. What are the requirements or criteria for companies to be eligible?  
c. Is there a maximum cap on the programme in terms of spending?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. See the EU ad hoc  report in document G/AG/GEN/159. Following the submission of the ad ho c 
report, the Commission has authorised, a Czech aid scheme providing direct grants to reduce 
outstanding principals on bank loans (budget: approx. EUR 36,3 million).  
 
b. The eligibility criteria for direct grants to farmers under the Temporary Framework are as follows:  
 
- the aid is granted on the basis of a scheme with an estimated budget;  
- the aid is not granted to undertakings that were in financial difficulty on 31 December 2019;  
- the aid is granted no later than 31 December 2020 ; 
- the total nominal value of the aid must not exceed the overall cap of EUR 100 000 per 
undertaking; - the aid m ust not be fixed on the basis of the price or quantity of products put on 
the market;  
- if the recipient farmer is also involved in other economic activities, the member State must 
ensure that the relevant ceiling is respected for each of those activities a nd that the overall 
maximum amount per undertaking is not exceeded.  
- For further detail see the following press releases for some of the measures approved:  
https://ec.europa.eu/ commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_732  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_824  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_786  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_809  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_828  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_708  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_712  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pr esscorner/detail/en/ip_20_612  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_612  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_56999 . 
 
c. No. 
 
Follow -up: Canada, Paraguay and New Zealand expressed appreciation towards EU's ad hoc report 
on its COVID -19 measures circulated in advance of the meeting.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 198 - 
 
  
Romania's export prohibition on agricultural products  
2.1.13.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94041)  
a. Japan recognizes that Romania introduced export prohibition on certain food products 
including wheat, wheat flour, barley, corn, rice and soybeans on 10 April 2020, but finds 
that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Romania could provide the reason behind.  Japan would also appreciate it if Romania could 
explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Romania could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages.  Japan would also 
appreciate it if Romania could provide the r eason why it resorted to the export prohibitions 
on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
Answer by European Union  
 
See reply to question AG -IMS ID 94013 . 
 
2.1.13.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 9 4013)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Romania has 
introduced an export ban on several agricultural products.  
  
a. Can Romania please give an update on whether the export ban was terminated by 
16 April 2020 as indi cated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Romania submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU confirms that the ban was lifted on 16 April. The EU fully agrees with Switzerland on the 
importance of transparency on export restrictions. As soon as the European Commission became 
aware of this measure, it made every effort to ensure that the ban  was lifted as soon as possible, 
which was done on 16 April by Military Ordinance no. 9. To the knowledge of the Commission, it did 
not in practice affect any trade in the few days it was part of Romanian law.  
 
Follow -up: Switzerland underlined the import ance of notifying all export restriction measures, 
including those of temporary nature. Japan reiterated the notification obligation of ER measures 
even after their withdrawal . Chinese Taipei registered systemic interest in Members' obligation of 
notifying  ER measures .  
 
Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  
2.1.14.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94014)  
Japan would appreciate it if Honduras could explain how export prohibitions on dried leguminous 
vegetables introduced by the Member on 26 Marc h 2020 meets the conditions required in Article  XI 
of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essentiality of the products, 
ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii) temporality of the measure. Japan would also appreciate it G/AG/W/216  
 
- 199 - 
 
  if Honduras could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products, 
rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
 
Answer by Honduras  
 
Ministerial Decision No. 028 -2020 is strictly tempora ry and will be in force until the situation 
regarding the national supply of red beans returns to normal and domestic reserves can be 
guaranteed. Once the red bean market is normalized, this measure will no longer be applied. 
Similarly, Ministerial Decisio n No. 028 -2020 was approved in response to the unusual market 
situation caused by the effects of the dengue fever and COVID -19 health crises. It is worth 
mentioning that beans are a staple and an essential part of the Honduran diet. It is one of the leadin g 
crops and its consumption contributes to good health due to its high iron, vitamin and mineral 
content. In fact, beans rank second only to maize, among basic grains, both in terms of cultivated 
land and the quantity of grain consumed by the population. T he extraordinary measures that virtually 
all countries have adopted to mitigate the effects of the COVID -19 crisis have led to high volatility 
and speculation regarding basic foodstuffs and staples, which carries a real risk of critical shortage 
of these p roducts. This is particularly worrying in developing countries where the financial capacity 
of the average consumer is below that of developed countries, which could lead to sales of these 
basic products being diverted to markets willing to pay higher pric es. Ministerial Decision 
No. 028-2020 was thus adopted as a preventive or anticipatory measure to avoid an imminent 
critical shortage of a very important product for the Honduran diet and economy. In conclusion, 
Ministerial Decision No.  028-2020 is a tempo rary measure being applied to provide relief in 
extraordinary conditions in order to address a need that we hope will be passing. This measure was 
applied in strict compliance with Honduras' obligations under the covered WTO Agreements.  
 
Follow -up: Japan requested more detailed information so as to examine the background of the 
measure.  
 
India's COVID -19 stimulus package  
2.1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94036)  
On 12 May 2020, Prime Minister Modi announced a COVID -19 stimulus package for Ind ia which 
includes measures to assist the agriculture and agri -food sector. Canada understands that the 
package will include funds to upgrade agricultural infrastructure such as cold chains, post -harvest 
storage, etc.  
  
a. Could India elaborate on which types of organizations or entities would be eligible for this 
support?  
b. Will the support be in the form of grants or repayable loans? As part of the stimulus 
package, it is reported there will be a new legal framework for risk mitigation for farmers 
which would include mechanisms to enable farmers to engage with processors, large 
retailers or wholesalers of agricultural products.  
c. Could India elaborate as to the expected timeline for the development of this framework? 
The stimulus package proposes to amend the Es sential Commodities Act which regulates 
the production, supply and distribution of a number of commodities to ensure a domestic 
supply for consumers. The proposal is to deregulate a number of agricultural products 
such as edible oils, oilseeds, pulses, oni ons and potatoes and that stock limits will only be 
allowed in exceptional circumstances.  
d. Could India elaborate on the expected timeline for the amendment to the Essential 
Commodities Act?  
Answer by India  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 200 - 
 
  
Japan's beef support  
2.1.16.1   Question by Australia  (AG-IMS ID 94015)  
Australia notes that based on reporting, falling wagyu beef prices since 2019 have triggered 
increased support payments under the Beef Livestock Stabilization Program, also known as 
Beef Marukin.  
  
a. Are the payments under the programme related to reduced demand due to COVID -19?  
b. Can Japan outline the type and value of the support that producers participating in the 
Beef Marukin programme can receive?  
Answer by Japan  
 
This program is to support 90% of the gap between the standard monthly price a nd standard 
production monthly cost, and it is funded by both the government (75%) and 
producers  (25%).  While the support is provided to producers regardless of the reasons when the 
standard price has fallen below the standard cost, it is clearly observed that the beef price has 
dropped since the outbreak of COVID -19. The value of support provided between January and 
March  2020 was 1.12  billion yen, and the annual amount of support will be notified in our Domestic 
Support notification.  
 
2.1.16.2   Question by United S tates of America (AG -IMS ID 94058)  
On 13 April 2020, Japan's state trading enterprise Agriculture and Livestock Industries Corporation 
announced 50 billion yen (USD  460 million) to stimulate consumption of domestic beef including 
through a 1,000 yen (USD  9.29) per kilogram incentive payment in fiscal year 2020 for wholesalers 
to distribute wagyu beef at a significant discount.  This measure does not apply to imported beef.  
  
a. What is the policy rationale for stimulating demand for consumption of only domestic ally 
produced, high quality beef rather than all beef production, regardless of origin?  
b. What measures will be taken to ensure that this program does not negatively affect 
imports?  
Answer by Japan  
 
The purpose of the measure in question is to aim at dealing with the substantial excess wagyu beef 
stock resulting from the abrupt reduction of demand caused by for instance reduced inbound related 
consumption due to the COVID -19 pandemic. The other beef category that is not facing substantial 
excess in sto ck is not targeted. The measure does not have negative impacts on imports.  
 
Australia as a major beef exporter noted its interest in understanding how the sector is supported 
by Members.  
 
Japan's support package  
2.1.17.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94044)  
In Apr il, Japan announced a stimulus package for the agricultural sector worth JPY  108.2  trillion. 
Considering that Japan's AMS is JPY  3.9 trillion, could Japan:  
  
a. Provide details on the types of policies that are included in the support package, and 
explain whe ther it is a multi -annual package or specific support in response to the 
pandemic that will be given without prejudice to traditional agricultural policy;  
b. Indicate which sectors were most affected by the COVID -19 pandemic and then will be 
entitled to great er support from the government;  
c. Explain how the budget allocation of JPY 108.2 trillion is compatible with Japan's AMS.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 201 - 
 
  Answer by Japan  
 
a. and c. The total size of the "Emergency Economic Measures to Cope with COVID -19" is 
117.1  trillion yen, of which fisca l expenditure is 48.4 trillion yen. It is a special emergency 
set of measures for the COVID -19 pandemic and covers all the sectors including 
agriculture.  As a part of the fiscal expenditure, 0.55 trillion yen (around 1 % of the total 
expenditure) is allocat ed to MAFF, which includes measures outside of the coverage of the 
Agreement on Agriculture such as measures for forestry, fisheries and green box measures 
such as sales promotion of agricultural products.  The exact amount of supports subject to 
AMS commit ment, which will be far below than 0.55 trillion yen, will be notified in our 
Domestic Support notification.  
b. Out of the total size of 117.1 trillion yen, 2.5 trillion yen is allocated to prevent the spread 
of the infections, to build medical treatment stru ctures and to develop pharmaceuticals; 
88.8 trillion  yen is allocated to protect employment and keep business viable; 
3.3 trillion  yen is for recovery of economic activities as a next phase through public and 
private cooperation; 10.2  trillion  yen is to make economic structure more resilient; and 
1.5 trillion yen is to prepare for the future (establishment of new contingency funds for 
COVID -19). 
2.1.17.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94037)  
As part of the government of Japan's COVID -19 emergency economic package, the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries  (MAFF) is expected to receive a 545  billion yen (USD  5 billion) 
supplementary budget to support the food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector. Under the Sales 
Promotion of Domestic Product there is  a 140 billion yen (USD  1.3 billion) to support promotional 
sales activities for domestically produced agriculture, forestry and fisheries products.  
 
a. Could Japan elaborate on what are the criteria eligibility to receive this support and which 
domestic pro duct are eligible?  
Under Export Promotion and Production Improvement there is a 3.50  billion  yen 
(USD 32.4 million) program available to processed food manufacturers and food service 
providers to switch from using imported inputs to domestic products.  
b. Could Japan elaborate on the rationale to disadvantage imported inputs which historically 
have benefited the Japanese food industry?  
c. Could Japan elaborate on how the 2  billion  yen (USD  18.5 million) program called 
Transportation for Perishables will support the export of perishable products?  
i. Which products are eligible for this support?  
Answer by Japan  
 
All programs are implemented as emergency measures to address the COVID -19 pandemic issues.  
 
The 1st program is to support a part of the cost of sales promotion activities or of provision to school 
lunch of agricultural, forestry and fishery products whose sales prices have been substantially 
reduced or whose stocks have been pi led excessively caused by the substantial reduction in demand, 
including reduced inbound related consumption, due to the COVID -19 pandemic. Both domestic and 
imported products can be eligible to the program.  
 
The 2nd program is to financially support entit ies which are unable to procure the raw material they 
need to procure due to the disruption of the distribution flow caused by the COVID -19 pandemic, in 
order to assist them to shift to other  materials which can be procure in a more stable manner.  
 
The 3rd program is to support temporarily aviation -related transporters for a  part of additional cost 
they need to restart their cargo transportation of agriculture, forestry and fishery products and food 
products, which has been stopped resulting from the substa ntial reduction in overall cargo demand 
due to the COVID -19 pandemic.  Exporters cannot directly receive the funds. The actual products G/AG/W/216  
 
- 202 - 
 
  covered by the program depend on application, and there is no pre -established list of eligible 
products.  
 
2.1.17.3   Question by Uni ted States of America (AG -IMS ID 94057)  
In the Japan Fiscal Year 2020 Supplementary Budget, Japan has introduced several different 
measures that incentivize the use of domestic product over imported products for entities that are 
engaged in export activiti es but may also sell their product domestically. These include:  
  
• A 3.5 billion yen (USD  32 million) program to incentivize processed food manufacturers and 
food service providers who make products for export to replace imported ingredients with 
domestic i ngredients.   
 
• A 2.39 billion yen (USD  22 million) program to support food manufactures who build 
production lines and purchase refrigerators and labelling machines to increase retail sales 
and exports of domestic products.  
 
• A 5 billion yen (USD 46 million)  programme to incentivize dairy processors to replace 
imported ingredients with domestic milk powder by paying processors the price difference 
between domestic and imported products.   
 
For each measure:  
  
a. Please explain how these measures are implemented.  
b. What are the specific criteria an entity must meet to qualify for funding?  
c. Please confirm whether an entity must export, regardless of domestic sales, in order to 
benefit from any of these measures.  
d. May an eligible food manufacture benefit from more than one measure?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. All programs are implemented as emergency measures to address the COVID -19 
pandemic  issues.  
b. The 1st program is to financially support entities which are unable to procure the raw 
material they need to procure due to the d isruption of the distribution flow caused by the 
COVID -19 pandemic, in order to assist them to shift to other  materials which can be 
procure in a more stable manner.  
The 2nd program is to financially support entities which want to improve their facilities and have 
plans to introduce hygienic managements including the prevention measures of COVID -19 in 
response to the demand shift in domestic and oversea markets such as from eating -out to eating at 
home due to the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic ha s caused a drastic reduction in demand for fluid milk, including demand 
by inbound -related consumption. It has led to the increased milk processing, and has resulted in the 
substantial excess stock of SMP. As an emergency measure to deal with the excess st ock, the 
3rd program is financially support entities which utilize SMP for the uses, which they normally do not 
utilize, such as for feed or flavoured fluid milk.  
 
c. The answer is no.  
d. An entity is not allocated to receive support from more than one program concerning the 
same activity.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 203 - 
 
  
Japan's transportation support  
2.1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94059)  
In the Japan Fiscal Year 2020 Supplementary Budget, there is a 2 billion yen (USD 18.5  million) 
programme to secure transportation for expor ts of perishables in response to the decreased number 
of international flights. Please elaborate on how these funds are distributed, noting specifically how 
freight rates are determined for agricultural exporters and whether any of the funds can be receive d 
by exporters directly.  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
The program is to support temporarily aviation -related transporters for a  part of additional cost they 
need to restart their cargo transportation of agriculture, forestry and fishery products and food 
products, w hich has been stopped resulting from the substantial reduction in overall cargo demand 
due to the COVID -19 pandemic.  Exporters cannot directly receive the funds.  
 
Kazakhstan's export prohibition measures on certain food products  
2.1.19.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94016)  
a. Japan recognizes that Kazakhstan introduced export quotas on certain food products 
including wheat and meslin, and wheat flour, as well as export prohibitions on certain food 
products including buckwheat and white sugar on 2 April 2020, but finds  that the required 
notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if Kazakhstan could 
provide the reason behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Kaza khstan could explain how 
it has given due consideration to the effects of the measures on importing Members' food 
security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Kazakhstan could explain how the measures me t the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Kazakhstan could explain how it determined the concre te amount of the 
export quotas (i.e., 250 thousand tonnes for wheat and 150 thousand tonnes for wheat 
flour in May). Japan would further appreciate it if Kazakhstan could provide the reason 
why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products (e.g., buckwheat and white 
sugar), rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic supply and 
demand.  
Answer by Kazakhstan  
 
2.1.19.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94017)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Kazakhstan has 
introduced an export ban on several agricultural products.  
 
a. Can Kazakhstan please give an update on whether the export ban will be terminated on 
1 September 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Kazakhstan submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency bu t also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  
 
Answer by Kazakh stan 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 204 - 
 
  Follow -up: Ukraine shared the concern expressed by Japan and Switzerland and noted that in early 
April it had sent detailed questions on the concerned measure to the Permanent mission of 
Kazakhstan in Geneva and was still waiting for responses. Ukraine reminded Members that, while 
introducing ER measures, due con sideration should be given to their effects on importing Members' 
food security as per Article 12 of the AoA. Ukraine noted that Kazakhstan was a major exporter of 
buckwheat an d following the introduction of the ER measure , Ukraine, as a net importer of this 
product, was forced to introduce export prohibition measures to prevent critical shortage of the 
product. Noting that the measure implemented by Kazakhstan was on top of the  ER measure 
imposed by the Eurasian Economic Community and Kazakhstan, Russia n Federation  and Ukraine , 
the three major grain exporters  all implemented ER measure, the US registered significant concern 
on food security across the region, particularly  within  the Central Asia. The US asked Kazakhstan to 
confirm the status of its measure and the measure implemented by the Eurasian Economic 
Community and if they were still in effect as of date. Chinese Taipei expressed concern over the 
outstanding ER notificatio n from Kazakhstan and noted that more transparency would be essential 
to understand and evaluate the need for WTO Members to update the rules on ER which in its view 
could be achieved at MC12.  
 
Myanmar's export quota on rice  
2.1.20.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 9 4018)  
a. Japan recognizes that Myanmar introduced export quota on rice on 1  May 2020, but finds 
that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreci ate it if 
Myanmar could provide the reason behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Myanmar could 
explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on A griculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Myanmar could explain how the measure meets the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of rice, ii) criticalness of the shortage, and iii) temporal ity of the measure. 
Japan would also appreciate it if Myanmar could explain how it determined the concrete 
amount of the export quota (i.e., 150 thousand tonnes monthly)  
Answer by Myanmar  
 
a. Missing notification to the Committee on Agriculture under Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture . 
Myanmar notes that at the time when the measure was issued (in April 2020) the 
government and the entire country were operating under extraordinary conditions as a 
result of the pandemic and the long new year holidays wh ich made it not practicable to 
prepare and submit the notification before the entry into force of the measure.  The 
government of Myanmar has meanwhile notified the measure to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
b. Consideration of the effects of the restrictions on  importing Members' food security under 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture . 
Due to the extraordinary circumstance at the time when the measure was taken, these 
considerations were performed in a summary fashion. It is important to note the size of 
the quota in the recent measure (150,000 tonnes a month equals 1,800,000 tonnes 
annually) is virtually equal to the 2019 export volumes.  It is therefore expected that there 
will in fact be no major disruption for rice importing countries.  The quota operate s more 
like a gentle monitoring system rather than a reduction or an actual limitation of 
exports.  The effects were judged to be limited and acceptable in light of the overall 
circumstances.   
Sub questions 3 -5: meeting the conditions of GATT Article XI . 
  
(i) The "essentiality " of rice :  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 205 - 
 
  Rice is an essential and indispensable ingredient in the national diet in Myanmar. Securing the 
availability and supply of rice to the people of Myanmar during the pandemic was and remains a 
major food security concern of t he government of Myanmar.  
  
(ii) Criticalness of the shortage :  
The restrictions on movement and the shutdown of virtually the entire economy to mitigate the 
impact of the pandemic increase the risk of shortages of essential foodstuffs generally and rice in 
particular.  
  
Temporality of the Measure :  
The measure on rice exports is temporary applied for a certain limited period of two months 
(1 May 2020 - 30 June 2020).  
 
New Zealand's International Air  Freight Capacity Scheme  
2.1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 9 4038)  
New Zealand announced the International Air Freight Scheme, a $330 million programme that 
provides government assistance to carriers on key routes for high -value exports (particularly 
seafood, meat, horticulture). According to a New Zealand document named "Request for proposals 
for International Air Freight Capacity", this "financial support would be provided to enable the 
supplier to make available agreed levels of international air freight capacity on international air 
routes agreed with the Ministr y, offered to the market at prices determined in accordance with an 
agreed pricing methodology and designed to keep airfreight affordable for those end users". 
New Zealand's International Air Freight Scheme Q&As document states: "[New  Zealand's] intention 
is to exit the scheme once the international airfreight market stabilizes according to agreed criteria."  
  
a. Could New  Zealand provide more details on how much of this subsidy for Air Freight 
Capacity is intended to reduce airfreight costs for the export for  agricultural goods?  
b. Will the government of New  Zealand make public a record of the level of assistance it 
provided by agricultural product under this scheme?  
c. How do exporter airfreight costs compare to pre -COVID -19 levels?  
d. Could New  Zealand provide mor e information on the pricing methodology in its 
agreements with carriers? Are there specific subsidies by weight determined for 
agricultural goods, and if so, could the government of New  Zealand provide information 
on the average specific subsidy by weight  by agricultural products, or the general range 
of the level of subsidy by weight by agricultural products in its agreements?  
e. Could New  Zealand provide details on the "agreed criteria" for it to exit the scheme once 
the international airfreight market sta bilizes?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic has presented us all with an extraordinary and unprecedented set of 
circumstances. As an island nation in the South Pacific, New Zealand was particularly vulnerable 
when the cessation of passenger fligh ts due to COVID -19 related travel restrictions caused 
international air freight capacity to collapse almost overnight. Prior to COVID -19, globally, around 
half of air freight was carried on passenger planes; for New Zealand, this figure was closer to 80%. 
Like a number of other governments, the New Zealand government has had to step in temporarily, 
in the absence of a functioning market, to assist airlines suffering as a result of the COVID -19 crisis. 
For us, 'Green Lanes' and other emergency measures adopted by other Members are not an option; 
we need planes for connectivity with the rest of the world. The International Air freight Capacity 
Scheme has been a necessary and fundamental part of our broader, temporary, emergency response 
to the CO VID-19 pandemic. We have not provided subsidies to exporters of agriculture products, 
reduced or waived fees and charges, or provided incentive payments. The International Air freight 
Capacity Scheme is market -led. It was established through a Request for Proposal process that was 
open to carriers from all nations, whether or not they previously serviced the New Zealand market. 
Businesses continue to purchase air freight capacity from carriers, via their freight forwarders, as G/AG/W/216  
 
- 206 - 
 
  they always have done. New Zea land has taken its international trade obligations into account in 
developing the scheme. Further, through this scheme (and our recent tariff eliminations on 
COVID -19 related goods), New Zealand has given effect to:  
 
• our pledge, along with ten other Membe rs via a Joint Ministerial Statement (link) to 
maintain trade flows and supply chain connectivity; and  
• our commitment, along with 41 other WTO Members [WT/GC/212], to ensure that 
any COVID -19 related measures are "targeted, proportionate, transparent and 
temporary ", do not "create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption to global 
supply chains ", are "consistent with WTO rules " and will be lifted "as soon as 
possible ".  
 
a. No products receive subsidies. Businesses purchase the air freight capacity from airlines, 
via their freight forwarders, as they did prior to COVID -19. The government is not involved 
in these transactions.  
b. The scheme is between the New Zealand government and airlines/air freight carriers and 
not between the New Zealand government and importers and exporters. New Zealand 
does not collect data on the types of products transported under the scheme.  
c. New Zealand, like other countries, has experienced several u nexpected changes in costs 
due to the impact of the COVID -19 pandemic. There is much volatility in the market with 
reduced flights and devastation in the airline industry having an inevitable impact on air 
freight costs. The roughly 58 international flight s per week, which became available with 
the announcement of the scheme on  2 May, is a fraction of the more than 600 international 
flights per week prior to COVID -19. As a consequence of the sudden decrease in passenger 
flights due to COVID -19 related trave l restrictions, capacity has contracted sharply and air 
freight rates have increased significantly. We understand that, as a result, the price of air 
freight is significantly elevated above the pre -COVID -19 level.  
d. Airlines and air freight carriers seeking  to participate in the scheme were asked to submit 
applications that proposed the routes, capacity commitments, and their end customer 
pricing methodology. Requiring suppliers to quote their price, or in this case their end 
customer pricing methodology, is  a standard part of such competitive tender processes. 
Carriers' end customer pricing methodologies remain commercially sensitive information. 
No products receive subsidies. Businesses continue to purchase air freight capacity from 
airlines, via their frei ght forwarders, as they did prior to COVID -19. The government is not 
involved in these transactions.  
e. This scheme is a temporary response to the current COVID -19 crisis. The broader air 
freight market is being regularly monitored to help determine when the  scheme can be 
concluded.  
2.1.21.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94050)  
New Zealand has introduced the International Airfreight Capacity scheme (IAFC), by which it 
supports the export of New Zealand's product by air to export destinations.  
 
a. Can New Zealan d explain more in detail how much the New Zealand government is 
spending on this programme, and the basis on which the subsidy level has been 
calculated?  
b. Can New Zealand explain whether and how this support scheme complies with the Nairobi 
Ministerial Dec ision on export competition.  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic has presented us all with an extraordinary and unprecedented set of 
circumstances. As an island nation in the South Pacific, New Zealand was particularly vulnerable 
when the cessati on of passenger flights due to COVID -19 related travel restrictions caused 
international air freight capacity to collapse almost overnight. Prior to COVID -19, globally, around G/AG/W/216  
 
- 207 - 
 
  half of air freight was carried on passenger planes; for New Zealand, this figur e was closer to 80%. 
Like a number of other governments, the New Zealand government has had to step in temporarily, 
in the absence of a functioning market, to assist airlines suffering as a result of the COVID -19 crisis. 
For us, 'Green Lanes' and other eme rgency measures adopted by other Members are not an option; 
we need planes for connectivity with the rest of the world. The International Air freight Capacity 
Scheme has been a necessary and fundamental part of our broader, temporary, emergency response 
to the COVID -19 pandemic. We have not provided subsidies to exporters of agriculture products, 
reduced or waived fees and charges, or provided incentive payments. The International Air freight 
Capacity Scheme is market -led. It was established through a Reque st for Proposal process that was 
open to carriers from all nations, whether or not they previously serviced the New Zealand market. 
Businesses continue to purchase air freight capacity from carriers, via their freight forwarders, as 
they always have done. New Zealand has taken its international trade obligations into account in 
developing the scheme. Further, through this scheme (and our recent tariff eliminations on 
COVID -19 related goods), New Zealand has given effect to: • our pledge, along with ten othe r 
Members via a Joint Ministerial Statement (link) to maintain trade flows and supply chain 
connectivity; and • our commitment, along with 41 other WTO Members [WT/GC/212], to ensure 
that any COVID -19 related measures are "targeted, proportionate, transpar ent and temporary ", do 
not "create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption to global supply chains ", are "consistent with 
WTO rules " and will be lifted "as soon as possible ".  
 
a. The New Zealand government has made up to NZD$330 million available to the 
International Air Freight Capacity Scheme. No products receive subsidies. Businesses 
purchase the air freight capacity from airlines, via their freight forwarders, as they did 
prior to COVID -19.  
b. New Zealand has taken its international trade obligations in to account in developing this 
scheme. We have not provided subsidies to exporters of agriculture products, reduced or 
waived fees and charges, or provided incentive payments. Importers and exporters of 
critical products, such as essential medical supplies and food, are purchasing air freight 
capacity from airlines, via their freight forwarders, as they did prior to COVID -19. More 
generally, we note that New Zealand's scheduled export subsidy entitlements were 
eliminated in 2000, long before the Nairobi Mini sterial Decision on export competition. 
Further, New Zealand is an active contributor to the annual Cairns Group Export 
Competition Review, which seeks to ensure full implementation by all WTO Members of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competiti on.  
2.1.21.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94051)  
The government of New  Zealand announced as part of its COVID -19 support package, $200.7  million 
to implement a financial support scheme to ensure that critical air freight capacity is maintained, 
despite the reduction in international passenger flights brought about by COVID ‑19. Reports indicate 
New Zealand wants to ensure service continuity on key routes for critical imports (particularly 
medicines, medical supplies and agricultural or other produ ction machinery) and high value exports 
(particularly seafood, meat, horticulture).  
  
Please elaborate on how these funds are distributed, noting specifically how freight rates are 
determined for agricultural exporters and whether any of the funds can be r eceived by exporters 
directly.  
 
Answer by New Zealand  
 
The COVID -19 pandemic has presented us all with an extraordinary and unprecedented set of 
circumstances. As an island nation in the South Pacific, New Zealand was particularly vulnerable 
when the cessation of passenger flights due to COVID -19 related trave l restrictions caused 
international air freight capacity to collapse almost overnight. Prior to The COVID -19 pandemic has 
presented us all with an extraordinary and unprecedented set of circumstances. As an island nation 
in the South Pacific, New Zealand w as particularly vulnerable when the cessation of passenger flights 
due to COVID -19 related travel restrictions caused international air freight capacity to collapse 
almost overnight. Prior to COVID -19, globally, around half of air freight was carried on pa ssenger 
planes; for New Zealand, this figure was closer to 80%. Like a number of other governments, the 
New Zealand government has had to step in temporarily, in the absence of a functioning market, to 
assist airlines suffering as a result of the COVID -19 crisis. For us, 'Green Lanes' and other emergency G/AG/W/216  
 
- 208 - 
 
  measures adopted by other Members are not an option; we need planes  for connectivity with the 
rest of the world. The International Air freight Capacity Scheme has been a necessary and 
fundamental part of our broader, temporary, emergency response to the COVID -19 pandemic. The 
International Air freight Capacity Scheme is m arket-led. It was established through a Request for 
Proposal process that was open to carriers from all nations, whether or not they previously serviced 
the New Zealand market. The scheme is between the New Zealand government and airlines/air 
freight carri ers and not between the New Zealand government and importers and exporters. 
Businesses continue to purchase air freight capacity from carriers, via their freight forwarders, as 
they did prior to COVID -19. The government is not involved in these transaction s. We have not 
provided subsidies to exporters of agriculture products, reduced or waived fees and charges, or 
provided incentive payments. Exporters do not receive direct payments from the government. We 
understand that, as a result of the collapse in pas senger travel, the price of air freight is significantly 
elevated above the pre -COVID -19 level. New Zealand has taken its international trade obligations 
into account in developing the scheme. Further, through this scheme (and our recent tariff 
elimination s on COVID -19 related goods), New Zealand has given effect to: • our pledge, along with 
ten other Members via a Joint Ministerial Statement (link) to maintain trade flows and supply chain 
connectivity; and • our commitment, along with 41 other WTO Members [WT/GC/212], to ensure 
that any COVID -19 related measures are "targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary ", do 
not "create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption to global supply chains ", are "consistent with 
WTO rules " and will be lifted "as soon as possible ".  
 
Follow -up: The EU flagged concern over the failure to respect the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competition by some Members.  
 
Russian Federation's export quota  
2.1.22.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94043)  
On 1st April, the Russian Federation gov ernment introduced a quota of 7 million tonnes for exports 
of wheat, rye, barley and corn, the main cereals produced by the country, in order to guard against 
the possibility of a cereal shortage. This quota will be in force until 30 June, but experts pred icted 
that the quota would be fully filled in May. In view of that, could the Russian Federation:  
 
a. Indicate when it will notify this measure to the CoA and whether consultations with Russian 
Federation's main wheat export destinations have been made befor e adopting the 
restriction?  
b. Share the criteria adopted to define the volume of seven million tonnes;  
c. Explain the reason for preferring quantitative restrictions instead of adopting temporary 
tariff duties on out -of-the-quota exports?  
d. Present updated inf ormation, at product level, about the fulfilment of this quota?  
e. Inform about the possibility of this quota being extended after 30th June and about the 
current national levels of wheat production and stock?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
In early April 20 20 the Russia n Federation  put in place a temporary export quota with respect to 
certain agricultural products, including wheat and meslin, with the amount of 7 million tonnes. This 
temporary measure was expired on 1 July 2020.  
 
The information on the quot a utilization was publicly available on the website of the Ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian Federation (as of 18 June 2020, the quota was not fully filled).  
 
The Russian Federation follows notification obligations provided in WTO Agreements. Transpa rency 
is especially important these days due to prevailing pandemic and the implementation by many 
countries of various trade -related measures aimed at containing and alleviating COVID -19 impacts. 
In our view, a special page on the WTO website is the best way of enhancing transparency in this 
matter as it is the quickest way of providing other WTO Members with timely information on new G/AG/W/216  
 
- 209 - 
 
  measures. The Russian Federation informed the Membership about the adopted measure 
accordingly.  
 
2.1.22.2   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94019)  
a. Japan recognizes that Russian Federation introduced export quotas on wheat and meslin, 
rye, barley and maize on 1 April 2020, but finds that the required notification to the 
Committee on Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article 12  of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if Russian Federation could provide 
the reason behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Russian Federation could explain how 
it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on import ing Members' food 
security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Russian Federation could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GAT T): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Russian Federation could explain how it determined the concrete amount 
of the export quotas (i.e., seven million tonnes for wheat from Apri l to June 2020).  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
In early April 2020 the Russia n Federation  put in place a temporary export quota with  respect to 
certain agricultural products, including wheat and meslin,  with the amount of 7 million tonnes. This 
temporary measure was  expired on 1 July 2020.  
 
The information on the quota utilization was publicly available on the  website of the Ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian Federation (as  of 18 June 2020, the quota was not fully filled).  
 
The Russian Fede ration follows notification obligations provided in the WTO  Agreements. 
Transparency is especially important these days due to  prevailing  pandemic and the implementation 
by many countries of various  trade -related measures aimed at containing and alleviating COVID -19 
impacts. In our view, a special page on the WTO website is the best  way of enhancing transparency 
in this matter as it is the quickest  way of providing other WTO Members with timely information on 
new measures. The Russian Federation i nformed the Membership about the  adopted measure 
accordingly.  
  
2.1.22.3   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94020)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, the Russian 
Federation has introduced a temporary export quota on severa l agricultural products.  
 
a. Can the Russian Federation please give an update on whether the export quotas will be 
terminated at the end of June 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will the Russian federation submit a notification to the Committee on Ag riculture in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These not ifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
In early April 2020 the Russia n Federation  put in place a temporary export quota with respect to 
certain agricultural products, including wheat and meslin,  with the amount of 7 million tonnes. This 
temporary measure was  expired on 1 July 2020.  
 
The information on the quota utilization was publicly available on the  website of the Minis try of 
Agriculture of the Russian Federation (as  of 18 June 2020, the quota was not fully filled).  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 210 - 
 
  The Russian Federation follows notification obligations provided in the WTO  Agreements. 
Transparency is especially important these days due to  prevailing  pandemic and the implementation 
by many countries of various  trade -related measures aimed at containing and alleviating COVID -19 
impacts. In our view, a special page on the WTO website is the best  way of enhancing transparency 
in this matter as it is the qu ickest  way of providing other WTO Members with timely information on 
new measures. The Russian Federation informed the Membership about the  adopted measure 
accordingly.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine supported the questions raised by Brazil, Japan, and Switzerland . Ukraine noted 
that in early April Ukraine had sent a detailed request to the Russia n Federation  aiming at obtaining 
relevant information on the measure  in question . Ukraine  noted that the Russian Federation applying 
such restrictive measures had not given d ue consideration to their effects on importing Members' 
food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Moreover, in early April, 
Ukraine h as sent a request through its Permanent Mission to Geneva to obtain relevant information 
from the Russian Federation regarding the implemented export restrictions measures, but it had not 
yet received any response. Ukraine noted that the Russian Federation is among the biggest exporters 
of buckwheat. After the Russian Federation [and Kazakhstan]  decided to impose export prohibitions 
on buckwheat, Ukraine as net importer of this product, was forced to apply relevant export 
prohibition measures to prevent its critical shortages. Ukraine called on Members to respect the 
WTO rules, while giving due c onsideration to other Members' food needs.  
 
Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  
2.1.23.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94021)  
Japan would appreciate it if Tajikistan could explain how export prohibitions on certain food products 
including wheat, wheat flour and vegetable introduced by the Member on 25  April 2020 meet the 
conditions required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, ii)  criticalness of the shortages, and  iii) temporality of the measure. 
Japan would also appreciate it if Tajikistan could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
 
Answer by Tajikistan  
 
Turkey's Treasury - Backed loans  
2.1.24.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94022)  
Australia understands that on 28 April 2020, the Turkish government announced farmers' payments 
of Treasury -backed loans due in May and June will be postponed fo r six months as part of a response 
of COVID -19.  
 
a. What was the original eligibility criteria to access the Treasury -backed loans?  
b. What commodities were covered by the eligibility criteria?  
c. What is the interest rate of the Treasury -backed loans compared t o the current commercial 
rates?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. The loans mentioned in the question are low -interest investment and business loans for 
agricultural production provided to real and legal person producers. Through those loans, 
it is aimed to ensure sustai nability in production, to encourage agricultural and rural 
development, to establish modern agricultural practices, to use agricultural potential more 
effectively and efficiently and to increase the quality in production.  
b. Those loans are not given on a pr oduct basis and are independent of production level and 
prices.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 211 - 
 
  c. The interest rate applied on the loans is determined according to the market conditions 
and depending on the commercial rates.  
Turkey's agricultural credits have been already notified and wil l be notified in ST -DS-9 under Non -
Product -Specific AMS within the context of Domestic Support Notifications and are in compliance 
with de minimis  levels.  
 
Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  
2.1.25.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94023)  
a. Japan recogni zes that Turkey introduced prior export authorization/registration on fresh 
lemons on 7 April 2020 but finds that the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Jap an would appreciate it if Turkey could provide the reason behind. Japan 
would also appreciate it if Turkey could explain how it has given due consideration to the 
effects of the measure on importing Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Turkey could explain how the measure meets the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of fresh lemons, ii) criticalness of the short ages, and iii) temporality of the 
measure.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Prior export authorization on fresh lemons is a short -term, temporary measure which has 
been taken due to food security concerns raised by COVID -19 and will end on 31 August 
2020. Turkey has alr eady shared the related information on this temporary measure 
through the WTO Trade Monitoring Mechanism and will continue its efforts to provide 
necessary information to ensure transparency.  
b. Lemon is an essential product for daily consumption. Moreover, i t is also used as raw 
material for the production of cologne, sanitizer and household cleaners. Because of the 
COVID -19 pandemic, need for cleaning and hygiene products has increased. Due to this 
need and consumer preferences, domestic demand for fresh lem ons has dramatically 
increased.   
On the other hand, Turkey's lemon production has recently decreased almost by 15% due to climate 
conditions. Under those circumstances, in order to ensure the stability in domestic market in terms 
of supply and prices, the temporary measure on fresh lemons has been introduced.  
 
2.1.25.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94024)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Turkey has 
introduced a prior export authorization on certain agricu ltural products.  
  
a. Can Turkey please give an update on whether the prior export authorization was 
terminated by 2 May 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Turkey hand in an additional notification to the Committee on Agriculture in 
accordance wit h Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture? It is useful for such measures 
to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that ER notifications remain 
a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are especially vi tal for 
net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very important for 
our importers.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
With the outbreak of COVID -19 pandemic, Turkey has started to implement temporary prior export 
authorization/registration o n a number of products to protect the health of its people and to prevent G/AG/W/216  
 
- 212 - 
 
  the shortage of these goods domestically. This implementation was terminated as of 2 May 2020 
with regards to certain products including ethyl alcohol, medical equipment and machiner y. 
 
For fresh lemons, temporary prior export authorization/registration which was put in place will end 
on 31 August 2020.  
 
Turkey has already shared the related information on those temporary measures through the 
WTO Trade Monitoring Mechanism and will c ontinue its efforts to provide necessary information to 
ensure transparency.  
 
U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
2.1.26.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94025)  
On 17 April, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a USD 19 billion Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Program, including USD 16 billion in direct support to farmers and ranchers. Australia 
welcomes the United States' transparency in regard to the programme, noting that the full list of 
eligible commodities and how payments will be calculated is publicly  available. We also appreciate 
the public realise of the cost -benefit analysis. Australia has the following questions regarding the 
programne:  
 
a. When will the United States notify this package to the WTO?  
b. How will the USD 16 billion in direct supp ort to farmers and ranchers be classified under 
the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. How do the payments under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program compare to the 
payments the United States provided under the 2018 and 2019 programmes, which were 
to compen sate producers adversely affected by retaliatory tariffs imposed by 
WTO Members facing unilateral trade actions by the United States?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. These programs will be notified in the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 notifications.  
b. These programs will be notified consistent with the WTO rules.  
c. The payments under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program are designed to provide 
financial assistance to produc ers of agricultural commodities who have suffered a 
five-percent -or-greater price decline or who had losses due to market supply chain 
disruptions due to COVID -19 and face substantial marketing costs for inventories during 
a specified time frame. Informati on on how payments under CFAP are calculated can be 
found at:  https://www.farmers.gov/archived/cfap2 . 
The payments under the 2018 and 2019 Market Facilitation Programs have been detailed in previous 
U.S. responses to the Committee on Agriculture. MFP was designed to help producers negatively 
impacted by retaliatory tariffs. Information on the 2018 and 2019  Market Facilitation Program can 
be found at https://www.farmers.gov/archived/mfp . 
 
2.1.26.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94045)  
On 19 May, the United States Department of Agriculture  (USDA) presented details of  Coronavirus 
Food Assistance Program  (CFAP), whose announced budget is USD  16 billion. Through the 
programme, one can receive direct payments of up to $250,000 per eligible producer. The USDA 
has defined that the eligible crops will be those whose prices h ave fallen by at least 5% since January. 
Could the US provide additional information on:  
 
a.  
i. What price index was used to calculate the price drop?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 213 - 
 
  ii. Has the US considered to use the prices in the first half of 2019 as a benchmark for 
eligibility, considering  that commodity prices in the international market fluctuate 
according to the harvest period?  
iii. What was the price drop in cotton, sugar, soy, corn, beef and pork?  
b.  
i. How does this support programme differ from recent "Trade Aid Programs", 
considering that 2 019 "Trade Aid Programs" budget was also USD  16 billion?  
ii. Specifically, are their eligibility and due maximum compensation requirements similar?  
c. Are there any estimates as to the sectors that will benefit most from the programme?  
Answer by United States o f America  
 
a.  
i. What price index was used to calculate the price drop?  
Depending on the commodity, reported cash prices or futures prices were used to calculate the 
change in prices between mid -January to mid -April. 
 
ii. Has the US considered to use the prices in  the first half of 2019 as a benchmark for 
eligibility, considering that commodity prices in the international market fluctuate 
according to the harvest period?  
No. This program is a response to the COVID -19 epidemic.  USDA chose 15 January as the start da te 
for the first quarter calculation as it represents market conditions prior to COVID -19 arrival in the 
United States. 15 April was chosen as the ending date as it represents the end of the three -month 
period (or one quarter) beginning in January.  
 
iii. What was the price drop in cotton, sugar, soy, corn, beef and pork?  
The calculated price change from mid -January to mid -April 2020 is:  
Cotton:  -$0.18/lb.  
Soybeans: -$0.90/bu.  
Corn: -$0.63/bu.  
Beef, pork, and sugar are not eligible commodities for this pr ogram.  
 
b.  
i. How does this support programme differ from recent "Trade Aid Programs", 
considering that 2019 "Trade Aid Programs" budget was also USD  16 billion?  
ii. Specifically, are their eligibility and due maximum compensation requirements similar?  
CFAP provi des financial assistance to producers of agricultural commodities with a 5% or greater 
price loss or losses due to market chain disruptions due to COVID -19. The 2019 Market Facilitation 
Program provided financial assistance to producers negatively impacted  by tariff retaliation. As of 
11 May, estimated payments under the 2019 Market Facilitation Program are $14.5 billion.  
 
Regarding eligibility and payment limits, CFAP and MFP are similar. Both programs have a per person 
and legal entity payment limitation  of $250,000. Eligibility is clearly defined for both programs and 
general requirements that apply to other USDA -administered commodity programs also apply to  MFP 
and CFAP, including compliance with highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions.  
 
c. Are there any estimates as to the sectors that will benefit most from the programme?  No. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 214 - 
 
  2.1.26.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94039)  
On 12 May 2020, the United States announced the USD 19 billion Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program  (CFAP), which will provide US D 16 billion in direct support to farmers and ranchers.  
 
a. Will the USDA release the methodology used to calculate the loss incurred by 
U.S. producers and the associated payment calculations as was done under the Market 
Facilitation Program in 2018 and 2019 ?  
b. Can the United States provide details on the impact of announcing the CFAP programme 
before the growing season and sending those payments to producers in the middle of the 
planting season? What is the impact on producers' planting decisions?  
c. As of 5 Fe bruary 2020, the USDA ERS forecasted that Federal Government Direct Farm 
Program Payments would reach close to USD 15 billion in 2020. With the funding under 
the CFAP, are direct farm payments expected to reach over USD 30 billion in 2020, or 
over 30% of n et farm income? https://www.ers.usda.gov/data -products/farm -income -
and-wealth -statistics/data -files-us-and-state-level-farm-income -and-wealth -statistics/   
d. After providing direct payments close to USD 9 billion in 2018, close to USD 14 billion 
in 2019 and in announcing USD 16 billion in 2020, are there concerns that U.S. producers 
will become dependent on g overnment support?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Information on how payments under CFAP are calculated can be found at:  
https://www.farmers.gov/archived/cfap2 . 
b. Because CFAP applies to production (or inventories) during a previous period, there is no 
impact on producers' planting decisions.  In particular, CFAP row crop payments are made 
on the lesser of the producer's unpric ed production or 50% of their 2019 production for 
eligible crops as of 15 January  2020. An eligible producer will receive the same payment 
regardless of what they plant in 2020. Therefore, the program design does not distort 
planting decisions.  
c. It is prem ature to speculate how CFAP will be incorporated into the next forecast for U.S. 
farm income, which will be released on 2 September  2020. Even in the absence of the 
implementation of a new farm program, the forecast for net farm income can change 
significa ntly between the February forecast and later summer forecast, due to the 
incorporation of updated price and production information.  
d. No. Relief for natural disasters and other economic hardships have fluctuated over the last 
several decades and has been pro vided in a targeted, time -limited manner to minimize 
any potential market distortions.  
2.1.26.4   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94052)  
The US has introduced a range of support measures in relation to the COVID -19, of which the most 
important are the Cares act  and the CFAP.  
  
Given the very large sums spent on these programmes, can the US inform Members as to how it 
intends to notify them? Which of these payments will be Amber Box, which will be product specific 
or non -product specific and in which year of the  DS:1 notification will expenditure fall.  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
These measures will be notified in the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 notifications. These measures will 
be notified consistent with the WTO rules.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 215 - 
 
  2.1.26.5   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 94026)  
On 17 April 2020, the US Department of Agriculture launched the Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program (CFAP), providing USD 16 billion in direct support to farmers and ranchers and USD  3 billion 
for government purchase and distribution of s urplus production. Livestock (USD 9.6 billion), row 
crop (USD 3.9 billion) and speciality crop producers (USD 2.1 billion) have received the bulk of direct 
support payments. Funding for the programme draws on the USD 9.5 billion of funds made available 
under the CARES Act and a further USD 6 billion of borrowing headroom still available for 2019 -2020 
from the Commodity Credit Corporation. US industry continues to lobby for further assistance to 
support domestic producers, including increased direct support,  expanded food purchase 
programmes and a request to reinstate international food aid by the dairy sector. We appreciate 
these measures have been put in place to support the agriculture sector during a time of crisis and 
we respect the need for countries to  support agricultural sectors during these difficult times. We 
would be interested in the following:  
 
a. Can the US confirm under what category of AoA Article 6 this support will be notified?  
b. Does the US expect to increase its AMS relative to previous years  to account for the 
additional funding?  
c. Does the US expect to increase its Blue Box outlays to account for the additional funding?  
d. Does the US foresee further direct support being made available to producers?  
e. Is the US considering reinstating internatio nal food aid for the dairy sector or other 
sectors?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. and c. The United States expects notified outlays to increase a result of CFAP as compared 
to levels currently notified to the WTO.  These measures will be notified consistent with the 
WTO rules.  
d. No announcements have been made regarding additional future assistance to farmers.  
e. At this time, USDA does not have any plans for additional international food assistance 
programming. Additional food assistance progr amming beyond our annually appropriated 
funding has not been authorized.  
Follow -up: Australia noted its concern with increased subsidies granted by the US and the precedent 
it had set. The US was asked to shift away from trade -distorting measures and seek alternative 
measures. In light of the significance of the support, the EU was disappointed that the US did not 
indicate how it planned to notify the support. New Zealand asked the US to clarify whether the 
measure would be notified under the Amber or Blue Box. The US responded that they did not know 
at this stage which category the measure would be reported under but confirmed that it would result 
in overall increase in DS spending. Canada took note of the U.S. response that the measure was 
temporary in res ponding to the COVID -19 crisis and looked forward to seeing how the measure 
would be withdrawn. Paraguay sought greater clarity on the programme and requested the following 
information form the US: (1) confirm if it is market support; (2) What are the requ irements to 
receive such support for products covered by the programme; (3) When will the measure be notified 
in DS:1 notification and if the US is considering a partial notification. Paraguay noted that it had sent 
the questions to the US but did not subm it them in time in the AGIMS and would introduce them at 
the next meeting.  
 
US - Paycheck Protection Program  
2.1.27.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94047)  
Under the "Paycheck Protection Program", loans will be fully forgiven if the funds are used for payrol l 
costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. Loan payments will also be deferred for six months. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 216 - 
 
  No collateral or personal guarantees are required. Neither the government nor lenders will charge 
small businesses any fees. This loan has a maturity o f two years and an interest rate of 1%.  
 
a. Can the US indicate how much had been lent under this programme by 31 May to farmers, 
and the expected total for farmers by the end of programme on 30 June.  
b. What share of total loans does the US expect to be forgi ven?  
c. Could the US indicate the level of interest subsidy on these loans?  
d. How does the US intent to notify this programme in its DS:1 notification and in which 
year?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
According to the U.S. Small Business Agency (SBA), a s of 30 May 2020, 127,465 loans valued at 
USD 7.6 million had been approved for businesses classified in the NAICS sector description 
"Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting. " Given that the program is in the process of being 
implemented, it is premat ure to speculate on the number and value of total loans, the share of loans 
forgiven, or the interest subsidy on loans provided to businesses classified in this NAICS sector.  The 
United States will notify this program at the appropriate time after the prog ram has been fully 
implemented.  
 
Follow -up: The EU was interested in learning how the US would notify the programme.  
 
Viet Nam's export restriction measures on rice  
2.1.28.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94046)  
Viet Nam is the third largest world rice exporter. Ac cording to FAO's "Food Price Monitoring and 
Analysis" (FPMA), the signing of new contracts for rice exports was suspended on 25 March 2020. 
On 10 April, the ban on rice exports was replaced by monthly export quotas, which were set at 
400,000 tonnes for the  April-May period. On 22 April, the quota for April was subsequently increased 
by 100,000 tonnes. The following week, the full resumption of exports was announced. Also, 
according to information obtained from the FPMA, Viet Nam would have declared that it could export 
up to 6.7 million tonnes of rice this year; however, the competent authorities would continue to 
monitor the situation of rice supply and demand to enable immediate action if necessary. In light of 
the above, could Viet Nam:  
 
a. Present the reaso ns why it could not notify these export restrictive measures to the WTO?  
b. Share the quantitative criteria it used for establishing the export ban followed by the 
export quota?  
c. Explain why it prefer establishing quantitative restrictions instead of introducing temporary 
export taxes?  
d. Inform the current levels of rice production  and stocks and whether there is any indication 
of future export restrictions to be adopted in the upcoming months?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Rice is an essential foodstuff of every Vietnamese. Due to the complexity and unpredictability of the 
COVID -19 pandemic  as well as public concerns, the Vietnamese government adopted several 
measures deemed as essential to take control of rice export, namely establishment of export quota. 
However, this policy has been ceased since 1st May 2020. Viet Nam has also verified th is measure 
to WTO through its process of conducting the report about trade related measures applied by the 
WTO Members to cope with the COVID -19 pandemic11. Viet Nam is currently finalizing its Notification 
 
11 Detailed information is available at 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/trade_related _goods_measure_e.htm . G/AG/W/216  
 
- 217 - 
 
  on this measure to submit to Committee on Agricul ture in accordance with the Agreement on 
Agriculture. At the moment, rice export activities are undertaken normally, and the Vietnamese 
government has yet to consider the possibility of applying export restriction with regard to rice or 
other foodstuffs.   
 
2.1.28.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94040)  
On 24 March 2020, the government of Viet Nam imposed an export ban on rice (Decision 
No. 1106/QD -BCT). On 10 April 2020, Viet Nam lifted the ban with a quota of 400,000 MT for the 
month of April 2020. On 22 April 2020,  Viet Nam increased the threshold for this export quota to 
500,000 tonnes from 400,000 tonnes. On 28 April 2020, Viet Nam's Prime Minister announced the 
lifting of the export quota as of 1 May 2020. To date, Viet Nam has not notified these measures as 
per the obligations under Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
a. Can Viet Nam explain the purpose of these measures?  
b. Will these export restrictions be notified to the Committee on Agriculture?  
c. Does Viet Nam anticipate a need to reintroduce export rest rictions on other agricultural 
goods in the future?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Rice is an essential foodstuff of every Vietnamese. Due to the complexity and unpredictability of the 
COVID -19 pandemic as well as public concerns, the Vietnamese government adopted several 
measures deemed as essential to take control of rice export, namely establishment of export quota. 
However, this policy has been ceased since 1st May 2020. Viet Nam has also verified this measure 
to WTO through its process of conducting the  report about trade related measures applied by the 
WTO Members to cope with the COVID -19 pandemic12. Viet Nam is about to complete drafting the 
notification on this measure to submit to the Agricultural Committee in accordance with the 
Agreement on Agricu lture. At the moment, rice export activities are undertaken normally, and the 
Vietnamese government has yet to consider the possibility of applying export restriction with regard 
to rice or other foodstuffs.   
 
2.1.28.3   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94027)  
a. Japan reco gnizes that Viet Nam introduced export quota on rice on 11 April 2020, but finds 
that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Viet Nam could provide the reason behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Viet Nam could 
explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture .  
b. apan would appreciate it if Viet Nam could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of rice, and ii) criticalness of the shortage. Japan would also appreci ate it if 
Viet Nam could explain how it determined the concrete amount of the export quota 
(i.e., 0.5 million tonnes in April).  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Rice is an essential foodstuff of every Vietnamese. With the complicated and unpredictable escalation 
of the COVID -19 pandemic which led to citizens' insecurity, the government of Viet Nam decided to 
adopt a necessary restriction in rice exportation to ensure domestic supply and national food 
security. During this time, Viet Nam did consider the effects on WTO Members that import rice from 
Viet Nam so that reasonable adjustment to rice exportation could be made.  
 
 
12 Detailed information is available at 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/trade_related_goods_measure_e.htm . G/AG/W/216  
 
- 218 - 
 
  2.1.28.4   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94028)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Viet Nam has 
introduced an export quota on rice.  
 
a. Can Viet Nam please give an update on whether the export quota was terminated on 
1 May 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Viet Nam submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remai n a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
The measure on export quota for r ice was expired on 1st May 2020. Viet Nam has verified this 
measure to WTO through its process of conducting the report about trade related measures applied 
by the WTO Members to cope with the COVID -19 pandemic. Viet Nam is currently finalizing its 
Notific ation on this measure to submit to Committee on Agriculture in accordance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Follow -up: Chinese Taipei reiterated its systemic concern on lack of ER notifications and encouraged 
Viet Nam to provide more information includin g through notification.  
 
2.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
2.2.1.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  
AG-IMS ID 94029: Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Kyrgyz Republic introduced export p rohibitions on certain food 
products including wheat and meslin, wheat flour, rice, and sugar on 22 March 2020, and 
appreciates the measure was notified to the Committee on Agriculture on 31  March  2020. 
Japan would appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could pr ovide the reason why the notification 
was not made before the measure was taken while "prior notification" is required in 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if  Kyrgyz Republic could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why it resorted to  the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of 
domestic supply and demand.  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
 
Currently, certain work is being done to ensure the country's food security and promptly respond t o 
internal and external threats to the stability of the food market of the Kyrgyz Republic.  
 
It is important to note that one of the main indicators of ensuring food security is the food 
independence of the Republic, where the physical and economic availab ility of food for the population 
is guaranteed. However, given the high level of dependence of the domestic market of the 
Kyrgyz  Republic on the import of certain types of food products, the introduction of restrictions on 
the export of food products from neighbouring  states in the context of the coronavirus pandemic has 
led to certain difficulties in providing the population with food products.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 219 - 
 
  In this regard, in order to prevent critical shortage and ensuring food goods, including national 
security of th e Republic's population in a pandemic coronavirus infection COVID -19, decision of the 
government of the Kyrgyz Republic "On introduction of temporary ban on the export (import) certain 
types of goods from the Kyrgyz Republic " of 22 March  2020 No. 174  introduced a temporary ban for 
a period of six months on the export of wheat, flour, vegetable oil, rice, pasta, sugar, salt, eggs, 
feed, napkins, antibacterial and disinfectants. This regulation was valid until 22 September  2020.  
 
2.2.1.2   North Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/26)  
AG-IMS ID 94031: Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Republic of North Macedonia introduced export prohibitions on 
wheat and meslin, and wheat flour on 20 March 2020, and appreciates the measure was 
notified to the Committee on Agricult ure on 2 April 2020. Japan would appreciate it if 
Republic of North Macedonia could provide the reason why the notification was not made 
before the measure was taken while "prior notification" is required in Article 12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Republic of North Macedonia could explain how the measure 
met the conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade  (GATT): namely i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. 
Japan would also appreciate it if Republic of North Macedonia could provide the reason 
why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas 
which reflect the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
Answer by North Maced onia 
 
a. The notification was not made before the measure was taken as it is  required in Article 12 
of the Agreement on Agriculture , because in this new emergency situation caused by the 
spread of the SARS virus COVID -19, an extremely high demand for this ess ential products 
was rapidly showed  on the domestic market. At the same time, the import of wheat and 
meslin, and wheat flour  was limited caused by the export prohibition introduced by our 
neighbors.  In order to prevent the critical shortage of these products, i .e., to mitigate the 
consequences on the market , we ha d to react immediatelly and ha d no time to wait.  
b. North Macedonia is net importer of wheat and meslin, and wheat flour , as essential food 
products. In the past five years, North Macedonia's im port each year reached to app. 
86.000 -100.000 ton nes wheat and meslin and 45 -55.000 ton nes wheat flour. On the other 
hand, the export of North Macedonia is very limited, whereas in quantities of wheat and 
meslin is app. 1.000 -3.000 ton nes and wheat flour 1 000-8.000 ton nes.  
The import is mainly from Serbia and some WTO countries from the region.  As Serbia introduced 
export prohibitions  on wheat flour on 14 March 2020, North Macedonia had to react immediately i n 
order to prevent the critical shortage of thes e products, i .e., to mitigate the consequences on the 
market.  That was the reason to introduce a temporary measure.  
Import of wheat and meslin and wheat or meslin flour in North Macedonia in past five 
years  
Year Wheat and meslin  Wheat or meslin flour  
TOTAL  WTO  CEFTA  TOTAL  WTO  CEFTA  
  tonnes tonnes % tonnes % tonnes tonnes % tonnes % 
2015 97.538  22.417  23,0 75.121  77,0 47.835  79 0,2 47,756 99,8 
2016 75.537  13.949  18,5 61.588  81,5 54.587  138 0,3 54,449 99,7 
2017 87.047  22.648  26,0 64.399  74,0 53.935  140 0,3 53,795 99,7 
2018 86.504  7.762  9,0 78.742  91,0 49.814  88 0,2 49,726 99,8 
2019 104.405  17.719  17,0 86.686  83,0 51.843  148 0,3 51,695 99,7 
  
At that moment there was very limited opportunity to import in North Macedonia of wheat and 
meslin, and wheat flour , and in order to prevent the critical shortage of these products , the most 
reasonable solution was to consider the necessity  to prohibit exp ort for short period of time until the 
prohibition was relieved by our neighbors . 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 220 - 
 
  2.2.1.3   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/107, G/AG/N/THA/107 /Add.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 94030: Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Thailand introduced export prohibitions on bird eggs of fowls of the 
species Gallus  Domesticus  on 26 March 2020, and appreciates the measure was notified 
to the Committee on Agriculture on 30 March 2020. Japan would appreciate it if T hailand 
could provide the reason why the notification was not made before the measure was taken 
while "prior notification" is required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan 
would also appreciate it if Thailand could explain how it has given due consideration to the 
effects of the measure on importing Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Thailand could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of bird eggs, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Thailand could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions 
on bird eggs, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic supply 
and demand.  
Answer by Thailand  
Thailand enforced export prohibition on bird eggs of fowls of the species Gallus  Domesticus  started 
on 26th March to 30th April 2020 due to th e critical shortage in the country. It was an urgent measure 
in the unexpected circumstances. Since the spread of COVID -19 in Thailand started in early March, 
people were concerned about lockdown measures. Similar to other countries, many people had 
bought  food stuffs for their household food security. Bird eggs of fowls of the species 
Gallus  Domesticus  are one of the significant essentials in Thailand since they are basic food stuffs 
for people in every income level.  
Thailand would like to emphasize that o ur export prohibition on bird eggs of fowls of the species 
Gallus  Domesticus  was a temporary measure, which had expired on 30 April 2020, in accordance 
with Article XI of GATT. In addition, Thailand notified the Committee on Agriculture at the earliest 
opportunity in compliance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
Follow -up: Japan sought to understand  why some Members submitted ER notifications while others 
did not.   
2.2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/37)  
AG-IMS ID 94032: Question  by Japan  
a. Japan recogniz es that Ukraine introduced export quota on wheat on 30 March 2020, but 
finds that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Ukrain e could provide the reason behind. Japan also recognizes that Ukraine introduced 
export prohibition on buckwheat grain on 9 April 2020, and appreciates the measure was 
notified to the Committee on Agriculture on 14 April2020. Japan would appreciate it if 
Ukraine could provide the reason why the notification was not made before the measure 
was taken while "prior notification" is required in Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Japan would also appreciate it if Ukraine could explain how it has given du e 
consideration to the effects of the measure on importing Members' food security, as 
required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Ukraine could explain how the measures meet the conditions 
required in Article XI of  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Ukraine could explain how it determined the concrete amount of the export 
quotas (i.e., 20.2 mi llion tonnes for wheat for 2019/20 fiscal year). Japan would further 
appreciate it if Ukraine could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibition G/AG/W/216  
 
- 221 - 
 
  on buckwheat grain, rather than arranging quota which reflects the situation of domestic 
supply  and demand.  
Answer by Ukraine  
a. Ukraine has not introduced any quantitative restrictions on exports of wheat since 
2011/2012 marketing year. On 30 March 2020 the Ministry for Development of Economy, 
Trade and Agriculture of Ukraine and a number of NGOs rep resenting grain market 
participants signed an annex to a Memorandum of understanding for 2019/2020 marketing 
year concluded by the parties on 3  October  2019. Such memoranda have been 
traditionally signed since 2011 on an annual basis and provide for inform ation exchange 
and consultations between the parties with a view to ensuring food security and avoiding 
the imposition of quantitative restrictions or duties on grain exports. The memoranda may 
specify a maximum export volume, which is agreed upon by the p arties and determined 
on the basis of projected supply and demand balances. The provisions of this document 
do not impose any legal obligations on the parties, and exports in excess of the agreed 
volumes are not subject to restrictions and do not automatic ally trigger the introduction 
of such restrictions. Thus, Ukraine does not need to notify this measure to the WTO. 
Regarding the export prohibition applied to buckwheat grain, Ukraine considers it 
necessary to note that the provisions of Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture 
do not apply to any developing country Member, unless the measure is taken by a 
developing country Member which is a net -food exporter of the specific foodstuff 
concerned. Ukraine is a developing country Member, which is not a net exporter of 
buckwheat.  
b. Buckwheat is a traditional staple food essential to Ukraine. However, Ukraine is presently 
a net importer of this product. On 2 April 2020 Ukraine decided to introduce the export 
prohibition on buckwheat, which took effect on 9  April 2020, after in late -March three 
major exporters of this product to Ukraine [Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation] 
had imposed export prohibitions on buckwheat. These three countries account for about 
100% of Ukraine's total buckwheat imports,  which are projected to meet about 18 % of 
the domestic consumption needs in 2019/2020 marketing year.  
Follow -up: Japan noted that it would examine the explanation  provided by Ukraine to apply the 
measure. Japan expressed appreciation towards  those Members  who have submitted 
ER notifications. Although the content and timing of the notifications remained to be examined, 
Japan noted that the act of notification itself was a first step Members should take to ensure 
transparency. Japan encouraged Members that i mposed ER measures  and had not yet submitted 
relevant notifications to do so as soon as possible. The Republic of Korea shared Japan's concern 
regarding the recent ER measures implemented by some Members during the pandemic. The 
Republic of Korea noted tha t witnessed from the 2008 food crisis, those measures could cause 
negative effects on food security in importing countries, particularly LDCs and developing countries. 
In this regard, the Republic of Korea would like to seek clarification about Ukraine 's wheat export 
quota, following the questions Japan raised. The Republic of Korea noted that on 26th May, a news 
outlet quoted the Deputy Economy Minister of Ukraine that Ukraine would continue to export wheat 
even though the quota agreed with traders for the  2019/20 season had been used up. The deputy 
minister also told that Ukraine did not plan any restrictions and said wheat exports were continuing. 
The Republic of Korea noted that the question was whether this export quota would be continued or 
abolished. The Republic of Korea would appreciate  if Ukraine could explain how the export quota 
had been working and whether it would be or was already terminated.  
 
_______________  
 
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 222 - 
 
  3  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE ME ETING ON 22 -23 SEPTEMBER 2020  
3.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
Australia's  International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
3.1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95041)  
International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
On 3 July, the Australian government announced an additional AUD  241.9  million to subsidize the 
transportation cost of exporting of high -value agricultural goods via the International Freight 
Assistance Mechanism (IFAM). In total, IFAM is expected to provide up to AUD  351.9  million to 
reduce the transportation costs for the export of Australian agricultural goods.  
 
Canada appreciates Australia transparency in regards to IFAM. That being said, in Canada 's view, 
the IFAM does seem to operate as an export subsidy program.  
 
a. Could Austra lia indicate if it intends to report this transportation support as an export 
subsidy?  
b. Please indicate how IFAM is in conformity with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and 
Australia 's export subsidy commitments?  
c. Could Australia explain the rationale to more  than triple the budget of the IFAM?  
Answer by Australia  
 
IFAM is a temporary, targeted and proportionate emergency measure to try to keep open a critical 
number of pre -COVID -19 international airfreight supply chains into and out of Australia. Australia is  
continually and judiciously monitoring the market for airfreight, which is heavily reliant on 
international passenger flight activity including on individual routes, and will cease IFAM assistance 
on specific routes once the market re -adjusts.  
 
3.1.1.2   Question b y Canada (AG -IMS ID 95042)  
International Freight Assistance Mechanism   
 
Canada notes that in its response to question AGI-IMS ID 94034 that Australia has shared 
information on International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM) with the WTO as part of the WT O's 
Trade Monitoring Report and in the form of an ad hoc  COVID -19 notification for the WTO COVID -19 
tracker of goods.  However, as this measure clearly falls under the mandate of the Committee on 
Agriculture and given the high level of interest in IFAM coul d Australia indicate when it will provide 
an ad hoc  notification with the relevant details on IFAM to this Committee?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
IFAM is a temporary, targeted and proportionate emergency measure to try to keep open a critical 
number of pre -COVID -19 international airfreight supply chains into and out of Australia. Australia is 
continually and judiciously monitoring the market for airfreight, which is heavily reliant on 
international passenger flight activity including on individual routes, and wil l cease IFAM assistance 
on specific routes once the market re -adjusts.  
 
3.1.1.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95008)  
On 3 July 2020, the Australian government committed an additional AUD  241.9 million to continue 
the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM), helping keep international freight routes and 
flights operating until the end of the year. This funding is in addition to the AUD  110 mil lion 
announced in April 2020 to establish the IFAM under the AUD  1 billion Relief and Recovery Fund to 
support regions, communities and industry sectors disproportionately affected by COVID -19.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 223 - 
 
  According to the Australian government's factsheet, eligible  products include:  
• seafood (including lobsters);  
• premium red meat (including beef, lamb and pork);  
• dairy (such as fresh milk and yoghurt);   
• horticulture (such as premium fruits and packaged salad or vegetables.  
 
The IFAM appears to be an aid provided to r educe the costs of marketing exports of agricultural 
products, namely the costs of international transport and freight. As such, it appears to be an export 
subsidy as defined in Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture which covers "the provision of 
subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultural products (other than widely 
available export promotion and advisory services) including handling, upgrading and other 
processing costs, and the costs of international transport and freight" . For developed WTO Members 
such as Australia, paragraph  6 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision of 19  December  2015 
(WTO  document WT/MIN (13)/40) provides for the elimination of export subsidies as of the date of 
adoption of that Decision.  
 
a. Can Australia e xplain how the IFAM respects its WTO obligations on agricultural export 
subsidies as set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Can Australia provide more precision on how these funds are distributed, noting specifically  
how freight rates are determined for agricultural exporters and whether any of the funds 
can be received by exporters directly?  
Answer by Australia  
 
IFAM is a temporary, targeted and proportionate emergency measure to try to keep open a critical 
number of  pre-COVID -19 international airfreight supply chains into and out of Australia. Australia is 
continually and judiciously monitoring the market for airfreight, which is heavily reliant on 
international passenger flight activity including on individual route s, and will cease IFAM assistance 
on specific routes once the market re -adjusts.  
 
Follow -up: Canada, the EU and India noted interest in understanding how the scheme complies with 
WTO rules, including the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export subsidies.   
 
Brazil's subsidized loans  
3.1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95009)  
With reference to the answer to AG -IMS ID 93044 on Brazil 's policy of "Plano Safra ", an umbrella 
program that involves many elements of Brazilian Agricultural policy, India thanks Brazil for its  
response. India would like to ask the following supplementary questions:   
 
a. As Brazil 's response does not cater to part (b) of AG-IMIS ID 93044, India would like to 
ask again as to how much has been spent under this initiative in 2017 -2018? Further, 
kindly elucidate the provision under the Agreement on Agriculture and indicate which 
supporting table is the programme notified in 2018  notification?  
b. How much has been spent under this initiative during 2018 -2019 and 2019 -2020?  
c. As per the information available on the relevant website, the credit provided under the 
program has increased by 6.1% over the last crop season to R$236.3 billion for the 
period  2020-2021. India would like to know what led to increase in the value of credit 
reserved for agriculture and livestock over 2019 -2020 and 2020 -21?  
d. The program states that credit will be provided to producers "at rates compatible with 
their business ". In this respect, what percentage of interest is subsidized under the 
programme?   
e. Kindly speci fy the criteria of distinguishing between small and medium producers for the 
application of the policy.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 224 - 
 
  f. What are the different financing options available under the programme?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Domestic support provided is duly reflected in Brazil 's notif ications. See "Supporting 
Table"  DS:2 (investment credit e production credit) and "Supporting Table" DS:9 
(insurance programs).  
b. DS:1 notifications for years 2018 -2019 and 2019 -2020 will be provided in due course.  
c. Budget increase was compatible with the gro wth of the agricultural sector in recent years. 
Brazil stresses that budget forecast, especially for credit programs, is not adequate for the 
evaluation of fulfilment of the commitments of the AoA. Depending on the conditions of 
the expenditures, these may  constitute subsidies or not.  
d. The expression "at rates compatible with their business" means that the rates established 
for small farmers and /or family farming are different from the rates for large producers. 
The implicit subsidy is based on the differenc e between the rate of each program and the 
SELIC rate in effect in the period.  
e. For the purpose of the "Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar" 
(Pronaf), family farmers and rural family entrepreneurs (small farmers) are those who 
practi ce activities in the rural environment, simultaneously meeting the following 
requirements: I - do not hold, in any capacity, an area greater than 4 (four) fiscal modules; 
II - predominantly use the family's own labor in the economic activities of its estab lishment 
or enterprise; III - have a minimum percentage of family income originating from 
economic activities in its establishment or enterprise, as defined by the Executive Branch; 
IV - run its establishment or enterprise with its family. In addition, the  farmer must 
complete the National Register of Family Farming (CAF) for the purposes of identification, 
inspection and qualification with the federal government for the purpose of accessing 
specific public policies.  
f. Within the scope of the "Plano Safra", t he resources made available for rural credit are 
normally used for funding, marketing and investing.  
Brazil's wheat quota  
3.1.3.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95010)  
This is with reference to Brazil 's commitment towards implementation of  its 750,000 metric tonnes 
duty-free tariff rate quota (TRQ) for wheat. In this regard, we request Brazil to provide details 
regarding the following:   
 
a. The details of the government agency, trading or administrative body competent to grant 
licenses or access to quotas?   
b. Are there an y limitations on eligibility of applicants?   
c. How are the licenses or access to quotas allocated by the competent agency?   
d. Are there any limitations on the period of validity or use of the licenses granted?   
e. How much wheat was imported under the TRQ for yea r 2018 -2019 and 2019 -2020? 
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. and d. Operationalization and distribution of the quota is regulated by Portaria SECEX no. 44, of 
18 November 2019, which establishes the criteria for the allocation of the TRQ between 11/18/19 
and 11/17/2020. Full text is available at:  
http://www.mdic.gov.br/images/REPOSITORIO/secex/gab/portarias_secex_2019/Portaria_SECEX_
044_2019.pdf . G/AG/W/216  
 
- 225 - 
 
   
On 17 June 2020, through Resolução nº 53, considering the fil l rate for the current quota -year, Brazil 
defined conditions for an extraordinary increase in the TRQ 's volume by 450,000 tonnes. This 
additional volume will not be permanently incorporated into the TRQ.  
 
e. From 18 November 2019 to 13 September 2020, 801, 859 tonnes in licenses were granted and 
555,378 tonnes were effectively internalized. Updated quota fill information can be found at: 
http://www.siscomex.gov.br/informacoes/importacao/  Search for "COTAS DE IMPORTAÇÃO" - 
"UTILIZAÇÃO DA COTA DE IMPORTAÇÃO DE TRIGO".  
 
Follow -up: Canada and the EU registered interest in India's responses to the questions.   
 
Canada - Farm Credit Canada  
3.1.4.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95011)  
India welcomes Canada 's response to question AG-IMS ID 94053. Canada in its response stated that 
"existing and potential FCC customers must meet FCC 's eligibility criteria ". In a related news item, 
it has been mentioned that: "With $200 million in increased lending capac ity, the Canadian Dairy 
Commission can provide stronger support for the supply management system by buying and storing 
more butter and cheese. It's a great way to help manage production and to support our producers 
and processors, while ensuring a secure s upply of local dairy products for Canadians." In this regard, 
India requests Canada to provide responses to the following:  
 
a. Could Canada elaborate upon the eligible criteria for this programme?  
b. Could Canada please advise how it will ensure that these measu res do not negatively 
impact the global markets?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. To be eligible for financing from Farm Credit Canada (FCC) the current or projected activity 
to be financed must benefit Canadian agriculture and agri -food industries, and be direct 
agricul ture, agri -food or agriculture related business activities. In addition, individuals and 
businesses applying for FCC financing are subject to industry standard lending due 
diligence, which considers business viability, credit history, and management integr ity and 
experience.  
b. FCC loans are made on commercial terms, and therefore do not distort global markets.  
In the case of the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) program, in early May 2020, the Prime Minister 
announced a number of important measures to support t he Canadian agricultural sector due to the 
large number of industries that were affected by the COVID -19 pandemic. This included the 
amendment to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act to increase the CDC 's borrowing capacity from 
$300 million to $500 million. This increase in the CDC 's borrowing capacity was meant to temporally 
support costs incurred by the CDC to store additional cheese and butter to minimize milk and milk 
component disposal and help manage the changing market conditions resulting from the COV ID-19 
pandemic. It should be noted that the temporary storage program for cheese launched in May  2020 
will be closed by September 30th, 2020.  
  
The temporary storage program for cheese has allowed Canadian processors to continue to operate 
at the same time  it has helped to halt disposal of domestic raw milk amid the COVID -19 pandemic. 
This program has allowed the CDC to buy cheese from processors and pay storage stocks for a 
maximum of 24 months, at which time, the processors have to buy the cheese back at the same 
price initially sold. The program has been designed to provide stability in the market. As the cheese 
is purchased and sold back to processors at the same price, domestic and global markets are not 
negatively impacted.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand regi stered concern about Canada's supply management of its dairy industry 
and the measure's possible negative impact to the global dairy market. Australia stated interest in 
understanding how Canada's various measures and activities mentioned by Members contri buted to 
the ongoing reform of opening and liberalization of the relevant sectors in Canada. The US flagged G/AG/W/216  
 
- 226 - 
 
  continued interest in the Canadian Dairy Commission's increased borrowing limit from 300 to 
500 million  dollars  which was announced as a COVID -19 me asure in May 2020.  
 
Canada's new milk ingredient class  
3.1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95005)  
In AG -IMS ID 87015, Canada stated "Federal authority for the marketing of dairy products is 
delegated to provincial milk marketing boards or provincial agencies for interprovincial and export 
trade of dairy products pursuant to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act and the Agricultural Products 
Marketing Act. This would also include the power in respect of pricing. Provincial boards and agencies 
are also delegated provincial authority for pricing based on provincial legislation and statute. Under 
the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) and federal -provincial agreements, 
these entities coordinate the exercise of their delegated federal and provincial authorities. Although 
responsibilities vary from province to province, boards and agencies generally license producers, 
allocate milk quotas, and establish or negotiate the prices or accounting values charged to 
processors, according to the milk's end use."   
 
Would Canada explain the federal -provincial agreements under which provincial boards and agencies 
exercise authority over milk pricing?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Given Canada 's strong commitment to transparency, including this Committee 's quest ion and answer 
process, Canada has already provided an exhaustive account of federalism in Canada. More 
specifically, Canada has provided WTO Members with numerous amounts of information pertaining 
to the exercise of federal and provincial authorities in r elation to Canadian milk pricing. As previously 
stated, Canada 's Constitution is complex and includes both written rules and unwritten conventions. 
In AG -IMS ID 80025, Canada elaborated on how milk prices are set in the Province of Ontario. In 
AG- IMS ID 86033, Canada elaborated on how milk class pricing is an area of provincial responsibility 
through the respective marketing boards or agencies. In AG -IMS ID 87015, Canada further 
elaborated on how federal authority is delegated to respective marketing board s or agencies, as well 
as the role of the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee and federal -provincial agreements. 
In AG -IMS ID 91132, Canada described the complexity of determining whether a matter is federal 
or provincial jurisdiction, in particular with respect to agriculture, which is an area of concurrent 
powers between the federal and provincial governments. In AG -IMS ID 92002, Canada provided a 
comprehensive description of the powers of Parliament and the exclusive powers of provincial 
legislatur es. The same response also described in detail the role of concurrent powers, residuary 
powers, and the process of judicial review. In AG -IMS ID 93003, Canada further described the 
delineation of federal and provincial authorities with respect to marketing  milk in Canada and its 
complexity and again highlighted that when there is a genuine question on whether a law enacted 
by Parliament or a provincial legislature comes within their respective constitutional powers, an 
authoritative answer can come only fro m the courts through judicial review.   
 
Follow -up: The EU highlighted its interest in understanding the pricing of different milk classes in 
Canada. New Zealand supported the question and would review the data and the report on milk 
classes which would be published next year. New Zealand had an ongoing interest in the 
implementation and subsequent elimination of milk classes 6 and 7 including the respective milk 
classes prices, utilization and sales. While New Zealand welcomed the elimination of milk class 6 as 
per the Canada -US agreement, it was disappointed to learn that Canada had reclassified  class 7 as 
class 4(a) and was therefore not convinced that the trade distorting effects of the Canadian special 
milk class programmes were resolved.  
 
3.1.5.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95006)  
Canada has made it clear that the government of Canada is committed to concluding the work 
related to full and fair compensation for recent trade agreements, including the USMCA (see, for 
example, AG -IMS ID 93003). Canadian news media has published articles that make assertions 
about the monetary value of compensation that would be appropriate for dairy farmers.  
 
a. Does the government of Canada have a target value for the full and fair compensation 
planne d? G/AG/W/216  
 
- 227 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
The government of Canada is committed to concluding the work related to full and fair compensation 
for recent trade agreements, including the Canada -United States -Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).  
  
In August 2019, the government of Canada ann ounced it will make available $1.75 billion over eight 
years for Canada 's dairy farmers related to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement  (CETA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific 
Partnership  (CPTPP). Of this amount, $345 million was allocated to the first year (i.e. , 2019-2020), 
in the form of direct payments. During the first year, which ended on 31 March  2020, a total of over 
$338 million in direct payments were made to eligible dairy producers through the Dairy Dir ect 
Payment Program.   
  
The intention is to continue working with dairy producers to make the remaining $1.405 billion 
available in future years. Details on future years of funding, including compensation funding for 
impacts of CUSMA, are still being deter mined.  
 
Follow -up: The EU highlighted its interest in understanding the pricing of different milk classes in 
Canada. New Zealand supported the question and would review the data and the report on milk 
classes which would be published next year. New Zealand had an ongoing interest in the 
implementation and subsequent elimination of milk classes 6 and 7 including the respective milk 
classes prices, utilization and sales. While New Zealand welcomed the elimination of milk class 6 as 
per the Canada -US ag reement, it was disappointed to learn that Canada had reclassified  class 7 as 
class 4(a) and was therefore not convinced that the trade distorting effects of the Canadian special 
milk class programmes were resolved.   
 
3.1.5.3   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 95146)  
In AG -IMS ID 93002, Canada stated "…Canada does not have a timeline to provide for the release 
of any data related to milk class prices, utilization and sales. Several verifications to ensure accuracy 
of the data are required. Canada is co mmitted to ensuring that any information published accurately 
reflects the data that has been entrusted to the federal government by industry.  Would Canada 
please share the frequency or the timeline under which information sharing generally occurs, through  
which industry entrusts data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales to the federal 
government?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
In the more recent AG -IMS ID 93247, Canada stated "Canada has been working hard to verify the 
accuracy of the data and to publi sh this information in a more relevant format. These efforts are 
reflective of Canada 's ongoing commitment to transparency. At this time, Canada is pleased to 
announce that we currently intend to publish this information by 1 January  2021. The data will 
contain milk utilization by milk class and by month, including quantities sold, prices, and revenues 
for milk and each milk component. " 
  
Once this information is published, it will, at minimum, be published on a quarterly basis.   
 
Follow -up: The EU highligh ted its interest in understanding the pricing of different milk classes in 
Canada. New Zealand supported the question and would review the data and the report on milk 
classes which would be published next year. New Zealand had an ongoing interest in the 
implementation and subsequent elimination of milk classes 6 and 7 including the respective milk 
classes prices, utilization and sales. While New Zealand welcomed the elimination of milk class 6 as 
per the Canada -US agreement, it was disappointed to learn tha t Canada had reclassified  class 7 as 
class 4(a) and was therefore not convinced that the trade distorting effects of the Canadian special 
milk class programmes were resolved.   
 
Canada's TRQ consultation  process  
3.1.6.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95043)  
When does Canada expect to resume its TRQ consultation process?  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 228 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
On 1st May, in light of the significant impact that COVID -19 was having on participants/stakeholders, 
the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and Internation al Trade temporarily suspended the 
Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry 
and Egg Products (the Review).  This temporary suspension recognizes the impact the COVID -19 
situation was having on stakeh olders, allowing them to focus on other pressing issues and 
operational requirements.  
  
Once the  Review resumes, Canada will continue its outreach and engagement with 
stakeholders.  Officials will review all feedback and submit recommendations to the Minist er of Small 
Business, Export Promotion and International Trade for decision.  
  
While the exact timing for the resumption is currently unknown, the aim is to have final policies in 
place for January 2022.  
 
China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
3.1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95044)  
In relation to Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement between China and the United States, 
China has reportedly imported around USD  10 billion worth of US agricultural products (based on 
Chinese import data) i n the first six months since entry into force of Agreement. China 's monthly 
targets for agricultural purchases have never been reached, with actual purchases in the first three 
months reaching well under half of their targets, and in the second three month s only slightly above 
half of their monthly target. At this rate, Members can reasonably expect Chinese purchases of 
US agricultural products to reach less than half of the 2017 benchmark, and fall well under the target 
under the Agreement.  
 
Given this sit uation, Australia requests China provide answers to the following questions:  
 
a. Can China advise if all purchases made to date have been done so at market prices based 
on commercial considerations?   
i. and if all measures implemented to facilitate these purchas es have been applied on an 
MFN basis where relevant?   
ii. and if so, describe the method used to evaluate these considerations?  
b. Can China provide a disaggregated break down for purchases in the first six months of the 
Agreement for each agricultural product li sted in Annex 6.1 of the Agreement?  
c. Can China provide the current TRQ fill rates for wheat, rice and corn since 1 January 2020?   
i. and whether the TRQs will be filled or have high utilization levels in the remaining six 
months of 2020 to meet the purchase ta rgets?  
d. Has China changed or introduced new measures to facilitate purchases of US agricultural 
products beyond what is required in the Agreement, including:   
i. Advising Chinese SOEs to purchase increased volumes of US agricultural products?  
ii. Reducing applied tariffs for certain products?  
iii. Changing or removing non -tariff measures or amending the administration of imports?  
iv. Additional improvements to technical market access protocols?  
e. Is China planning any future changes or new measures to facilitate imports of 
US agricultural products to meet the purchase targets under the Agreement?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 229 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
a. All of China's agricultural imports from the United States are made under market 
conditions based on commercial considerations, and the administrative measures taken 
by China on the import of agricultural products are implemented on the basis of most -
favored -nation treatment.  
b. The data is being collected.  
c. The data is being collected.  
d. and e. To meet the growing demand of the Chinese people for a better life, China will, as 
always, encourage enterprises to import agricultural products from all trading partners in 
the world based on market conditions and commercial considerations.  
China - Measures adopted at the border  to avoid the transmission of COVID -19  
3.1.8.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95045)  
Australia notes China 's implementation of a number of measures at its border designed to avoid the 
transmission of COVID -19, including the testing of imported agricultural products and packaging for 
COVID -19. Australia is suppor tive of Members putting in place measures to control the spread of 
COVID -19 and we note the shared commitment to ensure emergency measures are targeted, 
proportionate, transparent, temporary, and that they do not create unnecessary barriers to trade or 
disruption to global supply chains and are consistent with WTO rules.   
 
With this in mind, could China kindly advise:  
 
a. the policy reason for these measures, noting the Food and Agriculture Organization  (FAO) 
and the World Health Organization (WHO) advice to d ate there is no scientific evidence 
that COVID -19 is transmissible on food or agricultural product?  
b. the policy considerations/thresholds for lifting these measures, including possible time 
frames to ensure agricultural trade is not unnecessarily impacted b y COVID -19? 
Answer by China  
 
Follow -up: Australia noted that it also posed questions to other Members on agricultural -related 
COVID -19 measures with the aim of better understanding these measures and their potential impact 
on agricultural trade. Despite it s understanding that the technical elements of China's COVID -19 
requirements of imported food products measures should be discussed at the SPS and 
TBT Committee, Australia noted the importance to discuss the policy drivers behind China's 
measures and belie ved that the Committee on Agriculture would be the appropriate forum for this 
discussion.  In light of the standing agenda item on COVID -19 in this Committee, Australia underlined 
the importance of considering all agricultural measures introduced in response to COVID -19 in one 
forum to assist with the understanding of the global response and resilience of agri -food supply chain 
and to aid the development of lessons learned. China viewed its measures as science and 
evidence -based and were adopted following the rules and recommendations of the FAO, WHO 
and OIE. China stated that since July, more than 10 COVID -19 positive cases had been detect ed in 
imported sea products and so far the cases had only been identified in food transported through 
cold-chain. China would remain vigilant in preventing the virus to spread from imported food to 
humans. The EU shard the concern raised by Australia and n oted that its arguments made in the 
other WTO Committees remained valid.  Brazil, Canada, New Zealand and the US registered interest 
in the matter. Brazil emphasized the need for transparency and stressed that Members affected by 
these measures should recei ve timely information to prevent disruptions to trade. Brazil also 
underscored that SPS measures should be based on science and international standards and 
guidelines and recommendations set by those standards. New Zealand underlined that measures 
imposed,  even emergency ones, should be proportionate to the need to mitigate a realistic risk. 
New Zealand acknowledged the extreme pressure brought by the current pandemic to countries but 
encouraged Members to stay firm in the commitment to the AOA and transpar ency and noted that 
formal notifications is a key obligation in this regard. The US noted its commitment to minimize G/AG/W/216  
 
- 230 - 
 
  non-trade barriers and looked forward to engaging on this issue in the SPS and TBT Committees. 
China stated its support for improving trans parency and removing trade restrictions to promote free 
and transparent trade during the pandemic and said that the delegate in the SPS Committee would 
provide more professional responses to the questions.   
 
China's agricultural exports by state -owned ente rprises  
3.1.9.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95023)  
For all agricultural products exported by state -owned enterprises:  
 
a. Please provide the average export price, average procurement price and the average 
representative domestic sales price as req uired by the ECQ in Table II.  If not available, 
please explain why not.  
b. Please list the export destination for rice and tobacco for year 2017; and for corn and 
cotton for years 2016 and 2017. If cannot provide, please explain why not?  
c. Please update the 202 0 ECQ with 2018 and 2019 data.   
Answer by China  
 
Follow -up: The EU looked forward to opportunities later to discuss the export competition 
questionnaire and transparency on STEs and their activities, in particular for those Members having 
support prices fo r products exported through STEs. Australia sought more information with respect 
to the role of China's STEs in the global market. China noted its commitment to transparency.  
 
3.1.9.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95024)  
According to customs data, China exported the following quantities of rice between 2017 -2020.  
 
Year 2017  2018  2019  2020 (January -June)  
Quantity Exported (Ton nes) 1,195,755  2,089,298  2,747,499  1,361,266  
 
a. Of these exports, how much (quantity) was exported by STEs?   
b. Of ex ports the exports by STEs, how much was previously held in public stocks?  If 
applicable, what year we re those stocks procured?   
Answer by China  
 
The data is being collected.  
 
Follow -up: The EU looked forward to opportunities later to discuss the export competition 
questionnaire and transparency on STEs and their activities, in particular for those Members having 
support prices for products exported through STEs. Australia sought more information with respect 
to the role of China's STEs  in the global market. China noted its commitment to transparency.  
 
3.1.9.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95025)  
The United States understands from China Customs Statistics that in 2017 China exported 4,000  MT 
of rice to Puerto Rico at a price of  USD 370/MT or 2,180 RMB/MT.  At this time, China offered a 
minimum support price of 2,600 RMB/MT for the same type of rice in an unmilled state 
(paddy).  During this same time, national average wholesale market prices for japonica milled rice 
were between 4 ,200 RMB/MT and 4,800 RMB/MT.   
 
In 2018 China exported 64,250 MT at a price of USD 352/MT, and 63,000 MT in 2019 at a price of 
USD 317/MT.  
 
Further, noting that China has stated in its STE notification that "Export prices of state trading 
enterprises are determined according to the prices of international market and the supply in domestic G/AG/W/216  
 
- 231 - 
 
  market, and by referring to the cost prices plus circulation expenses such as fees for warehousing, 
transportation, bank interests and inspection, etc. ":  
 
a. Please explain  why the price per MT of rice exports to Puerto Rico were significantly lower 
in 2018 and 2019 when compared to 2017, and why these export prices are so far below 
the minimum support price for rice.  
Answer by China  
 
The price of rice exported to Puerto Ric o is determined by the enterprise based on commercial 
considerations.  
 
Follow -up: The EU looked forward to opportunities later to discuss the export competition 
questionnaire and transparency on STEs and their activities, in particular for those Members ha ving 
support prices for products exported through STEs. Australia sought more information with respect 
to the role of China's STEs in the global market. China noted its commitment to transparency.  
 
EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
3.1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95046)  
Australia thanks for the EU for its response to question 94011, submitted for the 94th Committee on 
Agriculture. Australia notes the European Council has adopted regulation (EU) 2020/872 which 
allows member States to pay up to E UR 7,000 to farmers and up to EUR 50 ,000 to small and medium 
agri-businesses from remaining unspent rural development funds to assist in offsetting the effect of 
COVID -19 on farm businesses.  In addition to being time -limited, has the EU placed any other 
limitations on how this financial support can be provided while limiting the impacts on trade and 
third country markets?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Member States may pay up to EUR 7,000 to farmers and up to EUR 50,000 to small and medium 
sized agri-businesses under the following conditions:  
 
• Regulation (EU) 2020/872 has no new additional financial envelope risking to impact trade 
and third markets; it rather allows redistribution of remaining unspent rural development 
funds already provided for and programmed since the beginning of the 2014 -20 EAFRD 
programming period  
• A maximum of EUR 7,000 for farmers EUR 50,000 for small and medium sized 
agri-businesses are small amounts in absolute terms, indeed, less than  the "de minimis " 
limits set for state aid (in agriculture this is EUR 15,000 and for other types of enterprises 
EUR 200,000)  
• Their implementation is short in time as payments must be made executed by 31  June 2021 
at the latest  
• Finally, the eligibility criteria is a crisi s linked to an exceptional and unforeseen pandemic 
situation having a significant impact on turnover, growth and agricultural employment and 
aims exclusively at offsetting these  negative effects of COVID -19 on farm businesses and 
rural areas.  
 
3.1.10.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95047)  
On 16 July, the European Commission announced the approval of a EUR 1.2 billion Italian scheme  
to support companies active in agriculture, forestry, fishery, aquaculture and related sectors affected 
by the COVID -19 outbreak (G/A G/GEN/159/Add.1). The support measures will include direct grants, 
repayable advances, tax and payment advantages, reduction or cancellation of the payment of social 
security and welfare contributions, debt write -off and other payment facilities.  
 
a. What cri teria must a primary agriculture -related business meet to be eligible for support?   
b. Is an eligible individual company able to receive multiple forms of support (e.g. , a direct 
grant and tax advantages)?   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 232 - 
 
  c. What percentage of companies that have applied for t he scheme so far are involved in the 
primary agricultural sector?  
d. What is the percentage breakdown by measure of the support provided so far?   
Answer by European Union  
 
a. As the decision states in recital (3), the measure, "… aims to ensure that sufficient l iquidity 
remains available in the market, to counter the liquidity shortage faced by undertakings 
because of the outbreak, to ensure that the disruptions caused by the outbreak do not 
undermine the viability of the undertakings and thereby to preserve the continuity of 
economic activity during and after the outbreak. " Thus, the member States have to show 
that the crisis has had the effect of a serious disturbance of their economy, as required in 
Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Euro pean Union. Once that is the 
case, there is no need for checks at the level of individual beneficiaries.  
b. Yes, this is possible. However, the overall cumulated amount must not exceed the 
maximum amounts of EUR 800 000, EUR 120,000 or EUR 100,000 respectively (see 
recital  15). 
c. The figures are not currently available to the Commission. The overall spending under this 
measure will be reported in the annual state aid report (in 2021) and then be published 
by the Commission (Scoreboard). Moreover, the member States are under an obligation 
to publish information on each individual aid above EUR 100 000, and above EUR 10 000 in 
the agriculture and fisheries sector, on their dedicated website or a specific Commission 
website, see point 4. of the Temporary Framework. In addition, member States are 
required to notify national domestic support expenditure to the Commission under 
Article  13 of Commission Implementing Regulation  (EU) 2017/1185. The Commission will 
include such amounts in the relevant EU DS:1 not ification.  
d. Idem.  
European Union - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  
3.1.11.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95048)  
China welcomes the agreement reached between the United States and the European  Union on  
21 August, regarding the reduction of tariffs on certain agricultural and non -agricultural products, 
which has been announced to be made on an MFN basis. According to the joint statement by the 
USTR and EU Trade Commissioner, this package of tariff reducti ons is intended to mark "the 
beginning of a process that will lead to additional agreements that create more free, fair, and 
reciprocal transatlantic trade ". We therefore would like to seek transparency regarding this trade 
liberalization arrangement by as king the US and the EU to provide information regarding the import 
of the products concerned for the most recent three  years, including the trade volume and value of 
from each origin online  by line basis, which will be helpful for monitoring the implementa tion of the 
agreement and guarantee the positive effects on promoting bilateral trade and enhancing the 
multilateral trading system.   
 
Answer by European Union  
 
On 21 August 2020, European Trade Commissioner Hogan and US Trade Representative Lighthizer 
stated their intention to go ahead with a trade -facilitating package to eliminate or reduce customs 
duties for a small number of tariff lines covering EUR 168 million (approximatively USD 200 million) 
in EU and US exports.  
 
No agricultural products are concer ned by this agreement.  
 
The EU sees this initiative as a first step to de -escalate bilateral trade tensions and to support the 
settlement of on -going disputes. In substance, the EU proposes to eliminate a number of customs 
tariffs on lobster, while the US will provide duty relief for a comparable economic value on products 
such as prepared meals ("of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates"), certain crystal G/AG/W/216  
 
- 233 - 
 
  glassware, surface preparations, propellant powders, cigarette lighters and lighter par ts. The  US 
requested the tariff reduction for lobster in light of its declining exports of the product to Europe and 
the world.  
 
The tariff reductions are to be implemented in a fully WTO consistent manner and will respect 
the MFN principle.  
 
On 8 Septembe r, the European Commission formally adopted a proposal implementing the Joint 
Statement of 21 August 2020. The proposal has been published on the same day in the Commission's 
transparency register, in line with our commitment to transparency and good regul atory practices.  
The proposal for a regulation is subject to the EU's ordinary legislative procedure, which means that 
in order for the regulation to be adopted, both the EU's Parliament and Council will have to endorse 
the Commission's proposal. See also 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_1572 . 
 
Based on statistical data available, the EU estimates that the foregone customs duties due to tariff 
liberal isation for the products covered by the tariff lines represent on the EU side some 
EUR 5.3 million euro s in duties collected from the US (average 2017 -19 period).  
 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do?locale=en#en . 
 
EU - national state aid programmes in response to COVID -19  
3.1.12.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95049)  
A number of European Union member States have announced national state aid programmes 
dedicated to the agriculture sector in response to the COVID -19 crisis.  With respect to the specific 
programmes listed below, we would like to know i) how much of the allocated amount has already 
been distributed to farmers, and ii) what have be en the assessed impacts on current and future 
production levels and prices for the products concerned?  
 
a. Ireland's support for the beef sector (EUR 50 million)  SA.58 ,387; 
b. Lithuania's support for bovine animal and milk producers (EUR 30.5 million) SA.57 ,514; 
c. Slovenia's support for meat and dairy (tba) SA.57 ,139 and SA.57 ,140; 
d. Netherlands' support for the potato sector (EUR 50 million) SA.57 ,217; 
e. Belgium's support for the potato sector (EUR 10  million) SA.58 ,014. 
Answer by European Union  
 
Ad i) and a), b), c) d) and e)  
The figures are not currently available to the Commission. The overall spending under this measure 
will be reported in the annual state aid report (in 2021) and then be published by the Commission 
(Scoreboard). Moreover, the member States are under an obligation to publish information on each 
individual aid above EUR 100 000, and above EUR 10 000 in the agriculture and fisheries sector, on 
their dedicated website or a specific Commission website, see point 4. of the Temporary Framework. 
In addi tion, member States are required to notify national domestic support expenditure to the 
Commission under Article 13 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1185. The 
Commission will include such amounts in the relevant EU DS:1 notification.  
 
Ad ii)  and a), b) c) d) and e)  
The Commission is not in a position to evaluate systematically all State aid measures. Only measures 
with a specifically high budget are selected for an ex-ante evaluation and ex post evaluations are 
assessed on a sample basis once  the measure has been carried out.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 234 - 
 
  Ad c)  
These are promotion schemes under the European Union Guidelines on State aid in the agricultural 
and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 2020, and not under the Temporary Framework for 
State aid due to the Coronavirus crisis.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand looked forward to the annual state aid report in 2021 and recalled the 
importance of measures in response to the COVID -19 pandemic being proportional to risk, 
time-limited, transparent and consistent with WTO agreements.   
 
EU - France and Italy's  support for the wine sector  
3.1.13.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95050)  
With respect to support announced for the French and Italian wine sectors, can the EU please clarify 
whether these funds are state aid, or whether t his funding comes from existing national support 
budgets, and similarly to New Zealand's previous question outline i) how much of the allocated 
amount has already been distributed, and ii) what have been the assessed impacts on current and 
future productio n levels and prices for wine?  
 
a. France's support for the wine sector (EUR 246 million);  
b. Italy's support for the wine sector (EUR 100 million).  
Answer by European Union  
 
This measure  is temporarily available under the national support programmes (Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/592 of 30 April 2020 on temporary exceptional measures 
derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to address the market 
disturbance in the fruit and vegetables and wine sectors caused by the COVID -19 pandemic and 
measures linked to it, OJ L 140, 4.5.2020, p. 6).  
 
The financing of EU support is within the existing national envelopes. No extra funds are granted. 
France and Italy h ave included the measure crisis distillation in their national programmes with for 
France a total maximum financial allocation of around EUR 130 million and a total volume planned 
for distillation (industrial and energy purposes) of 2 600 000 hl. For Italy , the maximum amount is 
EUR 28 million for a planned volume of 1 000 000 hl.  
 
In addition, Italy and France have been authorised to finance crisis distillation under Article 216 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 with national support only. France plans to di still under this measure 
1.1 million hl ( EUR 84 million) and Italy 84 000 hl ( EUR 4 million).  
 
The actual uptake of the measures under the National Support Programme or the national crisis 
distillation is not yet known. It will depend on the wine operators  themselves. They are free to 
participate or not in such operations. Member States report expenditure only after the measure has 
been implemented, controlled and paid.  
 
The aim of the measure is to remove a surplus from the market (wine which has not been consumed 
because of the closure of HORECA establishments and cancellations of all private and public events) 
during the COVID crisis lockdown and to free up storage for the new 2020 harvest. This would also 
lessen the pressure on the price for wine, even t hough the direct price effect is difficult to determine 
because the wine market is very diverse and different segments have different price levels. Thus, 
these measures have an intended impact on the current supply removing produced volumes from 
the market  but not on the actual wine production itself.  
 
As for the future production level, those are mostly determined by the system of planting 
authorisations (limitation of planted areas) and limitations laid down in the specifications for 
PDO/PGI wines (limits  of yield). Therefore , the measures at stake do not have an impact on future 
production levels.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted its interest to continue monitoring the EU's state aid. Brazil 
appreciated the EU's efforts in transparency and registered concern  with the continued increase of 
new DS programmes in response to COVID -19. Brazil noted that several other programmes could G/AG/W/216  
 
- 235 - 
 
  be added to the list presented by New Zealand, such as Italy's support to olive farmers and olive oil 
producers and COVID -19 aid to Maltese farmers. Some of the programmes needed to be approved 
by the European Commission but some appeared to fall within each member State's discretionary 
power. Brazil cited the media reports which referred to Netherlands as the biggest spender so far 
with EUR 650 million support for horticultural and potato producers, followed by Czech Republic and 
Hungary with total expenditure of EUR 433 million and EUR 413 million respectively. Australia and 
Canada registered interest in the EU's expenditure on COVID -19 response measures. Australia 
sought to understand the various measures' specific impact to each of the sectors mentioned in this 
question and in AG -IMS ID 95049. Switzerland asked the EU how the additional payments influenced 
the prices of exported wine . The EU noted that it had been one of the most transparent Members as 
it had reported all its measures adopted in response to COVID -19 as well as the maximum amount 
of support it could foresee. The EU hoped to see the same level of openness and transparen cy from 
all Members including those which took the floor earlier. In response to Switzerland's question on 
the measure's effect on wine prices, the EU noted that it expected only limited price decreases within 
the EU market.   
 
EU's environmental policies  
3.1.14.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 95116)  and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 95098)  
In its responses to questions AG -IMS IDs 93300 and 93301 from Colombia and Paraguay, the 
European Union (EU) indicated that it was not in a position to submit specific answers to the 
questions raised, owing to the fact that Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2021 -2027 reform and 
the Farm to Fork Strategy are currently being debated by the European Parliament and Council.  
 
Considering that the launch of the CAP 2021 -2027 is imminent, and that  the financial resources 
approved under the CAP are important for the financing of the measures set out in the Farm to Fork 
Strategy13, Colombia and Paraguay request the EU to indicate the estimated dates for the approval 
of the final version of the CAP 20 21-2027. Moreover, we wish to stress that, once sufficient details 
are available, we hope that the EU will be able to provide specific answers to our questions submitted 
under items AG -IMS IDs 93300 and 93301.  
 
a. Question  93239 – European production subsidie s resulting from the implementation of 
SPS measures:  
In its response to question AG -IMS ID 93060, the EU indicated that " it is not able to answer the first 
question as it does not hold data at such level of detail " and that  "concerning the second question,  
(…) the EU is not able to answer the question raised until  more precise information from Paraguay 
as to the specific measures referred to ". 
 
Further to these responses, we wish to know whether:  
 
b. The EU would be able to provide data on the total amount of subsidies to be received, the 
average subsidy per capita and an indicative list of the products that may benefit from 
such subsidies.  
c. The EU could confirm to us that the second response should be taken to mean that none 
of the other 26 EU members  have introduced or are planning to introduce similar subsidies 
(as compensation for the non -use of certain pesticides).   
Answer by European Union  
  
Question AG -IMS IDs 93300 and 93301:  
 
As regards the "financial resources approved ", whilst the European Co uncil came to a political 
agreement on 21  July 2020 (see https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/45109/210720 -euco-
final-conclusions -en.pdf ), the for mal decision on the EU multiannual financial framework for 
2021-2027 still needs to be taken by the European Parliament and the Council jointly who are 
currently engaged in negotiations. It is expected that an agreement will be reached before the end 
of 2020. 
 
13 Farm to Fork S trategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally -friendly food system, pages 8 and 11.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 236 - 
 
  For the detailed rules of the new CAP, discussions are ongoing on the basis of the proposal made 
in 2018. The co -legislators, Council and the European Parliament are planning to finalise their 
respective positions during October 2020, and thereafter ne gotiations between them will begin. How 
long this will take cannot be predicted at this stage. For the 2014 -2020 CAP, for instance, such 
negotiations took more than six months. Once an agreement is reached, the relevant legal texts will 
have to be adopted by European Parliament and the Council. Thereafter, member States will draft 
their Strategic Plans, which will have to be approved by the European Commission before member 
States can implement them, so that farmers apply for support.  
Given this situation of these negotiations on the new CAP, a proposal for a "transitional regulation " 
to keep the rules of the current CAP in force for a temporary period is under discussion between 
European Parliament and the Council. The proposal for this transitional regula tion is to extend the 
current rules for one year, namely 2021, however the length of this period is still under discussion 
between the co -legislators.  
 
Question AG -IMS ID 93239:  
 
b. The answer referred to in this question related to a specific measure unde r a Rural Development 
programme. The EU is not able to provide the information requested in the original question asked 
in AG -IMS ID 93239, since there is no requirement under EU law to collect such data for this 
measure.  
 
c. Luxembourg is the only EU mem ber State with a Rural Development measures for a specific 
phytosanitary product. Under agri -environmental measures all member States' Rural Development 
programmes include a range of measures to limit the use of phyto -sanitary products. For instance, 
buffer zones near waterways or in wetlands where use of such products needs to be eliminated or 
significantly reduced, measures for steppe bird protection, reduction in the use of herbicides in 
permanent crops etc. Also, France has a scheme in its Rural Develop ment programme to support 
farmers who reduce their use of phytosanitary products (whether herbicides or non -herbicides). The 
scheme does not cover any particular product or brand but it requires farmers to make a reduction 
of 40 -50% in their use of phytosa nitary products. In addition, the Italian Rural Development 
programmes include support for the limitation or replacement of chemical phytosanitary products.  
Given the legislation for the future Rural Development programming period is still under discussio n 
between the EU co -legislators, it is not possible to state definitively what measures might be 
provided for in future. Nevertheless, should information on further measures become available, the 
EU is ready to respond to questions.  
 
3.1.14.2   Question by Paraguay ( AG-IMS ID 95097)  
At the last session of the CoA, the delegation of Paraguay, in its questions AG ‑IMS IDs 93059 
and 93238, asked the EU detailed questions regarding the draft European Green Deal and Carbon 
Adjustment Mechanism. At the time, the EU responded  that: 
 
"The EU is not in a position to elaborate further on the very detailed questions from Paraguay, which 
could only be answered if and when a formal proposal is adopted  and agreed  by the 
EU co‑legislators ". 
 
While we understand that the level of detail sought in the questions is not yet available, we would 
like to know whether:  
 
a. The EU is in a position to provide an approximate time frame for the various periods of 
this legislative process.  
b. The abovementioned sentence found in the reply should be interpreted as meaning that 
only the final measure, and not a draft thereof, will be notified.  
We would like to emphasize our hope that the EU will be able to answer our detailed questions under 
AG‑IMSID s 93059 and 93238 once sufficient details a re available.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 237 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
Ad a)  
For the moment, no formal decision has been taken to introduce a carbon border adjustment 
mechanism (CBAM). While the concept of a CBAM is included in the Commission communication on 
the Green Deal (COM(2019)  640 final), and options on this have been described in the Commission 's 
Inception Impact Assessment on the issue of CBAM , no legal proposal has yet been made. The latter 
is expected in the second quarter of 2021. Therefore, the EU is not in a position to  elaborate further 
on the very detailed questions from Paraguay, which could only be answered when a formal proposal 
is adopted, and then agreed by the EU co -legislators - the Council and the European Parliament.  
  
As regards the Just Transition Fund, the headline budget amount was only agreed by the European 
Council on 21 July 2020. The final details and legal texts on allowances to be granted, programme 
types and amounts to be paid are still to be decided, and the questions asked can therefore not be 
answered at this stage.  
 
Ad b)  
The EU scrupulously respect its obligations to notify. The WTO rules for DS:2 measures only require 
notification after a change has taken place to Blue and Green Box support. Should the legal texts 
agreed by the co -legislators on  the Green Deal and Farm to Fork lead to notification obligations 
concerning market access, TBT or SPS, then the EU will also fulfil these obligations.  
 
Ad c)  
The EU is looking forward to exchange views with all Members when more detailed and precise 
proposals has been adopted and agreed by the co -legislators.   
 
Follow -up: Paraguay asked the EU to confirm if it was not in position to provide an approximate 
timeline for the various periods of this legislative process. The EU repeated its response that the 
proposal would be expected to be ready in the second quarter of 2021 and the timeline for adoption 
of the proposal by the council and the parliament would depend on the discussions between the EU 
member States, and the co -legislators.   
 
EU's intervention policy  
3.1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95026)  
The EU notes in several AG -IMS responses that the EU makes efforts to avoid any disturbance of 
the market when disposing of skim milk powder (SMP) public intervention stocks.  As pre viously 
mentioned, this principle is also captured in EU Regulation No . 1308.2013, Article 16 (1).  
 
a. Please describe in detail the process that the EU goes through to determine if release of 
stocks will create market disturbance.  
b. Does the EU estimate the price effect on foreign markets, and if so, what factors does the 
EU consider in its calculation?   
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU notes that the US focuses solely on the disposal of EU intervention schemes. Under the US 
logic, there would be  an equal effect in the opposite direction during the buying -in period. We note 
no question has been submitted on that effect.  
All effects on the markets – both internally as well as world market, is taken into consideration, both 
during the buying in proc ess as well as during disposal of EU intervention stock s. 
 
Ad a)  
The EU Commission continuously monitors market developments with the help of the Milk Market 
Observatory Economic board and the Committee on Agricultural Markets. In a tender procedure to 
determine the minimum selling price of public stocks, a market discussion is held between the 
Commission and member States to make sure the decision taken is in line with the legal requirement 
of avoiding any disturbance on the market.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 238 - 
 
  Ad b)  
No, the EU does not make an exact possible price effect calculation of the disposal of intervention 
stocks, whether on the internal or external market. The prices and quantities accepted under each 
tender are determined by the offers received from operators, legal require ments and overall 
assessment of the market condition.   
 
Follow -up: New Zealand appreciated the efforts by the EU to clear the intervention stocks and noted 
that the EU had not intervened for the last two year due the intervention price being set at 0. 
New Zealand shared the U.S. concern regarding the effects of clearing the intervention stock and 
encouraged the EU to consider structural reform and to eventually remove farmers' reliance on the 
market price support. Given the size of the EU in the global agri culture system and the level of 
support the EU had provided to its agricultural sector, Australia and Ukraine cautioned against the 
impact of the EU's policies to the market and encouraged the EU to continue providing detailed 
information on all the measur es being reviewed in this Committee.  
 
3.1.15.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95027)  
In the EU 's response to AG -IMS ID 92006, the EU stated that "The prices at which the SMP in public 
intervention was sold in 2018 and 2019 were in line with market reality, taking into account the 
ageing of the product and therefore its relative loss of commercial value (not the intrinsic quality of 
the product). " 
 
a. Please describe what the EU understands to be the relationship between the age of SMP 
and the value of the commercial product.   
b. Please describe exactly how the ageing of the product and/or the quality of the product 
was taken into consideration in the tendering process.  For example, how did it affect any 
minimum or maximum selling prices?  Please also provid e data on the actual prices of stock 
sales in each year.   
c. Did the age of the SMP at the time of the stock sales affect whether it was sold for use in 
food versus animal feed, either for domestic or international sales?  If so, please explain.  
d. For each year,  please provide a breakdown (actual or estimates) of how much SMP was 
sold for food use versus animal feed, both for domestic and international sales.  
e. For each year, please indicate the quantity of SMP sold by the age of the SMP at the time 
of the stock sa les.  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. Despite the qualitative characteristics of the product remaining intact, there is 
nevertheless a commercial price difference between freshly produced powder and powder 
of a certain age. In a scenario of product availability, operators are not willing to pa y the 
same price for a 1 -2 year old product than for a freshly produced one and some users 
even impose age limits or "must be produced before " dates on their buying of SMP.  
b. There is no precise formula to deduct the market price in relation to the age of t he product. 
The Commission, together with member States, analysed the range of prices offered by 
operators, in the light of prevailing domestic and world prices. On the basis of this analysis, 
a decision was taken on the minimum selling price and, conseque ntly, on the volume 
released to the market.   
c. The stocks are not sold for any specific use.  
d. The Commission does not have this information. There is no condition on the final use of 
the stocks sold.  
e. See the table below in conjunction with the one in reply to  question b)  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 239 - 
 
  Follow -up: New Zealand appreciated the efforts by the EU to clear the intervention stocks and noted 
that the EU had not intervened for the last two year due the intervention price being set at 0. New 
Zealand shared the U.S. concern regarding t he effects of clearing the intervention stock and 
encouraged the EU to consider structural reform and to eventually remove farmers' reliance on the 
market price support. Given the size of the EU in the global agriculture system and the level of 
support the  EU had provided to its agricultural sector, Australia and Ukraine cautioned against the 
impact of the EU's policies to the market and encouraged the EU to continue providing detailed 
information on all the measures being reviewed in this Committee.   
 
3.1.15.3   Ques tion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95028)  
Please provide annual production, domestic consumption, and export data for the EU 's SMP 
from 2016-2019.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
As indicated in several previous replies to similar questions in this Com mittee the figures on EU 
consumption and export can be found on the following webpages : 
 
https://ec.europa.eu/inf o/food -farming -fisheries/farming/facts -and-
figures/markets/production/production -sector_en . 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food -farming -fisheries/farming/facts -and-figures/markets/outlook/short -
term_en  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/ sites/info/files/food -farming -fisheries/farming/documents/short -term-
outlook -statistical -annex_en.pdf , p 12.  
  
Follow -up: New Zealand appreciated the efforts by the EU to clear the intervention stocks and noted 
that the EU had not intervened for the last t wo year due the intervention price being set at 0. New 
Zealand shared the U.S. concern regarding the effects of clearing the intervention stock and 
encouraged the EU to consider structural reform and to eventually remove farmers' reliance on the 
market pri ce support. Given the size of the EU in the global agriculture system and the level of 
support the EU had provided to its agricultural sector, Australia and Ukraine cautioned against the 
impact of the EU's policies to the market and encouraged the EU to co ntinue providing detailed 
information on all the measures being reviewed in this Committee.   
 
3.1.15.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95029)  
Please provide an update on current EU SMP stock levels.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
There are currently no EU public stocks of SMP. See the following web -page:  
  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -fisheries/farming/documents/eu -milk-
internal -measu res-stocks_en.pdf . 
 
Follow -up: New Zealand appreciated the efforts by the EU to clear the intervention stocks and noted 
that the EU had not intervened for the last two year due the intervention price being set at 0. 
New Zealand shared the U.S. concern rega rding the effects of clearing the intervention stock and 
encouraged the EU to consider structural reform and to eventually remove farmers' reliance on the 
market price support. Given the size of the EU in the global agriculture system and the level of 
support the EU had provided to its agricultural sector, Australia and Ukraine cautioned against the 
impact of the EU's policies to the market and encouraged the EU to continue providing detailed 
information on all the measures being reviewed in this Committee.   
 
EU's variable import levies for cereals  
3.1.16.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95001)  
Throughout the year, Brazil has noted that the EU has applied variable import levies in order to 
maintain minimum import prices for several types of several cereals.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 240 - 
 
  In the li ght of the above, could the EU answer the following questions:  
 
a. How many times has the EU changed its applied tariffs for cereals since January 2020?  
b. How does the UE makes such changes publicly available to the private sector?  
c. Does these changes have an im mediate effect? Is there any specific treatment to 
shipments en route?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The EU has changed the tariffs for maize, sorghum and rye seven times. These changes 
were made in full respect of the EUs ' obligations as contained in its WTO schedule 
commitment headnote  5.  
b. The EU makes such changes publicly available including through both the EU Official 
Journal ( https://eur -lex.europa.eu/oj/direct -access.html ) and the European Commission 
News service ( https://ec.europa.eu/info/news ). 
c. The EU Regulations concerned enter into force on the day of publication in the Official 
Journal of the European Union: this implies immedia te effect. There is no specific 
treatment as regards goods 'en route '. However, all operators in the cereals trade with the 
EU are aware of how cereals import duties are calculated and they can change. 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 sets out the ru les and parameters for the 
calculation of duties.   
Follow -up: Paraguay registered interest in the topic. Australia reiterated its interest in improving 
how Members implement tariff changes for shipment on route. In Australia's view, Members were 
entitled t o change tariffs within the bound rates, but the changes should be communicated in a 
transparent and timely manner to avoid negative impact to traders. The EU stated that its applied 
tariff regime on cereals, based on world reference prices, originated in the Blair House agreement 
reached with the US during the Uruguay Round as reflected in the Headnote 5 of the EU 's Goods 
Schedule (Section 1A). Since January 2020, the applied duties on cereals have accordingly changed 
seven times based on an automatic mechanism. The EU also considered that the shipment en route 
discussions in the agriculture market access negotiatio ns was not relevant to the EU situation as 
changes in applied duty on cereals were based on pre -defined parameters and businesses could 
easily predict and adapt to those changes.  
 
India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
3.1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95051)  
Australia would like to follow -up with India on question AG-IMS ID 93065, submitted for the 
93rd Committee on Agriculture, with respect to India 's Transport and Marketing Assistance  (TMA) 
Scheme.  India did not respond to any of Australia 's clear questions in AG-IMS ID 93065 with respect 
to the TMA and how it is consistent with the Nairobi Decision.  Australia kindly requests India provide 
answers to the following questions:  
 
a. What was the average level of export subsidies provided for those produ cts covered by 
the TMA for the past five years?  
b. What steps and assessments has India undertaken in the development of the TMA to 
ensure it is consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decision and has at most, a 
minimal trade distorting effect on other Members?  
c. Does India believe Paragraphs 9 through 11 are not applicable to India?  
i. If so, why not?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 241 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition allows developing countries to provide export 
subsidies under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture until the end of year 2023.  
 
Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture clearly states that during the implementation period, 
developing country Members shall not be required to undertake commitments in respect of the 
export subsi dies listed in subparagraphs (d) and (e) of paragraph 9.1  of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
 
India has previously clarified that the Transport and Marketing Assistance scheme aims to provide 
assistance for the international component of freight and for the  marketing of agricultural produce, 
and therefore, it is compliant with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
 
India's sugar policies  
3.1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95053)  
As Members are aware, India 's support to its sugar industry is of significant interes t to Australia, 
and is currently subject to a dispute settlement process. As we have outlined in that dispute process 
and in this Committee over many years, when measured against the AoA rules India appears to 
provide substantial trade - and production -distorting support to its sugar industry.   
 
This support continues to be provided, with India announcing an increase in its Fair and 
Remunerative Price (FRP) for sugarcane in August from Rs.2750/tonne to Rs. 2850/tonne. We also 
understand from reports, includi ng the NITI Aayog taskforce report, that India may once again 
increase its minimum domestic sugar price (currently known as the 'minimum support price for 
sugar ' or MSP) by Rs.2 to Rs. 33 per kilogram.  
 
In addition to the continuation of these two measures , Australia notes that India has also fixed 
remunerative prices for ethanol, which in recent years have been differentiated on the basis of the 
raw material utilized including certain types of molasses (C -heavy and B -heavy), sugarcane juice, 
sugar and suga r syrup. While Australia is supportive of India 's efforts to promote and advance 
ethanol production and usage, this is not a substitute for undertaking meaningful reforms to address 
the underlying overproduction of sugar fuelled by subsidies. This is suppo rted by the recent NITI 
Aayog taskforce report that states, 'By mandating OMCs (Oil Marketing Companies) to procure 
ethanol under the EBP (Ethanol Blended Petrol) programme at fixed prices, the government has 
effectively been subsidising the sugar industry .' 
 
These three measures combined effectively mean India is fixing prices at three stages in the 
sugarcane/sugar production process. The sugarcane FRP and sugar MSP have both consistently led 
to significant overproduction of highly subsidised sugar in Indi a, leading to India 's implementation 
of export quotas for sugar. We are disappointed to read reports that India will likely once again 
introduce an export quota for sugar of 7 million tonnes for the 2020 -21 sugar season to deal with 
this overproduction.   
 
Australia therefore requests the Indian delegation respond to the following questions relevant to the 
2020-21 sugar season:  
 
a. Will the MSP for sugar be increased? If so, to what price?  
b. What is India 's current sugar export forecasts for the 2020 -21 sugar sea son? 
c. Will India implement an export quota? If so, will it be supported by other subsidies?  
Australia is also interested in the fixed remunerative ethanol prices. As we have made clear to India 
and other Members, we are not against India developing a sustainable, market -oriented sugar sector 
– which may include an ethanol production sector. And indeed, we would hope such measures would 
contribute to a reduction in the excess sugar in India – and remove the need for export quotas.  
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 242 - 
 
  In this  regard, can India please respond to the following questions:  
 
d. What is India 's forecast sugarcane and sugar production in tonnes for the 2020 -21 sugar 
season?  
e. What is the current cane arrears owed by millers? (In Indian Rupees);  
f. What is the expected amount  in tonnes of sugarcane and sugar that will be diverted to 
ethanol production in the 2020 -21 sugar season?  
g. Will millers be provided any additional support for the increased costs associated with 
diverting sugarcane and its derivatives to ethanol?  
i. Will this  support be contingent on complying with any other orders or directives in the 
sugarcane or sugar sector?  
h. What is the policy objective of the fixed remunerative prices for ethanol?  
i. Is it primarily to improve liquidity of millers that owe arrears payments t o farmers 
pursuant to the sugarcane FRP?   
ii. If not, what are the other policy objectives of this measure?  
iii. Do OMCs pay the fixed remunerative prices to sugar millers?   
iv. Do OMCs get paid a subsidy to cover possible arrears from paying the fixed 
remunerative pri ces? 
i. Will India notify these ethanol support measures in its Domestic Support notifications?  
Answer by India  
 
We thank Australia for their question, and our response is as follows:  
 
a. No such decision has been taken by the government of India so far.  
  
b. The government of India has not made a sugar export forecast for the 2020 -21 sugar season.  
  
c. No decision has been taken by the government of India in this regard.  
  
d. The sugarcane production in India during the 2020 -21 sugar season is projected to be 3,900  Lakh 
metric tonnes, of which 3 ,000 Lakh metric tonnes is expected to be crushed by sugar mills to produce 
about 305 Lakh metric tonnes of sugar.  
  
e. The cane arrears o wed by millers as on date are Rs. 15,662 crore.  
  
f. The estimated diversion of sugar for ethanol production in the 2020 -21 sugar season is expected 
to be about 20 Lakh metric tonnes. This works out to around 22 Lakh metric tonnes of sugarcane.  
  
g. No.  
  
h. The government fixes the price of ethanol to encourage sugar mills to plan the diversion of 
intermediate sugar products.  
 
i. India will notify the support, as required, in its relevant notification.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, the EU, Colombia, Costa Rica, a nd Ukraine flagged interest in India's sugar policies 
and their compliance with the WTO agreements. The EU raised concern regarding India's possible 
increase in sugar support price from 31 to 33 rupees/kg and the possible increase in export quota 
for 2020/ 21.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 243 - 
 
  
India - Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund  
3.1.19.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95054)  
On 12 May, Prime Minister Modi announced a special economic and support package, which included 
a variety of capacity building measures for the agricultur e and food processing sectors.  One measure 
announced was the establishment of an Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund which 
aims to support private investment in dairy processing, value addition and cattle feed infrastructure. 
The announcement noted 'incentives will be given for establishing plants for export of niche 
products '. Could India please provide further details of the incentives which will be provided for 
establishing plants for the export of niche products, including:  
 
i. what products will qualify; and  
ii. what are the incentives?  
Answer by India  
 
The Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund (AHIDF) aims to facilitate investments for 
the establishment of infrastructure for dairy and meat processing. Incentives under the sch eme 
include interest subvention on loans advanced to the sector.  
 
India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund   
3.1.20.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95055)  
On 9 August, Prime Minister Modi announced an Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF) which is a 
medium -long term debt financing facility for investment projects for post -harvest management 
infrastructure and community farming assets, including to enable the  agriculture sector to be 
competitive with global levels. The scheme guidelines for the AIF note that eligible projects include 
providing supply chain infrastructure for 'clusters of crops including export clusters '. 
 
a. Could India please provide further det ails of how financing will be provided for the projects; 
including:  
i. What crops fall within the definition of 'export cluster '? 
Answer by India  
 
The Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF) has been announced in 2020 for funding Agriculture 
Infrastructure Proj ects at farm gate and aggregation points including Primary Agricultural 
cooperative Societies, Farmers Producer Organizations, Agriculture entrepreneurs, start -ups. This is 
a central sector scheme for mobilizing a medium – long term debt financing facility  for investment 
in viable projects relating to post -harvest management infrastructure and community farming assets 
in order to improve agriculture infrastructure in the country.  
 
Under AIF, projects have been identified for providing supply chain infrastru cture for export clusters 
of crops like fruits, vegetables etc. The programme does not identify any specific commodities. 
(Answered in AG-IMS ID 98093)  
 
Follow -up: Canada registered interest in receiving further information on the programme.  
 
India's pulse s policies  
3.1.21.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95052)  
With respect to India's restrictive pulses measures, Australia acknowledges that India has referred 
Members to India's statement at the June 2020 Council for Trade in Goods. In that aforementioned 
statemen t, India said that its understanding of the 'interplay' between Article XI of the GATT and 
Article 4.2 of the AoA was that quantitative restrictions (QRs) were never required to be tariffied 
under the Uruguay Round negotiations, hence the prohibition of QR s in Article 4.2 of the AoA does G/AG/W/216  
 
- 244 - 
 
  not apply. Article 4.2 of the AoA states: "Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any 
measures of the kind which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties 
[footnote 1], except as otherwise  provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5 ". Footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of 
the AoA clearly states that "These measures include quantitative import restrictions… " This is 
unambiguous and Members will agree that this clearly disciplines quantitative restrictions,  temporary 
or otherwise.  
 
a. Can India please explain the purpose and drafting of footnote 1, if it were not to strictly 
capture QRs under Article 4.2? With respect to the other questions in AG -IMS ID 93058, 
India appears to have asked Members to refer to its  statement at the CTG in 
June.  Australia has reviewed the statement and understands from India's statement that 
it is justifying the other measures questioned as being consistent under the general 
exceptions under Article XX of the GATT 1994. If this is co rrect, can India please provide 
responses in this Committee to the following further questions:  
b. Under what specific provision of Article XX of the GATT 1994 does India justify:  
i. the restriction of pea imports to only one specific port?  
ii. the minimum import pr ice for peas?  
iii. the restriction of additional imports of Urad to only Indian millers and refiners?  
iv. such a limited period for applications to be submitted for Urad imports?  
c. Can India explain how each measure in question B) conforms to the specific provision o f 
Article XX of the GATT 1994?   
Answer by India  
 
India has stated the legal basis of its measures pertaining to quantitative restrictions on certain 
varieties of pulses previously in response to the questions raised by Members in Committees on 
Market Access and the Committee on Trade in Goods. India has taken these measures in exercise 
of Article XX (General Exceptions) of the GATT 1994.  
 
We request Members to refer to India's responses and statements on this subject, as made in the 
Committees on Marke t Access and the CTG.  
 
Follow -up: Australia stated that the answers provided by India in other Committees did not address 
the specific questions it raised under AGIMS ID 95052 and requested India to provide detailed 
responses to all those questions, inclu ding all the points under part b. Canada requested India, 
rather than pointing to statements made in other Committees, to upload the statements to AGIMS. 
The EU echoed Australia and Canada's comments. Russian Federation looked forward to India's 
replies to  part a and b of its question 95057. The US and Ukraine added their support to the questions 
raised by Australia, Canada and the Russian Federation.  
 
3.1.21.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95056)  
Quantitative Restrictions on Pulses  In reply to Canada 's questions AG-IMS IDs 93066 and  93283, 
India referred Canada to its statement at the 11 June 2020 meeting of the Council for Trade in 
Goods, regarding its quantitative restrictions on pulses. Canada asks India to kindly directly answer 
the question for the benefit of t his committee, or to share a copy of the statement it made to the 
Council for Trade in Goods to encourage transparency.  
 
Answer by India  
 
We request Canada to refer to India 's statement on this matter, as available in the minutes of the 
meetings of the Council for Trade in Goods.   
 
Follow -up: Australia stated that the answers provided by India in other Committees did not address 
the specific questions it raised under AGIMS ID 95052 and requested India to provide detailed G/AG/W/216  
 
- 245 - 
 
  responses to all those questions,  including all the points under part b.  Canada requested India, 
rather than pointing to statements made in other Committees, to upload the statements to AG -IMS. 
The EU echoed Australia and Canada's comments. Russian Federation looked forward to India's 
replies to part  a and b of its question 95057. The US and Ukraine added their support to the questions 
raised by Australia, Canada and the Russian Federation.   
 
3.1.21.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 95057)  
We thank India for its answers to questions (AG -IMS-ID 93067, AG -IMS-ID 93229).   
 
In the answer to question AG -IMS-ID 93229 India correctly indicated that for the year 2020 -2021 
quota for peas was the same as in previous years. This emphasizes one more time that the quota 
regime remained in force for sev eral consecutive years, while when in 2018 India introduced quota 
in the first time, India presented it as temporary measure.  
 
a. The Russian Federation refers to the fact that total quota for peas is 1.5 Lakh MT for the 
year 2020 -2021. Please, confirm that t he share of yellow peas in total quota for peas is 
zero and thus import of yellow peas is prohibited. If import of yellow peas is allowed, 
please, indicate under which quota and on what conditions yellow peas can be imported 
into India.  
b. The Russian Federat ion would appreciate if India could provide clarification on how the 
minimum import price for peas is applied in addition to the answers to questions 
AG-IMS ID 93067, AG -IMS ID 93229. Please describe what options the importer will have 
if the price of peas  is lower than the required price. Will it be allowed for the importer to 
sell such peas or not? In case of the denial, will there be an opportunity for the importer 
to appeal it? How the measure is consistent with the provisions outlaid in Article 4 of th e 
Agreement on Agriculture and principles of fare calculation of actual value as it is 
prescribed by the Article VII:2 of the GATT?  
c. In its answer to questions AG -IMS ID 93067 and AG -IMS ID 93229 India referred to its 
statement at the meeting of the Council  on Trade in Goods regarding the necessity of 
applying the measures on peas in order to remove any surplus of pulses, as permitted 
under Article XI:2(c)(ii) of the GATT, and to protect public morals and human, animal or 
plant life or health in India, as pr ovided in Article XX(a) and (b) of the GATT. In this regard, 
the Russian Federation has the following questions:  On Article XI:2(c)(ii) of the GATT:  
d. The Russian Federation would like to emphasize that after Agreement on Agriculture came 
in force, Article X I:2(c)(ii) ceased to apply to agricultural products. Could India, please, 
explain why does it use Article XI:2(c)(ii) for justification of quotas on peas when this 
Article does not longer apply to peas?  On Article XX of the GATT:  
e. Could India, please, expla in in what way restrictions on import of pulses do provide 
protection to public morals and human, animal or plant life or health?  
f. Has India considered using less trade restrictive measures with respect to import of yellow 
peas?  
Answer by India  
 
Regarding questions a) and b) – we will provide the response in due course.  
 
Regarding questions c to f, our response is that India has stated the legal basis of its measures 
pertaining to quantitative restrictions on certain varieties of pulses previously  in response to the 
questions raised by Members in Committees on Market Access and the Council on Trade in Goods. 
India has taken these measures in exercise of Article XX (General Exceptions) of the GATT 1994.  
 
We request Members to refer to India 's respon ses and statements on this subject, as made in the 
Committees on Market Access and the CTG.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 246 - 
 
  
India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products   
3.1.22.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95033)  
The United States understands that In dia has introduced the Scheme for Remission of Duties and 
Taxes on Exported Products and understands a number of agricultural products, including rice, are 
eligible to benefit from this scheme that is reported to be a replacement for the Merchandize Export  
Incent Scheme (MEIS).  
 
a. What agricultural products are eligible under this measure?  
b. Please provide an explanation of this measure, including what specific duties and taxes 
are eligible for refund for agricultural products such as rice.  
Answer by India  
 
Detailed operational framework and guidelines for the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported 
Products scheme are currently in the stage of being formulated.   
 
India's DS:1 notification  
3.1.23.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95030)  
Noting India has  not provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93271, the United States notes India 
verbally informed Members that it would provide a response regarding state bonuses in due course.  
 
a. Please provide an update on providing this information.  
b. Will India be revi sing its Table DS:1 notifications, including Supporting Table DS:1, the 
Annex, and Statistical Appendix related to the Bali Decision to reflect relevant state and 
Union Territory bonuses for each year?  
c. If not, why?  
Answer by India  
 
The relevant information regarding this matter will be provided in due course.  
 
3.1.23.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95031)  
Noting India has not provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93267, India stated verbally it would 
provide the requested information on various nutritional/welfare programs in due course.   
 
a. For each measure identified, please provide a response to 2e in the Annex to 
G/AG/N/IND/18 ( "Date of commencement of the programme "). 
Answer by India  
 
The government of India provides subsidised food grains for implementing various welfare schemes 
for food security purposes. Besides the National Food Security Act of 2013, the government also 
allocates food grains under schemes including the Mid -Day meal schem e, the Wheat Based Nutrition 
Programme, the Integrated Child Development Services scheme, ANNAPURNA scheme etc. The date 
of commencement of India 's food security programmes is as under:  
 
Name of Programme  Date of Commencement  
National Food Security Act (N FSA) July, 2013  
Other than NFSA (Tide Over Allotment)  July, 2013  
Mid-Day Meal  August, 1995  
Wheat Based Nutrition Programme  January, 1986  
Welfare Institutions Schemes and 
ST/SC/OBC Hostels  November, 2000 and October, 1984  
Annapurna  April, 2000  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 247 - 
 
  Scheme for Adolescent Girls  January, 2003  
Defence /Para-Military Force  Since the inception of FCI i.e. , 1965 
Open Sale  October, 1993  
 
3.1.23.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95032)  
Noting India has not yet provided a written response to AG -IMS ID  93251, the United States would 
like to revise the information presented with respect to the questions asked:  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009 regarding state bonuses, India responded that no state announced 
a bonus for wheat in the marketing season 2016/17 , 2017/18, and 2018/19.  However, Madhya 
Pradesh awarded a wheat bonus of Rs.2000/MT in MY 2017/18 and Rs.2650/MT in MY2018/19, in 
addition to the MSP, according to 
http://mpkris hi.mp.gov.in/hindisite_New/pdfs/MKSY_24042018.pdf . The Minister of Agriculture in 
Madhya Pradesh is quoted stating "This means the state will pay Rs. 2,000 per quintal for acquisition 
of wheat. "  
 
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the announced MSP for wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 through the current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other India states and Union territories 
as well as for other commodities.  
Answer by India  
 
Indonesia - Import pe rmission for rice  
3.1.24.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95058)  
Japan recognizes that importers of rice to Indonesia are required to obtain import permission from 
the Ministry of Trade prior to importation, according to the relevant regulations. However, the import 
of Japanese rice has not taken place recently because the importers cannot obtain the permission 
due to the substantial delay of the process.  In the bilateral consultation in early summer, Indonesia 
agreed to check the situation, responding to the concerns  expressed by Japan.  As no information 
has been provided since then and no improvement has been observed, Japan has an increasingly 
serious concern on this issue.  Japan would like Indonesia to solve this problem promptly, and clarify 
the situation of the d elay as well as what has been considered, and to indicate its actions for 
improvement.  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
• Indonesia would like to clarify that Indonesia does not have a new policy regarding rice 
imports.  
• Indonesia also confirms that Indonesia does not intend to impede rice imports from any 
country, including from Japan.  
• In relation to this matter, Indonesia would also like to underline that import procedures for 
Japanese rice is clearly stated in the Joint Report of the Indonesia -Japan Economic Part nership 
Agreement (IJEPA) General Review which has been agreed by both parties.  
• For the purpose of transparency, Indonesia would like to point out that in Import Approval 
document on rice, one party could identify multiple countries of origin. Therefore, a ny barriers 
experienced by Japanese business actors, are most likely not caused by any government 
measures, but due to technical glitch in the business -to-business aspect of the import process.  
• Indonesia would also like to share that during this ongoing pa ndemic, in which business 
activities are relatively limited than during normal times, would consequently result in limited 
government operation, and unfortunately result in non -optimal level of government services 
in support of the business sectors.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 248 - 
 
  Follow -up: Japan was surprised by Indonesia's reply that there was no government intervention in 
this case and would review the reply.   
 
Japan's support package  
3.1.25.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95059)  
Australia thanks Japan for the responses to other Members ' questions regarding support for the 
food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector in response to COVID -19. We understand Japan has 
implemented a 3.5 billion Yen (USD 32 million) program to assist processed food manufacturers and 
food service providers to replace imported ingredients with domestic ingredients. Further to Japan 's 
responses to previous questions on this program:  
 
a. Can Japan outline the criteria and measures put in place to limit the program 's impacts on 
market access of other countries?  
b. Can Ja pan explain whether this a form of local content requirement that needs to be met 
to be eligible to receive the support?  
c. Can Japan indicate whether any other measures, were considered to assist food 
manufacturers and food service providers maintain a stead y supply of agricultural inputs, 
for example improved market access conditions to make imports more commercially 
viable?   
Answer by Japan  
 
This program is to financially support entities which are unable to procure the raw materials they 
need due to the disruption of the supply chain caused by the COVID -19 pandemic. The program 
assists those entities to shift to other materials including imported ones which can be procured in a 
more stable manner as a temporary measure in response to the pandemic. Japan d oes not believe 
it disturbs the market access. There is no requirement in terms of particular products or volume or 
value of products in this program. To facilitate agricultural imports, certain types of certificates are 
temporarily accepted as a form of s canned copy as a trade facilitation measure in response to the 
pandemic.  
 
Mongolia's quota regime for importation   
3.1.26.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 95060)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID s 87094, 88104, 90027, 91011, 92098 and 93072.The 
Russian  Federation thanks Mongolia for the answer to the question AG -IMS ID 93072.According to 
the current information, in 2020 Mongolia did not open quotas for import of liquid milk and wheat 
flour and stated that there were no quantitative restrictions for the fol lowing products for 2020. 
However, Mongolia did not exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products 
subject to quota regime, which means that quotas may be imposed in future. The Russian Federation 
is seeking further clarificatio n from Mongolia regarding its measures, in particular:  
 
a. Bearing in mind the Mongolia 's statement that the quota regime was implemented 
temporarily until the Enrichment Law came into force in December 2019, does Mongolia 
plan to exclude wheat flour and liqu id milk from the list of agricultural products subject to 
quota regime? When?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future 
(in 2021 and further)?  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
Please refer to our responses given at the meeti ngs of the Committee on Market Access and the CTG 
last June and the Committee on Agriculture last July.  
 
Liquid milk and wheat flour are strategic food products according to the Food Law of Mongolia.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 249 - 
 
   
Mongolia reiterates that no quotas are being imposed on  these products following the 
recommendations of the National Food Security Council of 29 November 2019.  
 
Follow -up: Russian Federation stated that it had received very similar response before but the issue 
remained. It would examine Mongolia's written res ponses closely.   
 
Nepal's import ban  
3.1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95034)  
On 29 March 2020, the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supply (MOICS) of the government of 
Nepal (GoN) enacted a ban on several commodities from all origins, incl uding dry peas, betel nut, 
dried dates, black pepper, liquor, and luxury vehicles.   
 
a. Please provide the reason for the ban, and specify the period during which the ban is likely 
to continue?  
b. How does this comply with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, taking 
particular note of footnote 1?  
Answer by Nepal  
 
Background:  Government of Nepal (GoN) has introduced full quantitative restrictions on the import 
of dry peas, betel nut, dried dates, uncrushed black pepper, liquor, and luxury vehicles exceeding 
per unit price 50,000 USD to be effective from 6  April 2020. The provis ion would not apply if the 
import process had undergone through opening the Letter of Credit prior to 29  March  2020. The 
government of the United States of America has raised its concerns on the import restriction of Nepal 
in the meeting of Committee on Ag riculture of the WTO.  
 
Concerns raised  Nepal's response  Basis for the initiative  Progress  
Provide the reason for 
the ban  • Along with the 
measures such as 
closure of international 
borders, restriction on 
the transport and 
lockdown to control 
COVID -19 pandem ic, 
the economy was 
expected to 
experience huge 
downturn . 
• The sectors such as 
foreign trade, more 
specifically, the 
export, tourism, 
foreign employment 
that are major 
contributors of balance 
of payment and 
foreign exchange 
reserve, were the 
worst affected sectors 
from this pandemic . 
• The g overnment of 
Nepal had huge 
pressure to make 
balance of payment 
and foreign exchange 
reserve favorable to 
maintain macro -
economic stability . 
• Huge surge on the 
import of commodities 
such as dry peas, 
black pepper and • The section 3 (1) of 
Export and Import 
(Control) Act, 1957 
has made the 
provision that if the 
government of Nepal 
considers that it is 
necessary to prohibit 
or control exportation 
or importation of any 
goods for the 
attainment of certain 
objectives including 
mentioned in the 
following point, it may, 
prohibit, or apply full 
or quantitative 
restriction on,  the 
exportation or 
importation of such 
goods, with or without 
specifying any 
specific  condition or 
period.  
• "To safeguard the 
external financial 
position and balance of 
payments and to stop 
a serious decline in the 
foreign currency 
reserves" is mentioned 
as one of the 
objectives in the same 
Act.  • The government of 
Nepal with its recent 
decision has 
authorized to import 
the betelnuts that was 
put on  shipment prior 
to 29 March 2020.  
• The GoN has, if 
certified by the 
concerned Food 
Technology and 
Quality Control Offices 
(FTQCO), also 
authorized for one 
time import of the dry 
peas and uncrushed 
black pepper that was 
initiated without 
approval from the 
Department of Food 
Technology and 
Quality Control 
(DFTQC) but put in 
shipment prior to 
29 March  2020.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 250 - 
 
  Concerns raised  Nepal's response  Basis for the initiative  Progress  
liquor was to be 
managed . 
Specify the period during 
which the ban is likely to 
continue . • As soon as the 
situation eases, the 
government of Nepal 
will lift this restriction.   The section 3 (1) of 
Export and Import 
(Control) Act, 1957    
How does this comply 
with Article 4, 
paragraph  2 of the 
Agreement on 
Agriculture, taking 
particular note of 
footnote 1 . • Nepal had notified the 
WTO about the Export 
and Import (Control) 
Act, 1957 in course of 
accession to the WTO.      
 
New Zealand's International Air  Freight Capacity Scheme  
3.1.28.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95061)  
New Zealand seems to indicate in its answers to question AGIMS ID 94038, that their $330  million 
International Air Freight Scheme did not provide support for th e export of New Zealand agricultural 
products. Canada 's understanding of the programme is that it allows airlines and air freight 
companies to offer rates that would currently not be commercially viable if this subsidy was not 
offered by New Zealand govern ment.  
 
a. Could New Zealand explain how this transportation subsidy does not subsidize 
New Zealand 's exports of agricultural products compared to other WTO Members who have 
not implemented a similar scheme?  
b. Could New Zealand indicate if it intends to report this support as an export subsidy?  
c. Please indicate how the program is in conformity with the Nairobi Decision and New 
Zealand 's export subsidy commitments?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
a. New Zealand 's temporary International Air Freight Capacity scheme is n ecessary to 
maintain vital air links during COVID -19. 1,700 km of ocean separates New  Zealand from 
the nearest landmass.  The only way to reach New  Zealand other than by a long sea voyage 
is by air.  Given this geographical context, New  Zealand, in company w ith some 17 other 
WTO Members, has implemented temporary  air connectivity support.   
New Zealand would draw Canada 's attention to the useful report from the OAG Aviation 
Worldwide Limited, 'Strapped for cash: how airlines can survive the winter season ' of 
2 September 2020, which lists the top 10 airlines by level of state support.  The list is 
headed by Lufthansa Group,  followed by Air France -KLM. Air New  Zealand is not in that 
top 10 list.  Given passenger aircrafts also carry freight, similar questions could arise with 
respect to any airline in receipt of any kind of government support.  
b. New Zealand has, and will continu e to have, a strong record of comprehensive and timely 
notifications.  As the IAFC is a temporary programme to maintain air connectivity, it does 
not require notifying under the AoA Agreement.  We will, however, submit it to the WTO 's 
COVID -19 services track er for transparency purposes.  
c. New Zealand has a persistent interest in, and very much welcomes discussions about, 
compliance with the Nairobi Decision.  Accordingly, we look forward to all WTO Members 
eliminating relevant subsidies.  
Follow -up: Canada recal led the various joint statements Members made in relation to COVID -19 
measures and the commitments signatories made therein to ensure measures are proportional to 
the risk, temporary and transparent. Canada was pleased to see that New Zealand was taking st eps 
towards that direction but hoped that the measure would be consistent with WTO rules including the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. The EU echoed Canada's statements.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 251 - 
 
   
Nigeria's DS notifications  
3.1.29.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95062)  
Australia  would like to follow up on its question to Nigeria, AG-ISM ID 93131 (which is, itself, a follow 
up to AG-IMIS ID 92117 from 92nd CoA), with respect to its DS notifications for the period 2012 -2016 
(G/AG/N/NGA/17), in which it notified that it did not prov ide domestic support during this period. 
No response has been received.  
 
a. Australia would like to know if Nigeria plans to include key agricultural elements of its 
Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support 
notifications.  
b. Specifically, how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets?   
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria wishes to thank Australia for  its questions regarding its outstanding DS Notifications. Nigeria 
believes timely and effective notifications of measures as well as transparency are essential for the 
proper functioning of the Multilateral trading system. However, it is pertinent to note  that the delay 
by Nigeria in fulfilling its DS Notification obligation is not wilful. It is due to resource and capacity 
constraints. This notwithstanding, Nigeria government has set in motion an inter -Agency process for 
detailed compilation of its DS pro grammes for the year 2017 to 2020 to enable it notify them 
accordingly. Nigeria is also in the process of reviewing its DS programmes for the period 2012 
to 2016 with a view to submitting revised notification for these periods where necessary. Nigeria will  
in the coming days fulfill its DS Notifications obligations.  
 
Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy and corn imports  
3.1.30.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95035)  
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has imposed restrictions on foreign exchange for dairy products 
and corn.  On 11 February 2020, the governor of the CBN, Godwin Emefiele, reported that the goal 
of imposing forex restrictions on dairy products is to encourage backward integration in the domestic 
dairy sector.  
  
a. What c riteria does the government of Nigeria use to determine whether a company 
qualifies for foreign exchange for dairy imports? Can companies that do not embark on 
backward integration still qualify for foreign exchange for dairy imports?  
b. The governor of the C BN reported that there is an exception for companies that import 
products that are not available in the domestic market.  How does the government of 
Nigeria determine if a product is available in the domestic market?  
c. On 13 July 2020, a notice issued by Dr. O.S. Nnaji, Director of the CBN 's Trade and 
Exchange Department ordered authorized dealers to stop processing Form M requests for 
foreign exchange for corn imports.  Is it possible for corn importers to access foreign 
exchange from the CBN or from other sou rces? If so, what criteria do these importers need 
to meet?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria thanks the United States for its questions concerning the Central Bank of Nigeria  (CBN) 
measure on Milk and Dairy Products Importation, of 11th February 2020 as well as the CBN measure 
on importation of Maize/Corn of 13th July 2020 and wishes to provide the following background 
information before responding to the specific questions raised by the United States on the measures.  
Nigeria relies heavily on oil as its main source of foreign exchange earnings and government 
revenues. The sharp decline in demand and prices of oil in recent years negatively impacted Nigeria 's G/AG/W/216  
 
- 252 - 
 
  external reserve and exerted unprecedented pressure on its currency (Naira). This is further 
exacerbate d by COVID –19 pandemic which triggered exceptional reversals in capital flows as a result 
of decreased global risk appetite.  These developments have significantly weakened Nigeria 's ability 
to finance its import, undermine its Balance of Payment position a nd increased Nigeria 's chances of 
defaulting on its sovereign debt if timely and appropriate measures are not taken. The CBN measure 
on Milk and Dairy Products Importation as well as measure on importation of Maize/Corn are 
temporary measures taken within the framework of Article XII of the GATT 1994 to avert a looming 
economic catastrophe.  
 
Nigeria is also saddled with severe livelihood and extreme poverty difficulties with over 62% of 
Nigeria's population of 190 million people still living in extreme pove rty conditions. These measures 
were therefore taken within the framework of paragraph 4(a) of Article XVIII of the GATT 1994 to 
address Nigeria 's livelihood and extreme poverty difficulties.  It is also pertinent to note that 
Section  B of Article XVIII (par agraph 8 to 12 of Article XVIII) provides for special balance of payment 
exceptions for Developing Country like Nigeria that is experiencing the difficulties Mentioned above  
Nigeria 's extreme poverty and livelihood security difficulties, as well as its hig h rate of youth 
unemployment (23% as at 2019), has also triggered exponential increase in social ills and vices 
which have further worsen Nigeria 's National Security situations. These measures are part of 
temporary measures taken to address Nigeria 's Natio nal Security difficulties (Article XXI of 
the GATT).  
It is pertinent to note that it is not the intention of the CBN to restrict access to the Nigerian Market 
or discriminate between locally produced and imported milk and dairy products as well as 
Maize/Co rn. The measures were necessitated by extraordinary economic circumstances and force 
majeure.   
 
Regarding the specific questions raised by the United States, Nigeria wishes to provide the following 
response.  
 
a. As stated earlier, Nigeria 's extreme poverty  and livelihood security difficulties are directly related 
to its current unprecedented National Security difficulties. To address these National security 
difficulties, government in addition to other socio – economic reform programmes, initiated some 
temporary measures such as that of Milk and Dairy Products Importation to promote economic 
transformation and growth with a view to address its high youth employment, as well as poverty 
and livelihood security challenges. The aim of this temporary measure is t o foster the development 
of value chains and manufacturing activities by encouraging greater use of locally produced inputs 
in production through the creation of backward linkages.   
 
The CBN has a transparent process of determining Companies that have invested or are investing in 
Nigeria Milk and Dairy Product sector with verifiable commitments to value chains development 
through the creation of backward linkages. These companies qualify for access to Forex from the 
official Forex Market for Milk and Da iry Products Importation.  
 
All Companies including those that do not embark on backward integration are free to source Forex 
from other sources for the importation of Milk and Dairy Products. It is pertinent to note that the 
objective of this measure is no t to prohibit or ban the importation of Milk and Dairy Products. The 
measure only relates to restriction to access to Forex from the official Forex Market.  
  
b. The CBN as well as the Nigeria National Bureau of Statistic (NBS) has transparent and effective  
mechanism for the collection, collation and analysis of Nigeria 's output and consumption data for all 
products for the determination of outputs and demand gaps.   
  
c. As with the measure on Milk and Dairy Products Importation, the CBN measure on Maize/Cor n 
Importation was necessitated by the urgent need to address Nigeria 's extreme poverty and livelihood 
security difficulties which are directly related to its current unprecedented National Security 
difficulties. The measure is being implemented temporarily  to promote economic transformation and 
growth with a view to address Nigeria 's high youth employment, as well as poverty and livelihood 
security challenges. The aim of this temporary measure is to foster the development of value chains 
and manufacturing a ctivities by encouraging greater use of locally produced inputs in production 
through the creation of backward linkages.  
 
As stated earlier, All Companies including those that do not embark on backward integration are free 
to source Forex from other source s for the importation of Maize/Corn. Nigeria also wishes to reiterate G/AG/W/216  
 
- 253 - 
 
  that the objective of this measure is not to prohibit or ban the importation of Maize/Corn. The 
measure only relates to restriction to access to Forex from the official FX Market.  
 
Compa nies that are eligible to access Forex from the official FX Market for the importation of 
Maize/Corn are those that have invested or are investing in Nigeria Maize/Corn sub sector with 
verifiable commitments to value chains development through the creation  of backward linkages. 
However, these and other companies are also at liberty to source Forex from other sources for the 
importation of Maize/Corn.  
 
Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  
3.1.31.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95064)  
Australia would like to refer to the United States question 93015 with respect to Nigeria 's import 
prohibitions on a number of agricultural products.  
 
Can Nigeria provide the Committee with a response to the questions raised in question 93015, re -
iterated belo w: 
 
a. What are the implementing regulations for these measures?  
b. What is the WTO basis for these measures?; and  
c. Why are these measures characterised as temporary if they have been in place for well 
over a decade?   
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil referred to the Special Trade Concern 408 it previously presented at the 
SPS Committee. Brazil sought further information from Nigeria regarding the import barriers 
imposed on some agricultural products including meat as the situation had not been improved .  
 
Norway's proposed changes to its goods schedule XIV  
3.1.32.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95065)  
New Zealand refers to G/MA/TAR/RS/592 of 17 December 2019, in which Norway proposed changes 
to its goods schedule XIV, eliminating certain quotas agreed as pa rt of the Uruguay Round market 
access outcome.  
 
Norway contends that the elimination of these quota volumes is a 'rectification' in accordance with 
the Decision of 26 March 1980 (C/M/139) on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of 
Schedules of Tar iff Concessions (the '1980 Procedures') and that it does not change the scope of 
concessions offered by Norway, since the bound in quota duties are the same as the bound out of 
quota duties.  
 
New Zealand disagrees with this interpretation and believes the elimination of the quota volumes is 
not of a 'purely formal character' as provided by paragraph 2 of the 1980 Procedures. In particular 
we are concerned that:  
 
• 211 individual quotas would be eliminated including many products of interest for 
New Zealand. T his represents the vast bulk of Norway's current TRQ concessions . 
• In any future market access negotiation in which either in -quota tariffs or expansion of tariff 
rate quota volumes forms part of the negotiation, Members could reasonably expect that 
Norway would make concessions on those products for which there are scheduled 
TRQ volumes . 
• These quotas formed a key part of the market access discussions in the Uruguay Round. If 
the volumes had not been significant to Members, they would  not have been scheduled  in 
this way . 
 
Can Norway please explain how the proposed changes are not considered substantive?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 254 - 
 
   
Answer by Norway  
 
"Any question with regard to Norway 's notification G/MA/TAR/RS/592 of 17 December 2019 will be 
consulted in due course with Members having raised objections. This also includes New Zealand.   
 
Due to the pandemic, consultations have not taken place so far."  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand looked forward to receiving details on the consultations in due course. New 
Zealand noted that any removal of tariff quotas regardless both in -quota and out -of-quota bound 
rates being the same should not impact future market access (MA) negotiations. The EU highlighted 
interest in the issue which in its view may not be a simple technical rectification to Norway's 
schedule. Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Uruguay, and the US shared the concern raised by 
New Zealand and looked forward to engaging in future consultations on this matter. In Canada's 
view, Norway's proposal went beyond simply improving transparency and would alter the balance of 
concessions achieved in the Uruguay Round.  
 
Australia and Paraguay would like to know the approaches that Norway would take in future 
MA negotiations on the impacted HS lines to understand the implication of the proposal for the 
negotiations.  Brazil noted that it was one of the Members that opposed to Norway's proposal as it 
considered its market access conditions would be undermined should the TRQs be eliminated. 
Related MA issues such as minimum and current mark et access opportunities and the rights to apply 
SSG were part of the negotiations that led to Norway's current schedule of commitments and 
eliminating one of the elements of Norway's MA commitments would risk creating imbalances in 
other elements. Costa Ri ca and Guatemala registered interest in the topic.   
 
Russia n Federation 's export subsidies  
3.1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95036)  
In September 2019, the Russian Federation approved an amendment to Article 78 of its Budget 
Code, which appear s to now allow for subsidies for "alcoholic products intended for export". The 
amendment now reads:  
 
"1. Subsidies to legal entities  (with the exception of subsidies to state (municipal) institutions), 
individual entrepreneurs, as well as individuals - producers of goods, works, services are provided 
free of charge and irrevocably in order to reimburse lost income and (or) financial security 
(reimbursement) costs in connection with the production (sale) of goods  with the exception 
of excisable goods, but including  cars and motorcycles, alcoholic products intended for export , 
grapes, wine products made from the specified grapes: wines, sparkling wines (champagne), liquors 
with a protected geographical designation, with a protected name (specialty wine)(wine m aterials), 
performing works, rendering services." [ emphasis added ] 
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 93017, the Russian Federation states with regards to the amendment that 
it "lists legal entities for the purpose of compensation of cost incurred in connection wit h 
production/trade of alcoholic products, inter alia, intended for export."  The response goes on to state 
that "the rules for providing subsidies would have been determined in other legal acts in accordance 
with the budget legislation of the Russian Federa tion. Such legal acts have not been adopted by the 
government of the Russian Federation."  
 
a. Has the Russian Federation enacted and/or adopted such acts that would provide for the 
adoption of Article 78 of its Budget Code?  If so, please provide those legal m easures.  
b. Please explain the intended purpose behind the amendments in Federal Law No.  330-FZ 
to Article 78 of the Budget Code, specifically regarding "alcoholic products intended for 
export."  
c. Please provide the criteria for applicants to receive subsidies for alcoholic products 
intended for export.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 255 - 
 
  d. What are the "costs incurred in connection with production/trade of alcoholic products" 
that Russian producers and exporters may be compensated for under Federal 
Law No. 330-FZ? 
The amendments to Article 78 of th e Budget Code excludes from the category of goods 
eligible for subsides the broad category of "excisable goods," but then specifically includes  
certain excisable goods, primarily "alcoholic products intended for export," grapes, and 
certain types of wines.   
e. Please provide a definition for the term "alcoholic products intended for export".  
f. Please clarify whether alcoholic products "intended for export" must actually be exported 
for individuals to receive a subsidy.  
g. Please describe how the Russian Federation will ensure that any subsidies provided under 
Article  78 of the Budget Code are consistent with its WTO obligations to not provide export 
subsidies.   
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. No legal acts have been adopted in support of the amendment to Article 78 of the Budget 
Code of the Russian Federation.   
b. The amendment to Article 78 of the Budget Code provides for possibility for compensation 
of costs incurred in connection with production/trade of certain goods.   
c. The criteria to receive compensation  of costs incurred in connection with production/trade 
of alcoholic products as well as the respective definitions would be set in the relevant legal 
acts. No legal acts are currently being drafted under the amendment to Article 78 of the 
Budget Code.  
d. Please refer to answer c).  
e. "Alcoholic products intended for export " means alcoholic products originating from the 
Russian Federation that could be marketed, inter alia, on foreign markets.  
f. The criteria to receive compensation of costs incurred in connection wi th production/trade 
of alcoholic products would be set in the relevant legal acts. No legal acts are currently 
being drafted under the amendment to Article 78 of the Budget Code.  
g. Legal acts that could be adopted in the context of the amendment to Article 7 8 of the 
Budget Code will be developed in accordance with Russia 's WTO commitments.   
Follow -up: Canada, the EU and Ukraine signalled interest in the question and called for Members' 
correct and transparent implementation of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision  on Export Competition.   
 
3.1.33.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95037)  
Within Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 25, 2019 N o. 1816, it 
states:  "The Government of the Russian Federation decides:  To approve the attached:  
 
a. Rules for the provision of subsidies from the federal budget to organizations in order to 
compensate for part of the costs associated with the certification of agricultural products 
in foreign markets; " 
Description of the certification scope: "c ertification of agricultural products in foreign markets" - a 
set of requirements carried out in order to assess the conformity of agricultural products to the 
requirements of external markets, veterinary and phytosanitary measures, transportation, storage , 
testing and disposal of test samples, and also the requirements carried out in order to assess the 
conformity of products with the requirements in a foreign trade contract for the supply of agricultural G/AG/W/216  
 
- 256 - 
 
  products to foreign markets (hereinafter the contra ct), including certification for the receipt of halal 
and kosher certificates. " 
 
b. Please provide the criteria applicants must meet to receive federal subsidies for the costs 
associated  with the certification of agricultural products in foreign markets.  
c. Please explain  which specific costs towards certification are eligible for compensation 
under this Decree and how these costs are calculated.   
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
In order to receive the subsidy applicants must meet general economic criteria such as being an 
entity registered in the Russian Federation; applicant should not have past -due indebtedness to 
federal budget and outstanding taxes and fees; the applicant should not be in the process of 
bankruptcy.   
 
The applicant shall provide documents verify ing incurred costs associated with certification of 
agricultural products, which is specified in the description of certification scope. The subsidy covers 
costs related to test samples.  
 
The support was aimed for providing quality and safety control of ag ricultural products and facilitate 
product certification.  
 
Follow -up: Canada, the EU and Ukraine signalled interest in the question and called for Members' 
correct and transparent implementation of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.  
 
Russian Federation's grain subsidy programme  
3.1.34.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95040)  
On 15 August 2019, the Russian Federation approved a long -term grain industry development 
strategy to strengthen its position as a global grain market produ cer and supplier by 2035. The 
subsidy program is estimated to increase to 8 billion rubles (approximately USD  120 million USD) 
by 2024.  
 
a. Please confirm whether the strategy includes input subsidies for the purchasing of new 
agricultural equipment, includin g harvesters and tractors and other inputs.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The Strategy on Grain Industry Development envisaged technical modernization of the 
sector, including renewal of agricultural machinery (such as harvesters and tractors). This 
suppor t will be provided mainly through the compensation of interest rate on credits.  
Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104)  
3.1.35.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95068)  
The United States notes that, the government of the R ussian Federation has updated "Support 
program for the transportation of agricultural and food products" as administered by the Russian 
Export Center (REC) and regulated by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 
15 September  2017 No. 1104 as amended by the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian  Federation dated 06.02.2020 No. 104.  The most significant change noticed is the budgetary 
amount allocations for the current financial year (2020): 4.1 billion rubles (USD  56.2 million) . This 
is up substantially from 49.3 million rubles in 2017.As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91161 .  
 
a. Please explain in detail the recent changes to the programme, inclusive of covered 
products, support limits, and regional coverage.  
b. Please  explain  how the paym ents are calculated.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 257 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The amendments as of 6 February 2020 to the Government Resolution No 1104 make 
minor changes in description of certain plant products eligible for compensation of part of 
the costs related to the transport ation of agricultural and food products.  
b. Payments are calculated on the basis of amount of costs related to transportation of 
agricultural and food products by ground transport, including rail transport and highway 
transport no less than third environmenta l class.  
Follow -up: The EU noted its systemic interest in questions related to the implementation of the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. Ukraine noted that the railway subsidies provided by the 
Russian Federation were highly likely to be export sub sidies and asked the Russian Federation to 
respect the Nairobi Decision.   
 
Russia's import restrictions in response to COVID -19 
3.1.36.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95066)  
Australia understands the Russia n Federation  has implemented import restrictions on a nu mber of 
agricultural products in response to the impact of COVID -19. The list of products subject to 
restrictions, Decree 445 issued by Prime Minister Mishustin, includes by is not limited to: fish, beef, 
veal, pork, poultry, dairy products, rice, sugar an d vegetables.  With respect to these import 
restrictions, can the Russia n Federation  kindly provide Members with:  
 
a. the policy reason for these measures?  
b. the expected length of time that these measures will be in place?  
c. the WTO basis for these measures? and   
d. the expected impact on Russian imports for each product in Decree 445,  e.g., the average 
imports  for each product in recent years vs the recorded and/or forecast import volumes 
in current and future years?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Accor ding to the Federal Law No 44 -FZ "On the contract system on procurement of goods, works 
and services for federal and municipal needs " the government of the Russian Federation can impose 
limitations on the procurements of goods, works and services originati ng from foreign countries for 
the purposes of protecting the constitutional order, national defence  and security, and the domestic 
market; developing the national economy and supporting national producers.  
 
The Government Resolution No 832 of 22 August 201 6 (as amended by the Government Resolution 
No 445 of 3 April 2020) was developed under the Federal Law No 44 -FZ and is implemented in full 
compliance with Russia's WTO commitments. The Russian Federation is not a party to the Agreement 
on Government  Procur ement (GPA) of the World Trade Organization and therefore have no 
commitments under the GPA.  
 
According to the Government Resolution No 832 the Russia n Federation  imposed limitations on the 
admission of certain types of food products originating from fore ign countries for the purposes of 
state procurement for federal and municipal needs (fish, meat, dairy products, etc.).  The 
Government Resolution No 445 of 3 April 2020 included tomatoes and cucumbers to the list of food 
products subject to such limitation . It is estimated that the import of these products will not be 
affected due to the fact that the value of the products involved in procurement for federal and 
municipal needs is small in comparison with commercial imports of same products to the Russian  
Federation.   
 
Follow -up: Australia sought to understand how the government procurement aspect was related to 
the import restriction policy and would follow up on Russia's reply.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 258 - 
 
  
Russia n Federation  – Permanent export quota for cereals  
3.1.37.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 95067)  
The Russian Federation plans on the permanent basis to introduce a grain export quota set in 
April-June 2020 in response to the COVID -19 coronavirus pandemic, TASS reported in mid -July. 
Minister of Agriculture Dimitry Patrushev said: "We want the quota mechanism to become constant. 
We plan to determine the quota parameters together with market participants after receiving the 
final data on the harvest of the new season - presumably in October of this year."  
 
According to TASS, the Russian Federation should export 45 million ton nes of grain in the 
season  2020/21, which began on 1 July. The Ministry of Agriculture expects a grain harvest in  2020 
of 122.5 million ton nes. 
 
The Rus sian Federation, in its accession to the WTO (WT/ACC/RUS/70 - WT/MIN(11)/2) committed 
to abide by Article XI GATT (paragraph 647 page 157):   
647. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that upon acce ssion to the WTO, the Russian  Federation would apply such quantitative 
export restrictions, in accordance with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 12 of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
Article XI:2(a) GATT allows: " Export prohibitions or restrictions  temporarily  applied to prevent or 
relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential to the exporting contracting party . 
Introduction of a permanent export restriction will be a breach of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
in direct contra diction to the reply given by the Russian Federation in the accession process. Can the 
Russian Federation confirm that it will respect the Agreement on Agriculture and that no permanent 
export restrictions will be introduced? The EU underlines that it cons iders a repetitive annual 
temporary export quota to be a violation of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
To ensure food security the Russian Federation pays close attention to the functioning of national 
grain market, which become even more relevant during the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
The Russia n Federation  does not consider establishing export quota on certain grains on a permanent 
basis.  
 
The Russian Federation would like to note that in December 2020 the government of the 
Russi an Federation established a temporary tariff quota on exportation of certain grains, which will 
be in effect from 15 February 2021 to 30 June 2021.   
 
Follow -up: Japan noted systemic interest in export restriction measures.  Brazil cautioned against 
the measure's negative impact to the multilateral trading system.   
 
Russian Federation's export quota  
3.1.38.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95012)  
The Russian Federation imposed grain export quotas in response to the COVID -19 pandemic. There 
are reports of such quotas being made permanent.  How does the Russian Federation assess the 
effect of such quotas in relation to the world food demand?  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95067.   
 
Follow -up: Japan indic ated its systemic interest in export restrictions measures.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 259 - 
 
  
Thailand's sugar support   
3.1.39.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95069)  
Australia understands Thailand has approved measures to support its sugar industry, which has been 
impacted by the disruptions c aused by COVID -19. We understand the support package is valued at 
THB 10 billion (approx. USD  320 million).  
 
Can Thailand provide information on this support package, including details on:  
 
a. the different parts of this support package?  
b. the policy objectives of each part? and  
c. how payments for each part are calculated?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
Please refer to Thailand's responses to question AG-IMS ID 93203 . 
 
Follow -up: Australia indicated that it would follow up with further questions in future Committee  
meetings. Australia asked Thailand to confirm whether THB 6.5 billion input support scheme for cane 
growers or THB 3.5 billion to improve environmental outcome for cane growers would be notified as 
product -specific Amber Box support. The EU pointed to the  potential impact of the increased support 
from a big sugar exporter to the world market and recalled the obligation to respect the Nairobi 
Decision on export subsidies.   
 
Turkey's applied tariffs  
3.1.40.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95070)  
a. Japan recognizes that T urkey has introduced additional tariffs on the certain products and 
expanded the range of products subject to the increased tariffs since last April, in which 
the introductions are often announced publicly without any prior indication. We are 
concerned abo ut the lack of predictability. Even though Japan understands that additional 
tariffs are within the bound levels, we would appreciate it if Turkey could clarify the reasons 
behind such additional tariffs and the planned dates of withdrawal, and also explai n 
whether similar actions, i.e. , imposition of additional tariffs, are foreseen/scheduled as 
well as the general background of the needs of such moves. This information would be 
essential to ensure the transparency and stability of businesses between the t wo countries.  
b. Japan recognizes that Turkey recently started providing a Member with the duty -free 
access for the certain agricultural products. Japan would appreciate it if Turkey could 
clarify the situation and, indicate when the same access becomes avail able to other 
Members under the principle of Most -Favoured -Nation Treatment.  
c. Japan also notes that some of those products (e.g. , chocolate) which Turkey recently 
started providing duty -free access to a Member are seemingly subject to additional tariffs 
when imported from other Members. Japan would appreciate it if Turkey could provide 
clarification.   
Answer by Turkey  
 
With the Decision No. 2819 which was published in the Official Gazette on the date of 05.08.2020, 
Turkey introduced additional customs duties  on the importation of some processed agricultural 
products to be applied starting from the date of 20.08.2020.  
 
Additional customs duties (ACD) are a part of ordinary customs duties.  
 
Introducing an ACD means increasing the customs duty (CD) on that speci fic product and it is named 
as "additional " to indicate the difference with the EU 's common custom tariffs.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 260 - 
 
   
The total of common customs duty (including public housing fund) and ACD for each product does 
not exceed Turkey 's WTO bound rates. It will be notified to WTO Member countries through related 
WTO channels.  
 
The ACD 's are implemented in accordance with WTO 's taxation regulations of MFN principle and are 
implemented to all countries apart from the countries with which Turkey provided preferential 
treatment on the related products in Customs Union (with the EU) or Free Trade Agreements.  
 
Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  
3.1.41.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95038)  
TMO Purchases  
 
In its response in AG -IMS ID 93019, Turkey indicated that "TMO purchase prices are not considered 
as administered prices " because TMO buys and sells under market conditions.   
 
However, the TMO website includes a document entitled "2020 Dönemi TMO Müdahale Alım Fiyatları " 
which translates as "2020 Period TMO Intervention Buying Prices. " These prices are announced in 
advance of the harvest and are set by the President of Turkey, i.e. , it is a policy decision, not a 
market decision. For more information please  see: http://www.tmo.gov.tr/Main.aspx?ID=29233 . 
 
Turkey claims that these are not applied administered prices, but the panel in China -- Agricultural 
Producers  (para. 7.177) defines the a pplied administered price as "the price set by the government 
at which specified entities will purchase certain basic agricultural products." This definition seems to 
fit exactly with Turkey 's policies, which includes prices set by the government at which TMO will 
purchase basic agricultural products, like wheat and other grains.   
 
Turkey also notified price support programs for cereals (including wheat, barley, maize, rice, and 
oats) with applied administered prices until its 2001 notification, but its 200 2 notification (submitted 
15 years later) did not include a calculation with applied administered prices.  In response to 
AG-IMS ID 85068, Turkey stated "a more market -oriented  policy was implemented, in which the 
production decision and price setting has been administered by the market itself without public 
intervention. " 
 
a. It would be appreciated if Turkey further elaborated on the policy changes, including copies 
of any releva nt laws, regulations, or other official government documents, that explain the 
change that occurred between 2001 and 2002.   
b. Please clarify  how the announcement by the President of Turkey (e.g., "2020 Period TMO 
Intervention Buying Prices ") relates to the r esponse provided to part a) of this question 
and how this announcement relates to Turkey 's response that "TMO buys and sells under 
market conditions. " 
c. Are any cereals produced within Turkey not eligible for purchase by TMO while the 
intervention program is  active?  
d. Please provide any other information that may help Members understand how these 
activities can be viewed as not being market price support as Turkey has indicated in 
previous responses and its notifications.   
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Until 2002, grain pu rchase prices were determined by the Cabinet Decree. For example; 
Grain prices were included in the appendix of the "Decision on Support Purchase and Sale 
of Cereal Products for the Period 2001 -2002". Since 2002, a more market -oriented policy 
has been purs ued. As a result, in the "Decision on Purchase and Sale of Cereal Products 
for the Period 2002 -2003", the phrase "support" has been removed in its name and the 
authority to determine the product prices and purchase -sale principles has been given to 
the TMO  Board of Directors.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 261 - 
 
  TMO is an autonomous public economic enterprise subject to private law provisions, although its 
capital is fully owned by the state within the scope of Decree Law No. 233. TMO's activities are 
carried out under free market conditions a nd TMO acts in the market together with the private sector 
and determines its policies by considering profitability and efficiency within the framework of the 
economic conditions it is in.  
 
b. As stated in the answer given in (a); TMO Board of Directors is th e only body authorized 
to determine the purchase prices for the products in its field of activity. Statement in the 
link which have been specified in the question can means "TMO grain and pulses purchase 
prices and policies have been determined by TMO and announced by our President 
on 04.05.2020". Therefore, the answer given in (a) also explains the question stated 
in (b). 
c. Like other companies operating in the sector, TMO makes purchases according to the 
status of its stocks at the purchase prices it has de termined. Furthermore, there are 
periods when the TMO does not announce prices on certain products and therefore does 
not make purchases, depending on market situation. The TMO board of Directors is the 
only authorized body in determining purchasing polici es. 
d. TMO carries out its buying and selling activities under market conditions. Like the private 
sector, it enters the market as a buyer, likewise, it can open the product in its stocks for 
sale, taking into account the market conditions and prices.  
Therefo re, TMO purchase prices should not be considered as administrative prices.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine noted interest in receiving more information on the operation of the TMO and 
hoped that market price support would not be provided through the scheme. The US, as a global 
leading producer of wheat, flagged interest in following up on the question.   
 
Turkey  - Inward Processing Regime Verification  
3.1.42.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95039)  
Turkey is one of the world's largest exporters of wheat product s, particularly flour and pasta. Virtually 
all of these exports occur under the inward processing regime, which allows duty -free imports of 
wheat for an equivalent quantity of wheat product exports.   
 
a. Please list the 12 -digit tariff codes under chapter 10 of the tariff schedule that are eligible 
for imports under the inward processing regime.   
b. Please also list the 12 -digit tariff codes of the resulting processed products made from 
inputs under chapter 10.  The United States seeks to understand how Turkey imp lements 
its verification system under the inward processing regime to ensure that it is appropriate 
for wheat products, which can be easily commingled.   
c. Please provide web links to the applicable certificates needed to import wheat and export 
wheat product s incorporating domestic wheat.  If these certificates aren't publicly 
available, why not, and could the Turkish government please provide copies which show 
the information required.  
d. Please list the criteria pertaining to the quantity, quality, and characte ristics of the wheat 
and wheat products required under the verification system.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. For the exports of pasta and wheat flour products: 12 -digit tariff codes under chapter  10 
of the tariff schedule that are eligible for imports under inward pr ocessing regime  (IPR) 
are 100199000011 and  100119000000 . 
b. For the exports of wheat flour (Tariff code: 110100150000),  wheat with 100199000011 
tariff code can be imported under IPR.  For the exports of pasta  (products under 1902 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 262 - 
 
  HS code), wheat with 100199000011 and/or 100119000000 tariff codes can be 
imported  according to the position of 12-digit tariff code of pasta product (e .g., whether 
the exported product contains common wheat or not) under IPR.  
Turkey has a system in place to confirm which inpu ts and in what amounts are consumed in the 
production of the exported products under Inward Processing Regime (IPR). Companies should apply 
to the Ministry of Trade (MoT) electronically with their e -signature to register to the IPR System.  
 
After registrat ion, some documents, such as Inward Processing Project Form, table of raw material, 
capacity report providing information about the production facilities, trade registration journal and 
signature circular should be submitted via the system.  
  
MoT evaluates  HS Code of the imported good and the processed product (primary and auxiliary 
processed products), its name, its quantity to be determined according to the rate of productivity, 
its value, the term of certificate/authorization and, either issues an IPR ce rtificate or rejects the 
application. Decisions (acceptance or rejection) are based on whether a set of possible legal 
conditions and economic criteria are fulfilled. Companies are subject to heavy sanctions in case of 
noncompliance with the relevant IPR l egislation.  
  
In several countervailing duty investigations and reviews, the competent US authorities identified 
that IPR does not confer countervailable benefits14.  
  
The US authorities scrutinized IPR with all its aspects in a certain number of CVD proc eedings. In 
this regard, Turkey believes that DoC 's previous findings in countervailing duty administrative 
reviews, especially for Turkish pasta imports are useful resources. In its Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review for Cert ain Pasta From Turkey, dated 8 August  200115, 
DoC found that '…On this basis, we preliminarily determine that wheat imports under the Inward 
Processing Licenses are not countervailable… ' 
  
The US recently repeated its findings on Turkish IPR in 2013 administrative review for Circular 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey16.  
  
Having in mind the abovementioned evaluations, Turkey, once again, would like to stipulate that it 
has a v erification system, which was also examined by the US, in place to confirm which inputs, and 
in what amounts are consumed in the production of the exported products under IPR.  
 
c. The applicable certificates [in turkish: Dahilde İşleme İzin Belgesi (DİİB)] ar e not publicly 
available, because DİİBs contain private company and commercial informations such as 
price, product, buyer, seller, export country etc.  
d. The following legislations contain provisions, regulations and criterias within the scope of 
the applicab le certificates (DİİBs).  
Web page link for the inward processing regime legislation:  
https://ticaret.gov.tr/ihracat/mevzuat/dahilde -isleme -rejimi  
  
Web links for general regulatio ns and provisions related to the inward processing regime:  
https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5b87048513b8761450e18dc5/2005 -
8391_Kararda_Derced ilmi%C5%9F -02032018.doc   
https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5b87048513b8761450e18dc5/2006_12_dercedilmismetin%20 -
29.05.2020.docx   
  
 
14 See Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Administrative Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, 25 July 2006. 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/turkey/E6 -12227 -1.pdf. 
15 See Federal Register Volume 66, Number 153/Wednesday, 8 August  2001 and DoC's Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review for Certain Pasta From Turkey 
http:/ /www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR -2001-08-08/html/01 -19777.htm . 
16 See Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty (CVD) Administrative 
Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, 31 March  2015. 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/turkey/2015 -08123 -1.pdf. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 263 - 
 
  Web link for regul ations and provisions related to agricultural products under the inward processing 
regime legislation:  
See Article 7 for wheat  
https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5b87048513b8761450e18dc5/2016 -
1%20Say%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnlerine%20%C4%B0li%C
5%9Fkin%20Dahilde%20%C4%B0%C5%9Fleme%20Rejimi%20Genel gesi.doc  
 
UK's border control during the Brexit transition period  
3.1.43.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95002)  
Among the UK 's preparations for the end of the transition period, several reports informed that the 
UK will be phasing -in border controls after the end of the transition period in December 2020 to give 
time for businesses affected by COVID to adapt to the changes.  
 
As regards agricultural products, information available indicates that:  
 
• From April 2021, all products of animal origin – for example meat, pet food, honey, milk or 
egg products – and all regulated plants and plant products will also require pre -notification 
and the relevant health documentation.  
• From July 2021, traders moving all goods will have to make declarations at the point  of 
importation and pay relevant tariffs. Full Safety and Security declarations will be required, 
while for SPS commodities there will be an increase in physical checks and the taking of 
samples: checks for animals, plants and their products will then take  place at GB Border 
Control Posts.  
 
In the light of the above, could the UK answer the following questions:  
 
a. Is the information above accurate? What else does the phasing -in of border controls entail 
in what regards trade in agricultural products?  
b. Will eve ry agricultural good from every trade partner be accorded the same treatment?  
c. In the case of a negative answer for the question above, how does this policy comply with 
the MFN clause?  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
a. The United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020, having concluded a 
Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union. The Withdrawal Agreement provides for 
a transition period during which, with limited exceptions, European Union law continues to 
apply to the United Kingdom. To provide clari ty to businesses and stakeholders, 
in July 2020 the United Kingdom government issued information about its planned border 
arrangements which will take effect after the transition period ends, on 
31 December  2020. The latest detailed information about the c ustoms and other border 
requirements being introduced from January 2021, April 2021 and from July 2021, on 
imports from the EU, can be found on the gov.uk website 
(https: //www.gov.uk/government/publications/the -border -operating -model ).  
For commodities requiring risk -based checks at the border, the UK regime will continue to be based 
on an assessment of the risk presented.  Details of the requirements in place relating to l ive animals, 
germinal products, plants and plant products and for Products of Animal Origin and Animal 
By-Products can be found at on the gov.uk website (link provided above).  
  
b. The United Kingdom government aims to maximise continuity and minimise disrupt ion to 
all of our trading partners and to provide clarity for business and stakeholders as the 
transition period ends. The approach outlined is a risk -based approach as applied to all 
Members, in order to ensure the effective operation of our border policy . It will support 
international trade and avoid border disruption in an unprecedented situation for traders 
and consumers. Import controls for traders from outside the European Union remain 
unchanged.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 264 - 
 
  c. N/A. 
Follow -up: Australia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Turke y and Uruguay flagged interest in the issue. 
Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay noted the importance of ensuring border measures being 
progressively implemented through the transition period and the MFN principal be applied in line 
with the UK's WTO obliga tions.   
 
United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
3.1.44.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95071)  
In relation to Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement between China and the United States, 
China reportedly imported around US D 10 billion worth of US agricultural products (based on Chinese 
import data) in the first six months since entry into force of Agreement. China 's monthly targets for 
agricultural purchases have never been reached, with actual purchases in the first three months 
reachi ng well under half of their targets, and in the second three months only slightly above half of 
their monthly target. At this rate, Members can reasonably expect Chinese purchases of 
US agricultural products to reach less than half of the 2017 benchmark, a nd fall well under the target 
under the Agreement.  
  
Given this situation, Australia requests the US provide answers to the following questions:  
 
a. Can the US advise if all purchases made to date have been done so at market prices based 
on commercial considerations?   
i. And if all measures implemented to facilitate these purchases have been applied on an 
MFN basis where relevant?   
ii. And if so, describe the method used to evaluate these considerations?  
b. Can the US provide a disaggregated break down  for purchases in the first six months of 
the Agreement for each agricultural product listed in Annex 6.1 of the Agreement?  
c. Is the US seeking China implement any specific additional measures to ensure China 
increases its purchases in the last six months of  the first year of the Agreement to achieve 
the 2020 purchase targets?   
d. Has the US changed or introduced new measures to facilitate imports of Chinese 
agricultural products beyond what is required in the Agreement, including : 
i. Reducing applied tariffs for certain products?  
ii. Changing or removing non -tariff measures or amending the administration of imports?  
iii. Additional improvements to technical market access protocols?  
e. Is the US planning any future changes or new measures to facilitate imports of Chinese 
agricultural products?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The United States does not collect this kind of information or data regarding  commercial 
transactions between private businesses.  
i. The United States cannot provide  information on whether or how another Member 
facilitates purchases of U.S.  products.  
ii. N/A. See above.  
b. Data on exports of U.S. agricultural products to China are available  from several public 
sources, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture 's G/AG/W/216  
 
- 265 - 
 
  Global Agricultural Trade Statistics ( https://www.fas.usda.gov/databases/global -agricultural -trade -
system -gats) and Export Sales reporting system ( https://apps.fas.usda.gov/export -
sales/esrd1.html ). The relevant products covered by each category of goods listed in  Annex 6.1 are 
disaggregated by four -digit tariff heading in the Attachment to  Annex 6.1.   
  
c. The United States continues to follow the terms o f the Agreement,  including the monitoring 
and enforcement provisions, which establish multiple  fora in which U.S. and Chinese 
counterparts can engage productively to  implement the Agreement.  
d. The United States continues to follow the terms of the Agreement as published. Any 
additional measures impacting trade with China or other Members  are properly published, 
consistent with U.S.  procedures for public notice and  comment and are notified to the WTO 
in accordance with our WTO obligations, as  appropriate.  
e. The United States has no comment at this time on any potential future  regulatory changes 
or new measures that may impact trade in Chinese  agricultural products.  
Follow -up: The EU registered interest in the questions raised by Australia, in particularly how the  
agreement respects the MFN rules and the role of STEs in implementing the agreement. Canada 
flagged interest in the trade agreement.   
 
United States - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  
3.1.45.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95073)  
China welcomes the agreement reached between the United States and the European Union on 
21 August, regarding the reduction of tariffs on certain agricultural and non -agricultural products, 
which has been announced to be made on an MFN basis. According to the joint statement  by 
the USTR and EU Trade Commissioner, this package of tariff reductions is intended to mark "the 
beginning of a process that will lead to additional agreements that create more free, fair, and 
reciprocal transatlantic trade ". We therefore would like to seek transparency regarding this trade 
liberalization arrangement by asking the US and the EU to provide information regarding the import 
of the products concerned for the most recent three  years, including the trade volume and value of 
from each origin online by line basis, which will be helpful for monitoring the implementation of the 
agreement and guarantee the positive effects on promoting bilateral trade and enhancing the 
multilateral trading system.   
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Upon review of  the impacted tariff lines, the United States notes that none of them fall within  the 
product coverage as specified in Annex 1 to the Agreement on  Agriculture.  We confirm  that the tariff 
reductions associated with this agreement will be extended on  an MFN basis. For additional 
information, please see: https://ustr.gov/about -us/policy -offices/press -office/press -
releases/2020/august/joint -statement -united -states -and-european -union -tariff-agreement . 
 
Follow -up: Australia welcomed the tariff reduction package and its extensionon an MFN basis. 
Despite the irrelevance of the products to this Committee Au stralia hoped that the US and the EU 
could share publicly the information requested by China.   
 
U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
3.1.46.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95014)  
The Paycheck Protection Program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Sec urity (CARES) 
Act is a USD 350 billion loan program, backed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). It was 
implemented in April 2020 to provide American small businesses with eight weeks of cash -flow 
assistance through 100% federally -guaranteed loans. In this regard, India welcomes the United 
States ' response to Question AG -IMS ID 94047 raised by the European Union. India would like to 
ask the following supplementary questions:  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 266 - 
 
  a. Is there any budgeted allocation or target for the agriculture sector in th is relief package? 
If yes, please indicate the budgeted amount allocated to the farm sector.  
b. Given that the programme closed in August 2020, is there any plan to continue with this 
programme further?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. No. 
b. The U.S. Congres s would need to pass new legislation  to extend the Paycheck Protection 
Program. To date, no such legislation has  been enacted.  
Follow -up: The EU and New Zealand registered concern with the significant level of support and its 
impact to the global market. T he EU looked forward to the U.S. notification  of the measure. The EU 
reminded the US of its obligation to submit a Table DS:2 notification should some measures be 
notified as Green or Blue Box support. Paraguay flagged its specific interest on part b and c  of the 
question 95074 and asked the US to provide more information on the new support package of 
USD 14 billion recently announced by President Trump.   
 
3.1.46.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95074)  
New Zealand thanks the US for its answer to the previous que stion (AG -IMS ID 94026) regarding 
the US' Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP). We note that on 11 August 2020, almost 
60 further commodities became eligible for CFAP payments. Given the US has, as of 31 August 2020, 
paid out almost USD 9.5 billion of the allocated funding, and given the CFAP's scope has recently 
been expanded, can the US please advise:  
 
a. Whether the US plans to further extend the deadline for applications beyond 11 September 
given the ongoing disruptions facing producers;  
b. Whether the US foresees further direct support being made available to producers – either 
through CFAP, or through other measures; and  
c. How the US plans to roll back this support in a way that will ensure both the viability of its 
affected sectors and the s tability of global markets.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The deadline was not extended.  
b. The United States continues to provide a broad range of programs to assist U.S. farmers, 
ranchers, and vulnerable populations that have been negatively impacted by COVID -19, 
consistent with existing authorities. For more information about assistance programs 
specific to addressing the impacts of COVID -19, see https://www.usda.gov/coronavirus . 
c. Ad hoc  measures in rece nt years have been implemented to address specific negative 
impacts on the U.S. agricultural sector. These short -term programs have been designed 
to minimize market impacts and are targeted to help mitigate the negative impacts of 
COVID -19 on U.S. agricult ure and U.S. consumers.   
Follow -up: The EU and New Zealand registered concern with the significant level of support and its 
impact to the global market. The EU looked forward to the U.S. notification  of the measure. The EU 
reminded the US of its obligation  to submit a Table DS:2 notification should some measures be 
notified as Green or Blue Box support. Paraguay flagged its specific interest on part b and c of the 
question AG-IMS ID 95074 and asked the US to provide more information on the new support 
packa ge of USD 14 billion recently announced by President Trump.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 267 - 
 
  
U.S. DS:1 notifications   
3.1.47.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95075)  
New Zealand looks forward to receiving the US' domestic support notifications for the marketing 
years 2018 onwards in due cours e. In light of the recently released Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Programme (CFAP), and previous rounds of Market Facilitation Programme (MFP) payments, can the 
US please outline how it plans to notify these domestic support outlays, and whether it expects these 
notifications to exceed agricultural AMS entitlements?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States will notify the 2018 Market  Facilitation Program, the 2019 Market Facilitation 
Program, and the Coronavirus  Food Assistance Program as part of the relevant marketing year 
DS:1 notification.  The measures will be  notified consistent with WTO rules.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand looked forward to the notification and stressed that  Members should comply 
with WTO obligations. The EU sought more information regarding how the US would notify the 
expenditure, in particular which box the measure would be classified under. Considering the 
significant amount of the expenditure, the EU note d concern that the US may exceed its commitment 
should it be reported as Amber Box support.   
 
U.S. direct payments to farmers  
3.1.48.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95072)  
On 2 September 2020, the USDA ERS released updated numbers on the U.S. farm sector financial 
indicators. Federal Government direct farm program payments are now forecasted to reach 
USD 37.2 billion in 2020 or 36.2% of the U.S. net farm income. After increasing 64% in 2017 -18 
and another 65% in 2019 -20, federal Government payments are now expected to push the net farm 
income to a 7 year high amid decreasing farm cash receipt.  
 
a. In recent weeks, Administration's officials have indicated that a second wave of 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program payment may be announced shortly. Could the U.S. 
indicate if this trend of rapidly rising federal Government payment will continue 
in 2020-21? 
b. Could the United States elaborate on its plans to reduce the dependency of its farmers on 
government payments and provide details on how this support will respect  its 
WTO domestic support commitment.  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a. It is not possible to comment on federal government outlays in 2020 -2021 beyond what 
has already been announced.  
b. Ad hoc  measures in recent years have been implemented to address specific negative 
impacts on the U.S. agricultural sector.  These short -term programs have been designed 
to minimize market impacts and are targeted to help mitigate the negative impacts of 
COVID -19 on U.S. agriculture and U.S. consumers.  The United States remains fully 
committed to respecting its WTO domestic support commitments.  
Follow -up: Canada took note of the short -term nature of the measures and looked forward to 
reviewing U.S. DS:1 notification to examine its compliance with the WTO commitment. New  Zealand 
asked for further information on the programmes noting that WTO Members should respect their 
commitments and the transparency obligation.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 268 - 
 
  
U.S. domestic support polices  
3.1.49.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95015)  
The United States in recent times has increa sed domestic support to agriculture through various 
relief, bailout packages and other measures. Based on the data from the Department of Agriculture, 
the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has estimated that USD  34 billion was allocated or spent 
during the  crop year 2019. The following are some of the programmes through which support was 
given for the crop year 2019.  
Table: Federal Farm Payments for the 2019 Crop Year  
Category  Amount  
(USD)  
Agricultural Risk Coverage/Price Risk Coverage  5 Billion* 
Market Facilitation Program  14.5 Billion  
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  5.9 Billion  
Crop Insurance Premium Subsidy  6.3 Billion  
Disaster Relief and all other subsidies  2.3 Billion  
Total 34 Billion  
* Final amount unknown until October 2020 . 
Source:  EWG, from Department of Agriculture data . 
 
a. The United States is requested to provide the details of the nature of the above 
programmes.  
b. How will the United States ensure that the USD 19.1 billion limit under the Amber box is 
complied with for the year 2019?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Agricultural  Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs, as well as the Federal 
Crop Insurance program, have been in place for a number of years and are described in 
detail on the USDA website at www.fsa.usda.gov  and www.rma.usda.gov , respectively. 
The United States has previously responded to questions regarding the Market Facilitation 
Program and the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, and these programs are described 
on the USDA website at www.farmers.gov . The United States notifies a number of 
permanent and ad hoc  disaster relief programs.  
b. The measures will be notified consistent with WTO rules.  
Follow -up: Australia, Brazil, and Uruguay referred to the recently announced new package of 
COVID -19 farm support which amounted to USD 14 billion and flagged concern with the continued 
significant increase in U. S. spending on domestic support. Australia encouraged the US and other 
Members, when developing COVID -19-related measures, to consider their distorting impact to the 
global agricultural system and markets, including their long -term effects. Brazil and Urug uay 
reminded the US of their AMS commitment and transparency obligations to the WTO. New  Zealand 
sought to understand whether the support would be notified under Amber box. New  Zealand 
reminded the US of its obligation to submit a Table DS:2 notification should the measure be 
exempted from AMS commitment. Colombia registered interest in the topic.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 269 - 
 
  3.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
3.2.1.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/135)  
AG-IMS ID 95076: Question by China - Transparency issues  
 
Australia administers its import of cheese through TRQ, with a committed quantity of 11,500 tonnes. 
In its recent MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/AUS/135), Australia notified that it imported 
11,472.77  tonnes of cheese for the financial year of 2019.   
 
a. Could Australia provides the origins of the cheese import and the quantity imported from 
each origin?  According to the Report by the Secretariat for the Trade Policy Review of 
Australia (WT/TPR/S /396), "the specific duty together with the tariff quota regime on 
cheese and curd provide some import protection for the dairy industry", but this protection 
was eliminated for some trading partners, including the South Pacific Forum island 
countries, LDC s, and preferential partners covered by Australia's RTAs/FTAs.  
b. Could Australia provide information on cheese and curd imported from these trading 
partners, including the volume and value for the financial year of 2019?   
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thank s China for the questions with respect its recent MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/AUS/135).  
Australia 's current cheese and curd tariff quota system forms part of Australia 's bound commitments 
under the WTO.  It was introduced in 1987 in response to unfair competi tion from subsidised 
European cheese imports, and subsequently tariffied under the WTO Uruguay Round negotiations 
in 1995 at its current volume and duty rates.  The tariff quota is restricted to 11,500 tonnes and is 
almost always fully utilised each financi al year; the in -quota rate is $0.096/kg and an out of quota 
rate is $1.22/kg.  
 
Table A below provides a breakdown of in -quota imports.  Table B provides a breakdown of imports 
which a preferential rate was claimed.  In addition to in -quota imports and imports claiming a 
preferential rate, Australia imported 13,271.1 tonnes for which no preferential rate was claimed, 
which highlights the out of quota rate of $1.22/kg is not prohibitively high to trade.   
  
Table A: Breakdown of In -Quota Imports of Cheese and Curd in FY2019 -20 
Origin  In-Quota Imports (tonnes)  In-Quota Imports  
(AUD)  
Austria  324.3  2,307,169  
Belgium  114.3  923,758  
Bulgaria  609.7  3,768,708  
Cyprus  317.7  3,486,165  
Denmark  270.2  1,853,100  
Egypt  0.9 3,014  
Finland  7.1 47,936  
France  645.3  11,163,843  
Germany  1,310.9  12,231,107  
Greece  1,235.2  13,635,724  
Ireland  299.4  1,804,538  
Italy 2,349.6  32,733,799  
Lithuania  14.3 117,344  
Netherlands  1,431.1  11,044,779  
North Macedonia  16.4 109,261  
Norway  1,079.3  9,143,621  
Poland  842.6  7,764,620  
Portugal  0.8 9,919  
Slovak Republic  84.7 964,496  
Spain  94.9 1,749,732  
Switzerland  123.8  2,648,134  
United Kingdom  282.3  3,721,453  
Total  11,455.1* 121,232,220  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 270 - 
 
  * Reported total differs to Australia 's MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/AUS/135) by 18 tonnes. This is due to 
data been subsequently reissued and updated.  
Table B: Breakdown of Cheese and Curd Imports which a preferential rate was claimed in 
FY2019 -20 
Origin  Preferential Rate Claimed (tonnes)  Preferential Rate Claimed (AUD)  
Canada  148.6  1,037,669  
New Zealand  44,130.6  267,398,826  
United States  25,306.3  150,984,585  
Total  69,585.5  419,421,080  
 
3.2.1.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/36)  
AG-IMS ID 95077 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the Dominican Republic for the submission of its outstanding MA:2 notifications up 
to reporting year 2019.  In reporting year 2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/36), with respect to DOMQ001 
(chicken meat), DOMQ006 (rice), DOMQ007 (sugar) and DOMQ008 (powdere d milk, fullcream or 
skim), all of which recorded either 0% tariff quota fill or less than 65% tariff quota fill, can the 
Dominican Republic:  
 
a. Explain the reasons for the underfill of these quotas – which for many have seen a 
downward trend over the past f ive years?  
b. Has the Dominican Republic considered implementing measures that would improve the 
quota fill for these products, including for example using the TRQ underfill mechanism 
outlined in the Bali Decision?  
Answer by Dominican Republic  
 
3.2.1.3   Japan (G/AG/N/ JPN/253)  
AG-IMS ID 95078: Question by China - Tariff quota fill  
According to the notifications on imports under the TRQs of Japan, the fill rates of peanut TRQ 
remained low for the most recent three years (43%, 49.3% and 47.7%). Could Japan provide the 
reasons for the low fill rates? If possible, please provide the information on production and 
consumption of peanut for the relevant years.  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
The low fill rates of ground nuts are mainly due to the decrease in domestic demand (Total estimated 
consumption including imported processed products has decreased from about 116 thousand tonnes 
during 1999 and 2003 in average to about 96 thousand tonnes during 2015 and 2019).  
 
Regarding the information on production and consumption, please see the table  below.  
 
Year Production volume  
(Mt) Import volume  
(Mt) 
2016 9,765  31,882  
2017 9,702  36,946  
2018 9,828  35,770  
 
Note: The ground nuts domestically produced are normally consumed next year. The production 
volume data is calendar year basis and calculated as unhusked (i.e. , without husk). The import 
volume data is fiscal year basis.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 271 - 
 
  
Special safeguards ( Tables MA :3 to MA:5) 
3.2.2.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/62)  
AG-IMS ID 95003 : Question by Brazil - Link with TRQ commitments  
According to notification G/AG /N/EU/62, the EU has made use of price -based SSGs on imports of 
boneless cuts of fowl of the species (02071410).  Considering that tariff line 02071410 is included in 
some of the EU TRQs (EU -Q023, EU -Q025 and EU -Q026), would the EU be able to provide the 
following voluntary information:  
 
a. Were the price -based SSGs triggered for imports within the quota volumes?  
b. What was the volume of imports affected by the additional duty?  
c. The additional duty imposed under subparagraph 1(b) was set according to which of AoA 's 
Article 5(5) schedule?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. No, the additional duties are not applied to volumes imported under WTO quotas, as 
specified in Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995:  "The 
additional duties referred to in Art icle 1 shall not apply in the case of imports under 
Commission Regulations (EC) No 533/2007, (EC) No 539/2007, (EC) No 616/2007, 
(EC) No 1385/2007 and (EC) No 536/2007. "  
(https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1599757553643&uri=CELEX:31995R1484 ) 
b. Additional duties are applied by the national customs authorities at customs clearance. 
Information on the volumes affected to which an a dditional duty has been applied is not 
collected at EU level.  
c. The additional duty is set according to Article 4 of Commission Regulation  (EC) 
No 1484/95,  which fully implements Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Domestic support commitments (Tabl e DS:1)  
3.2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  
AG-IMS ID 95016: Question  by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Australia's latest DS:1 notification in document G/AG/N/AUS/129 (FY 2017 -2018), it is not clear 
where the following programmes have been notified:  
 
a. Australian government: Industry -led Research Sub Program: IRSP will fund projects to 
optimize irrigation water use and improve on -farm risk management skills.  
b. Northern Territory: Research into new technology and products to enhance the 
competitiveness of the Northern Territory's agricultural industry.  
c. South Australia: Almond Centre of Excellence. The Almond Centre will address current 
production limitations and provide almond growers with the ability to maximize yields by 
working within new environmental constraints.  
d. South Australia: National Sterile Insect Technology Facility: Research and development to 
help eradicate incursions of fruit fly into South Australia.  
e. Australian government: Loxton Research Centre Redevelopment: Redeveloping the centre 
to provide agricultural research and collaboration within the South Australian Murray 
Darling Basin.  Australia is requested to provide information as to whether the above G/AG/W/216  
 
- 272 - 
 
  programmes have been terminated, and if not, under which head in the DS:1 notification 
have these been notified?  
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for the questions with respect to its DS:1 for FY2017 -18 (G/AG/N/AUS/129) 
and provides the following response with respect to each program:  
 
• The 'Industry -led Research Sub P rogram (IRSP) ' measure has not ceased. The measure did 
not have any expenditure in the reporting period and as such was not notified. Historically, 
expenditure has been notified under Australia 's Supporting Table DS:1 (under 2(a). 
Research), e.g. , as per G /AG/N/AUS/118.  
• The 'Northern Territory: Research into new technology and products to enhance the 
competitiveness of the Northern Territory's agricultural industry ' is notified under Australia 's 
Supporting Table DS:1 – 2(a). Research. This can be found on p age 4 of G/AG/N/AUS/129.  
• As noted in Australia 's Supporting Table DS:1 (page 4 of G/AG/N/AUS/129), the measure 
'South Australia: Regional Development Fund ' captures funding expenditure notified as the 
Almond Centre of Excellence in previous DS:1 notifications.  
• The 'South Australia: National Sterile Insect Technology Facility ' measure has not ceased. 
The measure did not have any expenditure in the reporting period and as such was not 
notified. Historically, expenditure has been notified under Australia 's Supporting Table  DS:1 
(under 2(a) Research), e.g. , as per G/AG/N/AUS/118.  
• The 'Australian Government: Loxton Research Centre Redevelopment ' has not ceased. T he 
measure did not have any expenditure in the reporting period and as such was not notified. 
Historically, expenditure has been notified under Australia 's Supporting Table DS:1 
(under  2(a) Research), e.g. , as per G/AG/N/AUS/118.  
AG-IMS ID 95019: Question  by India - General services: research  
In Australia 's DS:1 notification for FY 2017 -2018, in document G/AG/N/AUS/129, it is observed that 
for the research program notified under "Australian Government: Red Meat Research and 
Development: Research and develo pment to improve the productivity and market performance of 
the meat and livestock industry and further the sustainable use and management of natural 
resources " there has been a huge increase of 44% in the amount notified in comparison to the 
previous noti fication.  
 
a. Can Australia elaborate upon the type of activities covered under the programme?  
b. Also elucidate the reason for such a huge increase in the amount notified?  
Answer by Australia  
 
a. The 'Australian Government: Red Meat Research and Development ' measu re listed in 
G/AG/N/AUS/129 involves funding of Australian red meat industry bodies to conduct 
research relating to the red meat sector. This includes research on animal health and 
welfare, grazing land management, genetics and genoming, feedlot management , 
environmental sustainability, productivity, food safety and traceability, product 
innovation, biosecurity and digital agricultural technologies.  
b. The Australian government contributes one dollar for each dollar relevant industry bodies 
invest in eligible research into a particular product under this measure. Hence, the increase 
in funding under the measure is dictated by the industry body 's own research objectives 
and funding in any given year.  
3.2.3.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/43)  
AG-IMS ID 95079 : Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes the Dominican Republic's submission of seven DS:1  notifications . This is a strong 
demonstration of the Dominican Republic's commitment to transparency. Australia welcomes and 
commends the Dominican Republic.  With respect to the latest notification for 2019, 
G/AG/N/DOM/43, can the Dominican Republic respond to the following questions:   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 273 - 
 
  a. Australia notes Green Box pest and disease expenditure increased by almost 1600%  
from 2018 to 2019. Can the Dominican Republic please explain this increase?  
b. Australia notes Green Box extension and advisory services reduced by almost one third 
from 2018 to 2019. Can the Dominican Republic please explain this decrease?  
Answer by Dominic an Republic  
 
3.2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61, G/AG/N/EU/55)  
AG-IMS ID 95117: Question by Colombia - Classification of measures  
In response to questions AG -IMS ID s 93302 and 93303 from Colombia and Paraguay, the EU 
indicated that the "support and protection of  organic production by creating conditions of fair 
competition" are "environmental programmes" within the meaning of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to 
the Agreement on Agriculture, due to the fact that one of the goals of this support is "to restore, 
preserve and  enhance biodiversity".   
 
However, the March 2019 report by the European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and 
Technology entitled "Farming without plant protection products - Can we grow without using 
herbicides, fungicides and insecticides?" poi nts out that plant protection products, including 
herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, have unwanted and inevitable secondary effects, such as their 
negative impact on biodiversity due to land use changes. The European Parliament Panel notes that:"  
 
[...] it is clear that organic farming, and its implementation in agro -ecology, is often not the best 
choice. At farm level, all scientific meta -studies indicate that the increase in biodiversity is rather 
marginal, but that, at global level, there will be a d rastic decrease in biodiversity, since organic 
farming is approximately 25% less productive than conventional farming. This implies that, to feed 
11 billion people, more land is needed at the expense of biodiversity. Moreover, the perception that 
natural P PPs, used in organic farming, are less toxic and lead to less residues is not always correct 
and needs further scientific confirmation ." 
 
In this respect, this study published by the European Parliament recognizes that organic farming 
may have adverse effe cts on biodiversity. In light of this report and of the document  "COMMISSION 
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 on 
the placing o f plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 on 
maximum residue levels of pesticides) 208 final}"17, already identified in questions AG-IMS ID s 
93302 and 93303, we reiterate our concern:  
 
How does the European Union conside r that the payments to promote organic farming, which were 
notified in G/AG/N/EU/61 (page 5) and G/AG/N/EU/55 (page 5), may be notified under the category 
"Environmental Programmes" of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture?   
 
Answer by Eu ropean Union  
 
Organic farming aims at producing food using natural substances and processes, leading to an 
agricultural method with limited environmental impact. It encourages the use of farm -derived 
renewable resources, the enhancement of biological cycle s within the farming system, the 
maintenance of biodiversity, the preservation of regional ecological balances, the maintenance and 
increase of soil fertility, and the responsible use and proper care of water. Additionally, organic 
farming rules encourage a high standard of animal welfare and require farmers to meet the specific 
behavioural needs of animals.  
 
The EU support for organic farming focuses  on the conversion to and/or maintenance of organic 
farming practices - and not for economic purposes - with a view to encouraging farmers ' participation 
in such schemes, thus answering society's demand for the use of environmentally friendly farm 
practices. In particular, the objective is to restore, preserve and enhance biodiversity, including in 
 
17 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE 
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCI L Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No.  1107/2009 
on the placing of plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 on maximum 
residue levels of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final},  page 87.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 274 - 
 
  Natura 2000 a reas, in areas facing natural or other specific constraints as well as high nature value 
farming. Further, improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management, 
preventing soil erosion, improving soil management and supporting the shif t towards a low carbon 
and climate resilient economy in agriculture.  
 
On 20 May 2020, the European Commission adopted its Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. 
In line with the European Green Deal, they propose ambitious EU actions and commitments to halt 
biodiversity loss in Europe and worldwide, and to transform our food systems. Both strategies set a 
target to increase the area under organic farming in the EU to 25% of utilised agricultural land. This 
area-focused target clearly demon strates that the primary objective of EU 's support for organic 
farming is due to the benefits of such farming practices for the environment and biodiversity.  
 
Many studies clearly demonstrate a positive effect of organic farming on biodiversity. A study b y the 
Thuenen Institute18 states that 86% of flora and 49% of fauna in temperate regions showed distinct 
positive effects under organic farming compared to conventional management. The following species 
groups were studied,  and their number or abundance was compared under organic management to 
conventional management. The species numbers are clearly higher under organic management on 
arable land (95% higher), for field seed banks (61% higher) and for field margin vegetation 
(21%  higher). In addition, the number of farmland birds is clearly higher (35%) as well as its 
abundance (24%) under organic farming. The same is true for flower -visiting insects (23% increase 
in number and 26% in abundance). Moreover, the Commission is co mmitted to further reduce yield 
gaps observed for organic production, including as a result of research and development efforts.  
 
Further, the push for increasing Europe 's organic area is part of a much wider transition of Europe 's 
food system, which aims to make not only production, but also consumption more sustainable. The 
Farm to Fork Strategy is a multi -annual, multifaceted strategy and part of Europe 's green deal to 
make the continent carbon neutral by 2050. Globally, the Green Deal and its Farm to Fo rk Strategy 
aim to contribute to reaching the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and work with 
international partners to strive towards higher level of sustainability in the food system globally. 
Creating sustainable food systems in Europe should  go hand in hand with support to increasing 
sustainability in third countries.  
 
The EU therefore disagrees entirely with Paraguay 's and Colombia 's arguments and in particular the 
statement "it is clear that organic farming, and its implementation in agro -ecology, is often not the 
best choice and questioning that the EU notifies its support to organic farming under Article 12 of 
Annex  2 of the Agreement on Agriculture ". In the opinion of the Commission, the correct way to 
notify its support for organic farm ing is under Article 12 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture, 
in particular, when one takes into account the conditions and eligibility criteria for farmers to obtain 
the subsidy and the above information on the effects of organic farming.  
 
Paraguay and Columbia mention one study only. The EU would recommend the following studies in 
order to have a broader view on organic farming and the positive effect it has on the environment 
and how it contributes to increase biodiversity. Two of the greatest curr ent challenges for the world 's 
farming sector are how to ensure sufficient and sustainable food production in the decades ahead of 
us and at the same time attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.  
 
Additional studies:  
Hole, D.G., Perkin s, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, P.V., Evans, A.D. (2005) Does organic 
farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 122: 113 -130.  
 
Gabriel, D., and Tscharntke, T. (2007) Insect pollinated plants benefit from organic farming. 
Agricul ture, Ecosystems and Environment 118: 43 -48.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil supported the questions and reminded Members that the issue had already been 
subject to questions by Brail during the 91st CoA meeting (AG -IMS ID 91059). Paraguay pointed out 
that the argumen ts put forward by the EU were in complete disagreement with the EU's own findings 
as quoted in the question. Paraguay noted that according to the study published by the European 
Parliament, organic production could have an impact on carbon footprint becaus e to produce the 
same quantity of products organic farming requires more resources such as water and land 
compared to other production methods. In Paraguay's view, despite the benefits organic farming 
 
18 https://www.thuenen.de/media/publikationen/thuenen -report/Thuenen_Report_65.pdf . G/AG/W/216  
 
- 275 - 
 
  could provide to the environment, the negative impact c ould not be denied and therefore classifying 
the support given to organic farming as environmental programmes under Annex 2 was 
questionable. In addition,  in reference to the following statement from the EU "Both strategies set a 
target to increase the are a under organic farming in the EU to 25% of utilised agricultural land", 
Paraguay was concerned that even if the production could be subsidized under paragraph 12 of 
Annex  2, the support given to 25% of the EU's production could have an effect on prices an d 
therefore should be classified as Amber Box support. Based on the abovementioned arguments, 
Paraguay encouraged the EU to revise the criteria they used to classify the measures in question 
and notify them under the Amber Box category. Paraguay further po inted to the FAO and OECD 
agriculture outlook for 2020 -2029 which recommended that government should reduce subsidies 
which distort the market as they result in the biggest damage to the environment, and invited the  EU 
to consider withdrawing the support f or an activity which represents according to Eurostat  less 
than 2% of GDP and provides a source of employment for only around 2% of the population. In 
conclusion, Paraguay stated that it agreed with the EU's statement that sustainability is one of the 
major challenges in agriculture but the concept of sustainability in agricultural production as defined 
by the FAO also includes economic, social and environmental sustainability. Colombia echoed 
Paraguay's statement. Costa Rica and the US expressed interest i n the topic.   
AG-IMS ID 95099: Question by Paraguay - Classification of measures  
In response to questions AG ‑IMS ID s 93302 and 93303 from Colombia and Paraguay, the  EU 
indicated that the " support and protection of organic production by creating conditions of fair 
competition " are " environmental programmes " within the meaning of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, given that, inter alia , the objective of the support is " to restore, 
preserve and enhance biodiversity ". 
 
However,  the March  2019 report of the European Parliament's Panel of Experts on the Future of 
Science and Technology entitled Farming without plant protection products: Can we grow without 
using herbicides, fungicides and insecticides? notes that plant protection products, including 
herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, have unwanted and unavoidable side effects, such as their 
negative impact on biodiversity due to changes in land use. However, the European Parliament's 
Panel of Experts notes that:  
 
"[...] it is c lear that organic farming, and its implementation in agro ‑ecology, is often not the best 
choice. At farm level, all scientific meta ‑studies indicate that the increase in biodiversity is rather 
marginal, but that, at global level, there will be a drastic de crease in biodiversity, since organic 
farming is approximately 25% less productive than conventional farming. This implies that, to feed 
11 billion people, more land is needed at the expense of biodiversity. Moreover, the perception that 
natural PPPs, used  in organic farming, are less toxic and lead to less residues is not always correct 
and needs further scientific confirmation ."19 
  
In this connection, the study published by the European Parliament recognizes that organic farming 
may have a negative impac t in terms of biodiversity. In light of this report and the document 
Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Report from the Commission to 
the European Parliament and the Council Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on the placing  
of plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue 
levels of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final }20, already referred to in question 93302/93303, we 
reiterate our concern over how the European Union considers that payments to promote organic 
farming, which were notified in G/AG/N/EU/61 (p. 5) and in G/AG/N/EU/55 (p.  5), can be notified 
under the categor y "Environmental programmes" of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
See EU reply to question AG -IMS ID 95117.  
  
 
19 Panel of Experts on the Future of Science and Technology, Farming without plant protection products: 
Can we grow withou t using herbicides, fungicides and insecticides? , March 2019, p. II.  
20 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Report from the Commission to 
the European Parliament and the Council Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on the placi ng of plant 
protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of 
pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final}, p. 87.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 276 - 
 
  Follow -up: Brazil supported the questions and reminded Members that the issue had already been 
subject to questions by Brail during the 91st CoA meeting (AG -IMS ID 91059). Paraguay pointed out 
that the arguments put forward by the EU were in complete disagreement with the EU's own findings 
as quoted in the question. Paraguay noted that according to t he study published by the European 
Parliament, organic production could have an impact on carbon footprint because to produce the 
same quantity of products organic farming requires more resources such as water and land 
compared to other production methods.  In Paraguay's view, despite the benefits organic farming 
could provide to the environment, the negative impact could not be denied and therefore classifying 
the support given to organic farming as environmental programmes under Annex 2 was 
questionable. I n addition,  in reference to the following statement from the EU "Both strategies set a 
target to increase the area under organic farming in the EU to 25% of utilised agricultural land", 
Paraguay was concerned that even if the production could be subsidized under paragraph 12 of 
Annex 2, the support given to 25% of the EU's production could have an effect on prices and 
therefore should be classified as Amber Box support. Based on the abovementioned arguments, 
Paraguay encouraged the EU to revise th e criteria they used to classify the measures in question 
and notify them under the Amber Box category. Paraguay further pointed to the FAO and OECD 
agriculture outlook for 2020 -2029 which recommended that government should reduce subsidies 
which distort t he market as they result in the biggest damage to the environment, and invited the 
EU to consider withdrawing the support for an activity which represents according to Eurostat  less 
than 2% of GDP and provides a source of employment for only around 2% of t he population. In 
conclusion, Paraguay stated that it agreed with the EU's statement that sustainability is one of the 
major challenges in agriculture but the concept of sustainability in agricultural production as defined 
by the FAO also includes economic , social and environmental sustainability. Colombia echoed 
Paraguay's statement. Costa Rica and the US expressed interest in the topic.   
 
3.2.3.4   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/23)  
AG-IMS ID 95080: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance pro vided through investment aids  
Australia thanks Georgia for the submission of its DS:1 for calendar year 2019. With respect to its 
supporting table DS:1, can Georgia explain how its 'preferential agro -credits ' programme operates, 
including:  
 
a. What sector or producer cohort receives funding through this program?  
b. What structural disadvantage is being experienced by that sector or producer cohort?  And 
c. What the funding involves and what terms are attached to the agro -credits?  
Answer by Georgia  
AG-IMS ID 95081: Qu estion by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment  aids 
In its domestic support notification for 2019, Georgia reports support under paragraph  11 of Annex  2 
of the AoA (Structural adjustment assistance provided  through investment aids) which is described 
has "Preferential Agro -credits ". Could Georgia explain what structural disadvantage is the program 
designed to address, and how the program meets the criteria of paragraph  11 of Annex  2 of the  AoA? 
 
Answer by Ge orgia  
 
3.2.3.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 95082: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its reply to question AG-IMS ID 93291, India indicated that it would provide an answer in due 
course to Canada 's question related to discrepanc ies in statistical information for rice stocks in its 
domestic support notification (G/AG/N/IND/18) for 2018/2019.Is India in a position to provide an 
answer to Canada 's question?  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 277 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
The government of India announces minimum support price for paddy rather than rice. However, 
for comparison with the external reference price, the minimum support price of paddy is converted 
into that of rice by using an average conversion ratio, which is also provided in our DS:1 domestic 
support notifications. The stocks mentioned in the table are of rice rather than of paddy. Some 
stocks are in the form of un -milled paddy.  
 
The discrepancies noted in this question occur on account of damage due to various fac tors, and 
also due to inter -state movement of stock.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. 
The EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers 
which were n ot classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area 
represents of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c ) of 
AG-IMS ID 95085. In reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in i ts written 
replies the relevant laws and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State 
legislations/orders  were in place. On AG ‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included 
the guidelines for ensuring the stocks were not exporte d but the US was interested in how India 
monitored and controlled the released stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up quest ions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether  
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested th e following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete measures taken by India to ensure 
the stock s released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mentioned in the footnote of India's notificatio n and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in In dia's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which states that "have provided, and 
continue  to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver th e data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarification on providing Article  6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95085 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
a. Waiving of Agricultural loans  
 
In the 20 17/18 notification India included "Waiving of Agricultural loan " with an amount of 
USD 8,07 billion. No amount is mentioned for this measure in 2018/19.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 278 - 
 
   
Can India explain whether this measure has been abolished or whether the measure is still applied 
but no payment took place through this instrument.  
 
b. Allocation for distribution and buffer stock  
 
An amount of USD  18 billion is indicated for this measure.  
 
i. Can India indicate how much is used for distribution and how much on operating the buffer 
stocks.  
ii. Can India indicate the quantity of products that entered and left the buffer stocks during 2018/19 
marketing per product.  
c. Supporting table DS:2  
 
In the footnote India indicates that 99,43% of India 's farmers are low -income.  Can India plea se 
indicate the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers are using and the percentage 
which this area represents of India 's total Utilised Agricultural Area.  
 
d. Supporting table DS:2  
 
India indicates an amount of $24.18  billion for input sub sidies.   
 
• Can India please indicate the separate amounts for  Irrigation , Fertilizers , Electricity , 
Fuels/diesel.  
e. Supporting Table DS:4  
 
India has not indicated any VoP other than for rice in a footnote. This issue has already been 
discussed several times in past Regular CoA meetings, and the EU will once more strongly encourage 
India to include VoP values for all the products in Supporting  Table DS:4 as the EU and most other 
Members do.  
 
Can India please indicate the VoP figures for all the products in supporting table DS:4.  
 
f. Supporting table DS:5  
 
According to India statistics total milled rice production in 2018/19 was 116  million tonn es. India 
has only used 44,33  million tonnes in its calculation of the market price support.  
 
Can India please explain in detail why the remaining 72  million tonnes did not benefit from the 
administered price? Did this rice not fulfil the same quality crit eria as the 44,33 million tonnes bought 
in? Which are the criteria?   
 
Answer by India  
 
We thank the European Union for their question, and our response is as follows.  
 
a. No payment took place through this instrument in 2018 -19. 
b. The final data regarding allocation for distribution and buffer stock is not yet available 
for 2018-19. 
c. The relevant information can be accessed from India 's Agriculture Census of 2015 -2016.  
d. We would like to refer the EU to the table on agricultural input subsidies notified 
for 2018-2019 in India 's DS:1 notification in document G/AG/N/IND/18.  
Year 
(Figures in million USD)  Fertilizer  Irrigation  Power  
2018-19 10,500.88  3,730.98  9,952.60  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 279 - 
 
  e. Please refer to India 's response to Question AG-IMS ID 93195.   
f. Please  note that only a portion of the  marketable surplus of rice which t is actually offered 
by farmers and which meets the specifications prescribed by the government is procured 
at administered price.  
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. 
The EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers 
which were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area 
represents of  India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c ) of 
AG-IMS ID 95085. In reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written 
replies the relevant laws and regulations, rather than just stating that the variou s State 
legislations/orders  were in place. On AG ‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included 
the guidelines for ensuring the stocks were not exported but the US was interested in how India 
monitored and controlled the released stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which sta tes that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures  India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation tak es 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value term s for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding th e rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mentioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimi s limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that In dia in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the An nex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked t o India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarification on providing Article 6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rat her than Article 6.2.   
  
Brazil noted that, given that India is one of the main proponents for a permanent solution on Public 
Stockholding and has been advocating the protection under the peace clause agreed in the Bali 
Ministerial Conference against its t wo recent "de minimis " breaches, this kind of concrete information 
required by Canada, the EU and the US is important for Members to make informed decisions on the 
topic and would be useful for the discussions in the special session of the Committee on Agr iculture. 
The EU supported Brazil's comment. In relation to AG -IMS ID s 98087, 98101, and 98099, the 
European Union and the US hoped that the response could be provided before the next Committee 
meeting and that the response could include the specific data and publications requested by the co -
sponsors. The US commented that India's previous response on this issue stated that no state 
bonuses were announced but official state government websites and numerous media reports had G/AG/W/216  
 
- 280 - 
 
  indicated otherwise. On AG -IMS ID s 98089, 98100, and 98103, Canada requested further 
information on the assessment process.   
AG-IMS ID 95086: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/18 India identified as "Relevant laws and regulations " the "National 
Food Security Act, 2013; various Public Distribution System (Control) Orders and their subsequent 
amendments issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; a nd various State 
legislations/orders. "  
 
a. Please identify all relevant laws and regulations, including each state legislation/order.  
b. Please identify document or measure with pre -determined targets related to food security.  
Answer by India  
 
As mentioned in the referred notification, the National Food Security Act, 2013; various Public 
Distribution System (Control) Orders and their subsequent amendments issued under the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1955; and various State legislations/orders are th e relevant documents in context 
of the Annex to the Bali Decision.  
 
The website of the Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) - 
https://dfpd.gov.in/index.htm  provides relevant information on rules an d orders regarding India 's 
food security programmes.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were n ot classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS ID 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in it s written replies the relevant laws 
and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were in place. On 
AG‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the guidelines for ensuring the stocks 
were not exported  but the US was interested in how India monitored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from pre vious years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits p rovided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG-IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India c ould provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the follow ing additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks releas ed under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mentioned in the footnote of India's notification and th e timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS :1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph  3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained G/AG/W/216  
 
- 281 - 
 
  in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme tha t it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarification on providing Article  6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95087: Questio n by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/18 India stated under "The date of commencement of the programme " 
for the Public Distribution System as "since 1960s. "  
 
a. Please identify all programs unde r which minimum support prices are provided for rice, 
wheat, coarse grains and pulses and specify the date of commencement for each.  
b. Identify all agencies that procure any commodity under each of these programs and 
specify which commodities each agency pro cures.  
Answer by India  
 
a. The Minimum Support Price programme was initiated in the 1960s (1966 -67) and currently 
covers 24 crops.  
b. Nodal agencies like the Food Corporation of India (FCI), National Agricultural Cooperative 
Marketing Federation of India (NAFED)  and various state agencies procure agricultural 
commodities at minimum support price.  
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS ID 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, th e US asked India to include in its written replies the relevant laws 
and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were in place. On 
AG‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the guidelines for ensu ring the stocks 
were not exported but the US was interested in how India monitored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bo und Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay rais ed the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the procedur es and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding p rogrammes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete measures ta ken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mentioned in the  footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be G/AG/W/216  
 
- 282 - 
 
  submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph  3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which states t hat "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the E U encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarification on p roviding Article  6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95088: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/18 India stated under "Officially published objective criteria or 
guidelines " "[t]he main objectives of food security programmes. " 
 
a. Please identify the criteria or guidelines for all relevant programs listed in response to 
Question 2(a) above.  
b. How does India publish or make available information on process of stock accumulation?  
c. Please specify provisions related to volume and accumulation of stocks, including any 
provisions related to pre -determined targets and quantitative limits.   
Answer by India  
 
The relevant criteria has been provided in part 3c of the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/18.  
 
The information on stock accumulation is managed through a web -based module called the 
Integrated Information System for Food grains Management (I ISFM) established by the Food 
Corporation of India. This module connects all Divisional Offices (DOs), Regional Offices, Zonal 
Offices and the headquarters of the Food Corporation of India. More details can be accessed from 
the website of the FCI - www.fci .gov.in . 
 
Before the onset of each marketing season, the government holds a consultative meeting with the 
Food Corporation of India (FCI), the State Governments and other stakeholders to make an 
assessment regarding the availability of paddy/rice for procu rement at Minimum Support Price (MSP) 
in order to meet the food security requirements of our citizens. Based on the feedback received in 
the meeting regarding the production prospects and market situation, procurement estimates 
(targets) are drawn up by th e government.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. 
The EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers 
which were not classified as low -income farmers are  using and the percentage which this area 
represents of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of 
AG-IMS ID 95085. In reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written 
replies the relevant laws and  regulations, rather than just stating that the various State 
legislations/orders  were in place. On AG ‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included 
the guidelines for ensuring the stocks were not exported but the US was interested in how India  
monitored and controlled the released stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also  pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than tho se notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 283 - 
 
  Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor  the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concret e measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support men tioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would b e 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c w hich states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Z ealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clari fication on providing Article 6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95089: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The Nairobi Decision Annex requires "[a] description of any measures aimed at minimizing 
production or trade distortive effects of the programme. " In G/AG/N/IND/18 India responded that 
"Government does not undertake exports on a commercial basis from public stockholdings. " It is 
noted however that the Food Corporation of India indicates that rice was exported to Egypt 
commercially in 2016/17 and for humanitarian purposes in 2017/18.  
 
a. Please explain the prohibition on exports "on a commercial basis " and how it is 
enforced.  Does enforcement include monitoring of export data?  
b. If so, please explain how that monitoring may demonstrate exports not containing volumes 
from public stockholdings.  Specify any data that may be used for monitor ing and whether 
those data are publicly available.   
c. India's annex additionally states that "open market sales of food grains from public 
stockholding are made provided the buyer gives an undertaking of not exporting from 
such purchases. " Please explain how  the buyer gives the undertaking and how it is 
enforced.  
d. For open market sales of food grains from public stockholding, how does India make sales 
and set prices, i.e. , price methodology.   
Answer by India  
 
We thank the United States for their question, and our response is as follows.  
 
a. and b.  Public stockholding programmes in India are carried out for ensuring food security. 
Allocations are made out of the stock for meeting the objective of food security among various 
welfare schemes and for meeting nation al contingencies. Exports are not made from such stocks 
except if requested by another country in need of aid.   
 
c. and d. Exports are not allowed from open market sales of food grains from public stockholding. 
Guidelines for empanelment and registration u nder the Open Market  Sales  Scheme (Domestic) G/AG/W/216  
 
- 284 - 
 
  stipulate that products under said scheme will be utilized domestically and not exported by the 
bidder.  
 
These guidelines can be accessed from  - http://fci.go v.in/sales.php?view=224 . 
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. 
The EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers 
which were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area 
represents of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS 
ID 95085. In reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written replies the 
releva nt laws and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were 
in place. On AG ‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the guidelines for 
ensuring the stocks were not exported but the US was interested i n how India monitored and 
controlled the released stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor  the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concret e measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support men tioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would b e 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c w hich states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Z ealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clari fication on providing Article 6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95090: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In the Statistical Appendix (Rice) to G/AG/N/IND/18 India did not provide data for items m through 
p (total imports and exports, by value and quantity), with the footnote "Only export and import from 
public stockholdings have been considered. " 
 
a. Please explain why this information was not provided.  
b. Noting India has not yet provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93198, please provide 
statistics on India 's exports and imports of rice in 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 285 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
We thank the  United States for their question, and our response is as follows.  
 
a. and b. In the Statistical Appendix on Rice to G/AG/N/IND/18, import and export from public 
stockholding have been considered, and information has been accordingly provided, as explained  in 
the footnote.  
 
Information regarding India's total export and import for rice may be accessed from the web -
link: https://commerce -app.gov.in/eidb/ . 
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's writ ten responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's tot al Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS ID 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written replies the relevant laws 
and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legis lations/orders  were in place. On 
AG‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the guidelines for ensuring the stocks 
were not exported but the US was interested in how India monitored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the  question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ens ure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India re ferred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.   
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the  other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice st ock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mentioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit f or rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in it s response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarification on providing Article  6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rathe r than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95091: Question  by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
In G/AG/N/IND/18 India notified Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes - Allocation for 
distribution and buffer stock (in mi llions USD): USD 17,212.05.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 286 - 
 
  a. What are the expenditures in relation to the accumulation and holding of rice stocks of 
products identified including storage?  
Answer by India  
 
The final data on allocation for distribution and buffer stock is not yet available  for the 
period  2018- 2019.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. 
The EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers 
which were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area 
represents of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS 
ID 95085. In reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written replies the 
relevant laws and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were 
in place. On AG ‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the guidelines for 
ensuring the stocks were not exported but the US was interest ed in how India monitored and 
controlled the released stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a referen ce. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes  other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor  the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concret e measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support men tioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would b e 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c w hich states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Z ealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clari fication on providing Article 6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95084: Question  by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
In rep ly to question AG-IMS ID 93294, India provided a link rather than an answer to Canada 's 
question on conformity of the program called Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN)  with 
the Green Box criteria. The link provided by India ( https://pmkisan.gov.in/ ) was not working when 
it was consulted by Canada during the first week of September. Canada would therefore, ask India 
to directly answer the questions in ID 93294 (copied below), related to the Pradha n Mantri Kisan 
Samman Nidhi program.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 287 - 
 
  a.  Could India clarify who is eligible for this program and what are the criteria that 
determined eligibility for a payment?  
b. Could India indicate if payment levels are determined by income of producers and if so, 
what is  the defined and fixed base period used to define eligibility?  
Answer by India  
 
We thank Canada for their question, and our response is as follows.  
 
1. As per the guidelines under the scheme, payment under the scheme is available to landholding 
farmer families. The following categories of beneficiaries of higher economic status are not eligible 
for benefit under the scheme:  
(i) All Institutional Land holders; and  
(ii) Farmer families in which one or more of its members belong to the following cat egories:  
a) Former and present holders of constitutional posts.  
b) Former and present Ministers /State Ministers and former/present Members of Lok Sabha/Rajya 
Sabha /State Legislative Assemblies /State Legislative Councils, former and present Mayors of 
Munici pal Corporations, former and present Chairpersons of District Panchayats.  
c) All serving or retired officers and employees of Central /State Government 
Ministries /Offices/Departments and its field units Central or State PSEs and Attached 
offices /Autonomous Institutions under Government as well as regular three  employees of the Local 
Bodies (Excluding Multi -Tasking Staff /Class IV/Group D employees).  
d) All superannuated/retired pensioners whose monthly pension is Rs.10000/ -or more (Excluding 
Multi-Tasking Sta ff/Class IV/Group D employees).  
e) All Persons who paid Income Tax in the last assessment year.  
f) Professionals like Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers, Chartered Accountants, and Architects registered 
with Professional bodies and carrying out profession by undertaking practices.  
 
2. Payment levels are not determined by the income of producers . 
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha ) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS ID 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written replies the relevant laws 
and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were in place. On 
AG-IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the gu idelines for ensuring the stocks 
were not exported but the US was interested in how India monitored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 20 18/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the M ember's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AGIMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the  procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stock holding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete me asures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mention ed in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification G/AG/W/216  
 
- 288 - 
 
  for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph  3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which  states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Zeala nd, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarifica tion on providing Article  6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95100: Question by Paraguay - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In its answer to question AG-IMS IDs 93234/5, India indicated that: " Input subsidies notified under 
Article  6.2 are generally available  to low income and resource poor farmers. This support is on 
account of power, fertilizer and irrigation in agriculture."  
 
Could India confirm:  
 
a. Whether these power, fertilizer and irrigation subsidies are also provided to medium ‑ and 
large‑scale producers;   
b. The number of medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers in India and how many hectares these 
farms cover;   
c. The main branches of production in which these medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers are 
engaged.  
Answer by India  
 
Input subsidies under Article 6.2 are generally  available to low -income resource poor farmers and 
are not commodity specific.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS ID 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 950 86, the US asked India to include in its written replies the relevant laws 
and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were in place. On 
AG‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the guidelines fo r ensuring the stocks 
were not exported but the US was interested in how India monitored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the  Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 289 - 
 
  Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete  measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support ment ioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be  
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c wh ich states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Ze aland, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarif ication on providing Article 6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95101: Question  by Paraguay - Market price support  
In follow ‑up to the answers  provided in the room by India to questions AG-IMS IDs 93233/36, and 
we note that India has still not been uploaded to the AG ‑IMS system, we request India to provide 
the following additional details:   
 
a. Why does it consider that the annex should only be sub mitted from the time its limits have 
been exceeded, or are at risk of being exceeded, and not from when the programme comes 
into existence, as required under paragraph 3(c) of the Bali Decision?   
b. Where specifically  in notification DS:1  G/AG/N/IND/18 does i t consider that the 
information referring to the volumes and notification of stocks, pursuant to paragraph 3(b) 
of the Bali Decision, can be found?   
c. We thank India for confirming that stocks are not re ‑exported. However, the question 
sought an explanation of the mechanism in place to ensure that stocks are not re ‑exported. 
We once again request further details on the measures developed by India to ensure that 
its stocks are not re ‑exported. We note that, according to the WTO statistics contained 
in G/AG/W/3 2/Rev.18, India is the world's leading exporter of rice. Its rice exports for the 
period covered by this notification were equivalent to almost 30% of world rice exports.   
d. Why did India take so long to notify that it had exceeded its de minimis  levels for rice, 
given that the Bali Decision allows notification when there is a risk of violation?   
e. Whether the 44.33  million tonnes of rice in table DS:5 correspond to India's entire rice 
production for the year covered by this notification.  
Answer by India  
 
We thank Paraguay for their question, and our response is as follows.  
 
a) & (d). Para 3 (a) of the Bali Ministerial Decision states that a developing Member benefiting from 
this Decision must "have notified the Committee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of 
exceeding either or both of its Aggregate Measurement  of Support (AMS) limits (the Member 's Bound 
Total AMS or the  de minimis  level) as result of its programmes mentioned above ". Since India 
exceeded the de minimis  for rice in the year 2018 -19, it has notified the same and the Annex as 
required by the Bali D ecision in its notification for the year. For previous years, India did not exceed 
its de minimis  limit as is also reflected in India 's past notifications.  
 
(b). This information can be accessed from the statistical annex on page 11 of India 's DS:1 
notific ation in document G/AG/N/IND/18.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 290 - 
 
   
(c) Exports are not allowed from open market sales of food grains from public stockholding. 
Guidelines for empanelment and registration under the Open Market  Sales  Scheme (Domestic) 
stipulate that products under said schem e will be utilized domestically and not exported by the 
bidder.  
 
These guidelines can be accessed from  the web -link: http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 . 
 
(e) As per the supporting table DS:5 in G/AG/N/IND/18, 44.33 million tonnes of rice is the quantity 
of rice which was procured at the minimum support price.   
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS ID 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written replies the relevant laws 
and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were in place. On 
AG‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that Ind ia's response included the guidelines for ensuring the stocks 
were not exported but the US was interested in how India monitored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the informa tion was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to paragraph 
5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that results in 
an increase of  the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis limits 
provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how India 
could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding th e other rice 
policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a foll ow up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on othe r 
form of rice support mentioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the rel evant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purp oses;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada as ked India to provide clarification on providing Article  6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
AG-IMS ID 95092: Question  by United States of America - Market price support  
In G/AG/N/IND/18 India notified Market Price Support for rice (in millions USD): $5,004.97 with the 
footnote, "Other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security purposes, 
will be notified subsequently. " Noting India has not yet provided a written response 
to AG-IMS IDs 93198 and 93272:  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 291 - 
 
  a. Please identify the national legislation underlying other support for rice.  
b. Please provide a brief description of this other support.  
c. What was the reason for not including such measures in India 's domestic support 
notification?  
d. Was this other support first introduced only in 2018/19 and is such support still in effect 
for subsequent years?  
e. Please provide an update on India 's pla n to submit a revised notification with this 
information as it noted verbally during the last Committee on Agriculture meeting.   
Answer by India  
 
We are in the process of collection of information on "other support ". We will notify this information 
in due course.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the data on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were not classified as low -income farmers are using  and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS ID 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written replies the relevant laws 
and regul ations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were in place. On 
AG‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India's response included the guidelines for ensuring the stocks 
were not exported but the US was interested in how India monit ored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the information was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also point ed to 
paragraph  5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that 
results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis 
limits provided under programmes other than those not ified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how 
India could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the 
other rice policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submi t 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) wha t actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and the US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside with rice; (2) the concrete measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the sta tistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mentioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification 
for such support ; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relevant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up  
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph  3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but not the provision in 3.c which states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional informat ion by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarification on providing Article  6.2 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 292 - 
 
  support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to c onsider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
 
AG-IMS ID 95083: Question by Canada - Classification of measures  
In reply to question AG -IMS ID 93293, India provided a link rather than an answer to Canada 's 
question on the conform ity of the programme called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)  with 
the Green Box criteria. Canada consulted the link provided by India and found the operational 
guidelines of the PMFBY. It is mentioned in that document that the:  
 
"The Average Yield of a notified crop in Insurance Unit (IU) will be average yield of best five years 
out of last seven years. The Threshold yield of the notified crop is equal to Average Yield multiplied 
by Indemnity level. The Threshold Yield for any crop and IU shall comp ulsorily be part of the 
notification for the season and shall not change at any point during that season. " 
 
The average reference period yield of this programme set at the best five years out of last seven 
years, does not meet the base period criteria to c alculate the average production level, as defined 
by Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a), which has to be set at the preceding three -year period or a three -year 
average based on the preceding five -year period, excluding the highest and the lowest entry.  
 
In light of this information, could India indicate how it could justify the current classification of this 
program under paragraph 8 of the Green Box?  
Could India indicate when it will reclassify this support in the Amber Box, as this programme does 
not meet the exemp tion requirements of the Annex 2 of the Agreement of Agriculture?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The purpose of taking average yield based on multiple years is to minimise the fluctuations in 
relevant data owing to various factors. Given that Indian agriculture is larg ely weather dependent 
and has inadequate irrigation facilities, yield data over a longer time period is taken into 
consideration.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and the US hoped that India's written responses would include more details. The 
EU looked forward to the da ta on the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers which 
were not classified as low -income farmers are using and the percentage which this area represents 
of India's total Utilised Agricultural Area, as requested in its question c of AG -IMS I D 95085. In 
reference to AG -IMS ID 95086, the US asked India to include in its written replies the relevant laws 
and regulations, rather than just stating that the various State legislations/orders  were in place. On 
AG‑IMS ID 95089, the US noted that India 's response included the guidelines for ensuring the stocks 
were not exported but the US was interested in how India monitored and controlled the released 
stocks. Canada supported the question.   
  
Concerning AG -IMS ID 95092, the US noted that the informati on was not available for 2018/19 and 
asked India to provide the data from previous years as a reference. The US also pointed to paragraph 
5 of the Bali decision which states that "This Decision shall not be used in a manner that results in 
an increase of t he support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis limits 
provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a."  and asked how India 
could ensure this commitment was made without providing any information regarding the other rice 
policies.  
  
Paraguay raised the following follow up questions to AG -IMS ID 95101 and noted that it would submit 
them in the AG -IMS: (1) whether the procedures India referred to was the only requirement to avoid 
re-exports, (2) is there a follow  up mechanism to monitor the procedures and if it is the case whether 
India could provide details on how it works; (3) what actions India would take if re -exportation takes 
place.  
  
Uruguay supported the questions raised by Canada, the EU, Paraguay and th e US on India's public 
stockholding programmes (PSH) and requested the following additional information from India: 
(1) the total production in quantity and in value terms for the other eight products to which market 
price support was provided alongside wi th rice; (2) the concrete measures taken by India to ensure 
the stocks released under PSH were not exported; (3) the statistics required by Canada and the EU 
regarding the rice stock including the quantity which had been released, (4)  information on other 
form of rice support mentioned in the footnote of India's notification and the timeline of notification G/AG/W/216  
 
- 293 - 
 
  for such support; and (5) Whether India would exceed the de minimis limit for rice and other 
products in the 2019 -2020 marketing year and when the relev ant notification would be 
submitted.  Brazil registered interest in India's DS:1 notification and supported the follow up 
questions raised by Uruguay. The EU noted that India in its response only referred to paragraph 3(a) 
of the Bali Decision on PSH but no t the provision in 3.c which states that "have provided, and 
continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained 
in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purpos es;". 
Supported by New Zealand, the EU encouraged India to deliver the data for all products for which 
PSH existed.  
  
Canada referred to a question it previously asked to India at the July meeting concerning India's 
input subsidies programmes. Canada asked India to provide clarification on providing Article  6.2 
support to medium and large -scale farmers and asked India to consider notifying this support under 
Amber box rather than Article 6.2.   
 
3.2.3.6   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  
AG-IMS ID 95004 : Question by  Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Brazil welcomes Japan 's recognition that techniques such as crop rotation, and technology such as 
pest-resistant varieties, are sustainable and environment -friendly. In this sense, could Japan provide 
the following information:  
 
a. Is the support provided for the introduction of pest -resistant varieties in the field crop 
areas based on the acquisition of such seeds?  
b. Are farmers that have been applying crop rotation in their farms before the introduction 
of the "Program for Structural Transition of Field Crops " also eligible for the benefit?  
c. Is the productivity gain derived from the use of such techniques and technologies taken 
into account when assessing the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying  with 
the government program?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. Yes. As the pest -resistant varieties tend to be higher in price and to bring inferior yields 
compared to the conventional varieties, the support will be provided within the range of 
additional costs and loss of income caused by introducing the varieties.  
b. The farmers are eligible if they introduce new/additional soil management efforts such as 
rearranging cultivated crops for the purpose of optimizing the balance of crop rotation 
even though they have appl ied crop rotation before the introduction of the program in 
question.  
c. As answered to the question a. above, as the pest -resistant varieties tend to be higher in 
price and to bring inferior yields compared to the conventional varieties, the support will 
be provided within the range of additional costs and loss of income caused by introducing 
the varieties.  
AG-IMS ID 95093 : Question by China - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its notification on domestic support for the fiscal year of 2017 （G/AG/N /JPN/254), Japan notified 
that it provided direct payments under production limiting programmes of JPY 70.5 billion. According 
to the Report by the Secretariat for the Trade Policy Review of Japan (WT/TPR/S/397), the Japanese 
government abolished the Direc t Payment for Rice and the administrative allocation of rice 
production volume targets in 2018. At the same time, the MAFF continues to provide direct payments 
to farmers who produce crops other than table rice in the paddy field. Could Japan explain the 
possible impact of such policy changes, including the changes in the area of planting and production 
of rice? Whether the change will further impact the import and export of rice of Japan?   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 294 - 
 
  Answer by Japan  
 
Japan abolished the allocation of rice production  targets in 2018 so that the farmers can produce 
and sell the products with their own management decision according to the market demand. As a 
result (and as a possible impact), production and sales will be developed by producers/producer 
groups under the market situation.  
 
The policy development in 2018 does not affect the rice import, for which the WTO minimum access 
commitment will be maintained of 682 thousand tonnes in milled rice basis, as specified in the 
Schedule.  
 
AG-IMS ID 95102: Question by Parag uay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Paraguay would like to thank Japan for the submission of its DS:1 notification for the fiscal 
year 2017‑2018 (G/AG/N/JPN/254). We note that market price support (MPS) for beef and veal 
production has increas ed significantly from one fiscal year to another. Specifically, in the previous 
notification, contained in document G/AG/N/JPN/236, we can see that Japan's MPS for such products 
was JPY  237.3  billion; however, the following fiscal year, this support rose t o JPY  243.9  billion, an 
increase of JPY  6.6 billion. In light of the above, we would like to know:  
 
a. What led to this increase in the MPS granted to beef and veal production?  
b. What percentage of production is covered by this support, both in notification 
G/AG/N/JPN/236 and in notification G/AG/N/JPN/254? We note that in both notifications, 
the VOP is not included (neither the total nor the percentage corresponding to the MPS 
provided). We urge Japan to always include such data in its DS:1 notifications and n ot just 
when they are below the de minimis  level, for the sake of transparency.  
c. Could Japan please provide information on the main export markets for Japanese beef and 
veal and export volumes for these years (2016 ‑2017 and 2017 ‑2018)?  
d. We note with further concern that the information being assessed today is for the fiscal 
year 2017 ‑2018 when the current fiscal year is 2020 ‑2021, which shows a significant delay 
in the submission of Japan's DS:1 notifications.  
i. Could Japan please provide updated information, for the years not yet covered by 
notifications, on the MPS that has been granted for beef  and veal?  
ii. What steps is Japan taking to reduce the delays in the submission of  its DS:1 
notifications?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. The main reason why the MPS has increased is that the beef production supported by the 
program has increased from 463 thousand tonnes for fiscal year 2016 to 471 thousand 
tonnes for fiscal year 2017.   
b. Japan has been making notifications in accordance with the G/AG/2, which provides 
guidelines for notification (formats and contents). While the guidelines do not ask Members 
to provide VOPs, Japan provides them for the products under de minimis  provisions in 
order to demonstrate that the support levels are less than 5 % of VOPs.  
For your reference, related statistical information is available at:  
https://www.maff.go.jp/e/data/stat/   
 
c. The export volume was 2.1 thousand tonnes for fiscal year 2016 and 3.0 thousand tonnes 
for 2017. Top three  exporting countries from Japan are Hongkong, Cambodia and the 
United States.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 295 - 
 
  d.  
i. The requested information will be notified as soon as the statistical information 
necessary for the notification are available.  
ii. Japan has been making efforts to make notificatio ns as soon as possible.  
Follow -up: In view that Japan is one of the Members that actively promote several transparency 
initiatives in the WTO, Paraguay expressed disappointment with the quality of the responses and 
that the replies were submitted only one day before the meeting. Paraguay urged Japan to respond 
to question b directly rather than providing a hyperlink which would require the questioning Member 
to seek the relevant information itself. Paraguay said that such practices would impose extra burden  
on questioning Members, particularly for small developing delegations such as itself and prevent the 
Committee from having a sincere exchange. Paraguay called for all Members to avoid such 
practices.  Paraguay also invited Japan to provide the exact status  of the notification  in relation to 
question d.   
 
3.2.3.7   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 95094: Question  by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia would like to follow -up on its question AG -IMS ID 93221 regarding Panama 's notified 
breach of its de mini mis limit for rice in CY2019 – as detailed in G/AG/N/PAN/54. Australia thanks 
Panama for responding to question AG-IMS ID 93221 in AGIMS.   
 
a. Noting Panama 's response to AG -IMS ID 93221, whereby it said no substantial changes 
would be made to Law No 17, can Panama advise if it will still be carrying out a review of 
the law?  
i. If so, can Panama advise when the review will occur? and   
b. Regardless of any review, can Panama advise how it will ensure it will conform with its 
WTO obligations in the next and future  reporting years?  
Answer by Panama  
 
This response also corresponds to question AG -IMS ID 97141 . 
 
a. Pursuant to Article 4 of Law No. 17 of 2018, the Republic of Panama is set to begin the 
review of this Law.  
b. The Republic of Panama established a commission to be responsible for carrying out this 
review in the first half of this year.  
c. Given that rice is the main consumer product in the country's basic food basket and in the 
light of the current production conditions, the Republic of Panama, in the short and 
medium term, is implementing measures relating to research, technical assistance, 
technological support, timely credit and guidance for producers on new agronomic 
practices aimed at improving productivity and the efficiency of production costs. P anama 
hopes that these efforts will result in increased efficiency and food security in the rice 
sector.  
3.2.3.8   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  
AG-IMS ID 95095: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Russian Fed eration for the submission of its DS:1 for calendar year 2018. With 
respect to its Support Table DS:4 and DS:6, Australia notes that the Russian Federation has notified 
product -specific Amber Box support to its grape industry totalling USD  27.4 million, 
approximately  7.38% of the value of production of grapes. While this exceeds Russia's de minimis , 
Australia acknowledges this is within Russia's final bound total AMS.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 296 - 
 
  Australia notes the Russian Federation recently implemented Federal Law No 468 -FZ - "On Viticulture 
and Winemaking in the Russian Federation". The Russian Federation informed Members at the 
Council for Trade in Goods that this measure was aimed at developing winemaking in the Russian 
Federation and would be applicable to both domestically pro duced and imported wines. With this in 
mind, Australia would like to know if the Russian Federation expects to continue to provide support 
– in excess of de minimis  limits – for grapes (and therefore indirectly for wine) in future years? If 
such support con tinues in conjunction with the requirements of the new Federal Law, Australia is 
concerned wine makers in other countries would be disadvantaged and displaced in the Russian 
market.   
 
With this in mind, can the Russian Federation provide further detail on the production subsidies 
provided to grape producers at both the federal and sub -federal level, including:   
 
a. Full names of the programs;  
b. Their objectives;  
c. Details on the funding provided; and  
d. Eligibility criteria?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
The Russian Federation expects that product -specific support for grapes will be within the de minimis  
level for the coming years.  
 
The State Programme for agricultural development and regulation of agricultural products, raw 
materials and food markets for 2013 -2020 (t he Government Resolution № 717 of 14 July 2012) 
provides the framework for support of grape production through the planting and care of 
vineyards.  The support is provided to agricultural producers (except personal households and 
agricultural consumer credi t cooperatives) and individual entrepreneurs engaged in production, 
primary and/or subsequent processing of grapes for the purpose of grapes sector development. 
Support on viticulture and winemaking under the State Programme is provided in the form of inte rest 
rate support, partial compensation of costs, grants and projects co -financing with the  regions of the 
Russian Federation. The support for grapes sector was notified by the Russian Federation 
in G/AG/N/RUS/29 and equals to 27.4 million USD in 2018.   
  
AG-IMS ID 95103: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
a. Can the Russian Federation please indicate which exchange has been used in the 2018 
notification from Roubles to USD.  
b. Can the Russian Federation explain more in detail  how the output subsidies, both federal 
and sub -federal, in the milk sector operate, including the eligibility criteria and objectives, 
as well as  the level of payments (per unit amounts as well).  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. Annual average exchange rate in 2018 equals 62.54 RUB/USD.   
b. Milk sector support includes the following:   
- compensation of costs on milk production (per 1 liter (kg) of milk sold by agricultural 
producers for further processing);  
- support of dairy cattle raising;  
- compensation of costs on  construction, reconstruction and technical modernization of 
dairy cattle complexes;  
- interest rate support for dairy cattle development;  
- grants for small -scale cooperatives to increase milk production;  
- subsidies for increasing milk production per 1 head/1 ton/1 hectare depending on the 
specificities of the region of the Russian Federation.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 297 - 
 
    
AG-IMS ID 95105: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5 
 
The Russian Federation did not notify market price support for 2018. In its response to AG -IMS 
ID 92064, the Russian Federation stated the minimum purchase price for grains is announced by 
the Ministry of Agriculture and that no market price support was notified for 2017 due to lack of 
procurement, but that the possib ility of market price support remains in force.  
 
a. Please confirm the minimum procurement prices for wheat, barley and any other 
supported commodities with announced prices for 2018.   
b. Is the reason for not notifying market price support for 2018 lack of proc urement?   
c. Given that market price support is still an option for commodities, will the 
Russian  Federation notify market price support in future years, regardless of whether 
procurement is nil?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The minimum prices for certain grains (VAT included) for the purposes of procurement 
from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 announced by the Ministry of Agriculture of the 
Russian  Federation were set as follows (rubles per ton ne):  
- for first class soft wheat – 10,900 rubles;   
- for seco nd class soft wheat – 9,900 rubles;   
- for third class soft wheat – 8,900 rubles;   
- for fourth class soft wheat – 7,600 rubles;   
- for fifth class soft wheat – 6,400 rubles;   
- for rye not lower than third class – 5,900 rubles;  
- for barley – 6,500 rubles;  
- for corn not lower than third class – 7,100 rubles.  
 
b. Yes, in 2018 purchasing interventions were not carried out.  
c. The Russian Federation will notify its market price support (in case if such support will be 
provided) in its notification on domestic support. Interven tions as a mechanism of 
government support, as the Russia n Federation  noted previously, remain in force.  
AG-IMS ID 95106 : Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6 
 
Outlays for federal and sub -federal produ ction subsidies on poultry, swine and deer increased 482%, 
118% and 117%, respectively, between 2017 and 2018.  
 
a. Please explain the reason for the significant increases for each of the stated commodities.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The increase in support amounts for poultry, pork and deer in 2018 was mainly observed 
on sub -federal level. This was for the most part because of providing to the regions of the 
Russian Federation the additional opportunity to choose the preferred sphere for 
agricultural  development at the regional level.   
AG-IMS ID 95096 : Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
In regards to its Supporting Table DS:9, Australia notes the budgetary outlay for the 'Federal 
Subsidies of Interest Rate on Short Term Credits and Inves tment' has decreased by over 
USD 450 million compared to 2017.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 298 - 
 
  a. Can the Russian Federation provide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy  program(s) are counted in this measure? and  
ii. why funding decreased by more than 40% between 2017 and  2018?  Australia also 
notes the value of support under the 'Federal Other Credit Support Interest Rate 
Subsidies Program' has increased by over USD 300 million year -on-year. 
b. Can the Russian Federation provide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy program(s) are counted in this measure?  
ii. what interest rates and terms are attached to this programme, and what eligibility 
criteria are involved? and  
iii. why has the value of support of this measure increased by more than 260% between 
2017 and 201 8? 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Interest rate support on credits (loans) for personal households, peasant (farm) enterprises and 
agricultural consumer cooperatives, which is provided under the Government Resolution No 717 of 
14 July 2012 ( "Subsidies on in terest rate on short term credits and investment " in Supporting 
Table  DS:9), is gradually ending due to the terms of support.  
 
Meanwhile, support in the form of interest rate support for agricultural producers, companies (except 
agricultural consumer coope ratives) and individual entrepreneurs engaged in the production, 
primary and/or subsequent processing of agricultural products and its sale, which is provided under 
the Government Resolution No 1528 of 29 December 2016 ( "Other credit support interest rate 
subsidies " in Supporting Table DS:9), is being increased as more relevant for agricultural producers.   
  
3.2.3.9   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/37)  
AG-IMS ID 95104: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In follow ‑up to the answers pr ovided by Turkey to questions AG-IMS IDs 93154, 93178, 93156 
and 93157, we request Turkey to provide the following additional details:  
 
a. Why are organic production subsidies provided in two different categories, under 
Article  6.2 and in environmental progra mmes?  
b. How does Turkey consider that these organic production subsidies, which are defined by 
Turkey itself as " support payments " and not as " input subsidies " in its response to question 
AG-IMS ID 93145, qualify under the provisions of Article 6.2. of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and should not be notified as an Amber Box measure as MPS?  
c. Why does Turkey consider that organic production can be notified under environmental 
programmes, given that organic production may result in an increase in CO2?  
d. Given T urkey's concern for the environment and the significant number of subsidies that 
it provides under environmental programmes, and Turkey's response to question AG-IMS 
ID 93154 that:  
"Turkey's vision within the scope of climate change is to develop fully in tegrated climate 
change‑related objectives in its policies, (…), increase the use of clean and renewable energy 
resources, (…), and provide its citizens with a high quality of life and welfare with low ‑carbon 
intensity. Turkey is dedicated to protect the e nvironment and mitigate the negative effects 
of climate change."  
 
i. Why does it provide subsidies for diesel fuel for agriculture?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 299 - 
 
  ii. Is it considering suspending its fuel subsidies?  
e. In its response to question AG-IMS ID 93152, Turkey indicates that "it intends  to maintain 
its production habit in oilseeds" while noting that it "is well aware of the de minimis  
commitments and doing its utmost to fulfil its obligations", which appeared to be 
contradictory responses.  
- Similarly, we note that, according to the stati stics provided in document 
G/AG/W/32/Rev.18 showing the percentage of world trade of the leading exporters of 
certain products/groups of products, Turkey was included in the list of soya bean 
exporters almost continuously from  2011 to 2018.  
- We reiterate ou r specific question: What specific actions is Turkey taking to ensure it 
does not exceed its de minimis  levels in soya bean production?  
 
f. What levels of support were provided to soya beans for the years when there was a backlog 
of notifications from Turkey?  
g. Could Turkey provide an estimated timeline when it plans to submit its outstanding 
DS:1 notifications?  
We also urge the delegation of Turkey, in the interests of transparency and in order to facilitate the 
monitoring of its agricultural subsidy policies, to: 
 
h. Answer all the questions, instead of referring to other answers in the system;  
i. Include in its notifications the corresponding percentage of VOP . 
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Turkey does not support organic agriculture within the scope of environmental programs. 
Only support for organic agriculture is provided under the "Investment Subsidies Generally 
Available to Agriculture " measure as stated in Table DS:2.  
b. The support given to organic production is field -based support and cannot be described as 
"input support " since the farmer is given after harvesting the product. Organic agricultural 
producers in Turkey are usually small producers. Hence, it complies with the provisions of 
Article 6.2 of the Agriculture Agreement as an investment support since it is a production 
method that is tried to be expanded and supported for investment purposes.  
c. Organic agriculture is a voluntary production model that protects the environment, plants,  
animals and human health to the maximum extent without polluting soil and water 
resources and air, and there is no additional CO2 emission in production.  
d.  
i. In order to meet the fuel costs of our producers which are engaged in agricultural 
production and registered in the Farmer Registration System, area -based diesel 
support payments are provided. As is known, the use of renewable energy sources 
also requires developing a certain infrastructure. Diesel fuel support is provided as the 
necessa ry infrastructure is not developed yet.  
ii. Turkey plans to continue fuel support payments in the near future.  
e. As referenced G/AG/W/32/Rev.18 document is carefully examined, it can be seen that five 
countries including Paraguay realizes 90 % of "oilseed " export s while Turkey 's export ratio 
is nearly 1 per thousand. Moreover, there is no reference to "soy" in the abovementioned 
document and the oilseeds do not only cover the "soy" product. For this reason, it cannot 
be stated that Turkey is on the list of soy exp orters. In such an environment, Paraguay 's 
interrogation raises a question mark.  
f. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 95115.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 300 - 
 
  g. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 95115.  
Turkey thanks Paraguay for its valuable advices.  
 
h. Referring is a method used  by all countries to answer repetitive questions in the system.  
i. Our notifications are prepared in accordance with the WTO notification format. It is not 
obligatory to add percentages corresponding to VOP to notifications.  
3.2.3.10   United States of America (G/AG/N/ USA/123)  
AG-IMS ID 95107: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Paraguay would like to thank the United States for the submission of its DS:1 notification for 2017 
(G/AG/N/USA/135). We note that the VOP of sesame production has increased significantly from 
one fiscal year to another.  
 
In the previous notification, contained in document G/AG/N/USA/123, the VOP of sesame was 
USD 1.371  million and, that year, the United States granted an MPS of 19.33% of the VOP, 
equivalent to USD  265,000. The following fiscal year, this support rose to USD  380,000, with the 
MPS reaching only 3.47%, simply because the VOP had increased to USD  11.065  million dollars. The 
VOP of sesame in the United States therefore increased by almost USD  9.7 million from one fiscal 
year to the next. In light of the above, we would like to know:  
 
1. What led to this increase in the VOP of sesame? Could the United States confirm the role 
that the previous year's subsidies played in this dramatic increase in the VOP?  
2. Could the United States please provide information on the main export markets for sesame 
and export volumes for these years (2016 and 2017)?  
3. We note with further concern that the information being assessed today is for 2017, which 
shows a significant delay in th e submission of the United States' DS:1 notifications.  
 
a. Could the United States please provide updated information, for the years not yet covered 
by notifications, on the VOP of sesame and the MPS that has been granted for this product?  
b. What steps  is the U nited States taking to reduce the delays in the submission of its 
DS:1 notifications?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The production volume and price data used to estimate the value of production for sesame 
seed for crop year 2017/18 were updated.  In particular, new data from the 2017 Census 
of Agriculture, which occurs every five years, indicated a substantial increase in sesame 
production since the 2012 Census of Agriculture, which was the source for the 
2016/17  estimated value of product ion. The level of support for sesame does not change 
significantly from year to year and would not affect the volume of sesame production.  
b.  Although the United States is a net importer of sesame, importing approximately three 
times as much as it exports, i n calendar years 2016 and 2017, Japan and Mexico were the 
largest export markets by volume.  In calendar years 2016 and 2017, the United States 
exported 7,239 metric ton nes and 10,773 metric ton nes to these markets, respectively.  
c.  
i. The United States submitte d the 2017/18 DS:1 (G/AG/N/USA/135) on 24 July 2020. 
This notification includes the AMS calculation and the value of production for sesame 
for 2017/18, which covers the marketing year beginning in September 2017 and 
ending in August 2018. No market price s upport (MPS) is provided for sesame.  
ii. The United States remains committed to providing its notifications in a timely and 
accurate manner.  The United States will submit the 2018/19 DS:1 notification in the 
near future, which will provide data on support for sesame for the marketing year 
beginning September 2018 and ending August 2019.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 301 - 
 
  Follow -up: Paraguay noted that sesame is an important crop planted in the rural area in the north 
of the country which generates important sources of income for farm ers. Paraguay appreciated 
U.S. confirmation that the subsidy offered last year did not impact the volume of the sesame 
production.  
 
3.2.3.11   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/135)  
AG-IMS ID 95013: Question by India  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India welcomes the Domestic Support Notification DS:1 by the United States for MY 2017 
(G/AG/N/USA/135). India notes that the product -specific support as a percentage of the value of 
production (VoP) for bananas has increased significantly from 0.27% in 2016  to 64.43% in 2017. 
Similarly, the product -specific support for coffee has also increased from 0.63% to 189.8% during 
the same period.  
 
a. Could the United States explain the reason for this exponential increase?  
b. Furthermore, it is also requested that the Uni ted States provide the details of the 
programmes/measures through which support was given to these two crops in 2017.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The increase in product -specific support for bananas and coffee in 2017/18 was the result 
of payments under the Wildfire and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP), which was 
implemented in 2018.  
b. Details regarding WHIP can be found in the notes to Supporting Table DS:6 of 
G/AG/N/USA/135 and G/AG/N/USA/134/Rev.1.  Details on the other measure notified, 
crop in surance premium subsidies, is available at https://www.rma.usda.gov/ . 
AG-IMS ID 95108: Question by Canada - General services: other  
For 2017, the United States is reporting in section 2 (h) other general services, USD 2,935  million 
in state programs for agriculture. This is a $275 million increase from the amounts reported in 2016.   
 
Could the United States clarify what programs have seen a significant increase in outlays 
between  2016 and 2017?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
U.S. outlays under  state programs for agriculture are reported through the U.S. Census of  
Governments as an aggregated total. We are not able to provide information on  the source of 
changes in reported outlays from year to year.  
AG-IMS ID 95109: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:7   
 
Between 2016 and 2017, U.S. crop insurance premium subsidy for soybeans increased by almost 
USD 450 million. At the same time U.S. soybean production remained fairl y stable. Could the United 
States explain what changes took place in the marketplace  or the in the suite of insurance programs 
to generate such an increase?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The projected  price of soybeans, used as the basis for setting  crop insurance premiums,  increased 
15% relative to 2016. Since premium subsidies are based on the cost  of the premium, higher 
premiums result in higher premium subsidies.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 302 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95110: Question by Canada  - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Supporting Ta ble DS:6  
 
For the dairy Margin Protection Program (MPP), the United States is reporting -$18.2 million in total 
direct payments in 2017 (September 2017 to August 2018) including administrative fees and 
premiums. In February 2018, Congress, through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, made 
adjustments to the MPP, including significant reductions in premiums, to strengthen its support to 
dairy producers. The enrolment period was extended twice to 22 June 2018, and coverage election 
and eligibility for payme nts in 2018 was retroactive to 1 January 2018.  
 
According to information found on the USDA website ( https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs -and-
services/Dairy -MPP/index ), the margin f or the months of February, March, April, May, June, July and 
August 2018 was below the highest insurable level of $8.00 per cwt. and payments were possible 
for production insured at the highest level, in these months. By enrolling in June 2018, producers 
already knew what payments they would receive, if insured at the highest level, for February, April, 
and March, prior to submitting their applications. In a 12 June 2018 announcement, the USDA 
mentioned that " USDA has already issued  more than $89 million f or margins triggered in February, 
March and April".  In the 2018 Monthly Payments Processed report on the USDA website 
(https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-Public/usdafiles/Price -
Support/Excel/2018%20Monthly%20Payments%20Processed%20 -%20December.pdf ), the USDA 
indicates that close to $254 million in payments has been processed by 10 December 2018. As a lo t 
of these payments were triggered between February and August 2018, could the USDA clarify how 
this -$18.2 million in total direct payments under the MPP was calculated?  
 
The 2018 Farm Bill, authorized the repayment of premiums under the MPP to producers who paid 
premiums into the programme for 2014 through 2017 calendar year. The repayment amount is 
equal to the difference between the total amount of premiums paid by the dairy operation for each 
applicable calendar year of coverage and the total amount of  payments made to the MPP -Dairy 
participating dairy operations for that applicable calendar year. An operation either could elect to 
receive 50% of the repayment amount as cash refund or take 75% of the amount as a credit that 
can be used toward premiums f or the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) Program. Could the U.S. clarify 
if these repayments, on the 2017 -year basis, were included into this notification and indicate how 
much was returned in cash and how much was returned as a credit to producers under DMC?  
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news -room/news -releases/2019/usda -announces -repayment -options -
for-producers -with-coverage -in-previous -margin -protection -program -for-dairy  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Margin Protection  Program for dairy (MPP) net payments are reported on a calendar year 
basis, so  payments made during 2018 will be reported in the 2018/2019 notification. The  
total payments to producers and the total premiums and fees paid by producers  are 
reported in supporting table DS:6; the difference between those two totals  equals the net 
indemnity payment reported for  the progr am. 
b. Payments and  credits for net premium payments under MPP were not reported in the 
2017 notification. We will notify any such benefits in the year in which they were  received.  
AG-IMS ID 95111: Question by New Zealand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
New Zealand notes that the total non -exempt direct payments for beef cattle and calves nearly 
doubled (from USD 33.322 million to USD 60.551 million) for the marketing year 2017. Similarly, 
the total non -exempt direct payments for livestock increased from USD 290.498 million to 
USD 367.954 million for the marketing year 2017. Can the US please advise what caused this 
increase in payments, and whether we can expect continued rises in payments to both beef cattle 
and calves, and livestock in the marketing year 20 18 and beyond? (supporting table DS:6 refers).  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 303 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
 
The increase in non -exempt direct payments for beef cattle and calves in 2017 was due to increased 
payments under the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), which provides paym ents to eligible 
producers for livestock death losses in excess of normal morality due to adverse weather and other 
natural disaster events, which in 2017 included multiple hurricanes and wildfires that affected beef 
cattle.  
  
The increase in non -exempt di rect payments for livestock in 2017 was due to increased payments 
under the Livestock Forage Program (LFP) related to severe drought that impacted Montana, 
North  Dakota, and South Dakota.  
  
Given that these programs respond to losses caused by natural disa sters, year -to-year variations in 
outlays are to be expected.   
 
New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  
3.2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/130)  
AG-IMS ID 95018: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Australia's latest DS:2 not ification, in document G/AG/N/AUS/130, the stated period of application 
for the following measures  viz. "Maintain Tasmania's Fruit Fly Pest Free Area Status"; "Sustainable 
Irrigation Futures Initiative"; "Interim Great Artesian Basin Infrastructure Investm ent Program"; 
"East Grampians West Wimmera Feasibility Study" "Mitiamo Reticulated Water Supply Feasibility 
Study"; "South West Loddon (SWL) Rural Water Supply Project"; "ACT Rural Grants (ARG) 2017/18"; 
and "Welcome/Montagu Riverworks" is over. What is th e current status of each of these 
programmes? In case these programmes are still in application, please provide details.  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for its question. All expenditure under the measures will be notified as required 
in Austr alia's relevant DS:1 notifications.  
 
• "Maintain Tasmania's Fruit Fly Pest Free Area Status ": expenditure commenced as indicated 
in G/AG/N/AUS/130, however it is currently anticipated that expenditure will continue until 
FY2022 -23. A revised DS:2 will be issued ;  
• "Sustainable Irrigation Futures Initiative ": expenditure ceased as indicated 
in G/AG/N/AUS/130 ; 
• "Interim Great Artesian Basin Infrastructure Investment Program ": expenditure ceased as 
indicated in G/AG/N/AUS/130 ; 
• "East Grampians West Wimmera Feasibility Study ": expenditure ceased as indicated 
in G/AG/N/AUS/130 ; 
• "Mitiamo Reticulated Water Supply Feasibility Study ": expenditure ceased as indicated 
in G/AG/N/AUS/13 0; 
• "South West Loddon (SWL) Rural Water Supply Project ": expenditure ceased  as indicated 
in G/AG/N/AUS/130 ; 
• "ACT Rural Grants (ARG) 2017/18 ": expenditure ceased as indicated in G/AG/N/AUS/130 ; 
• "Welcome/Montagu Riverworks ": expenditure commenced as indicated in G/AG/N/AUS/130, 
however expenditure was not finalised in the indicated  FY. Expenditure was finalised in 
FY2019 -20. A revised DS:2 will be issued.  
 
AG-IMS ID 95020: Question  by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per Australia 's DS:2 notification, in document G/AG/N/AUS/130, the "Export Partnership 
Program " has been replaced with "SA Export Accelerator ". Australia is requested to provide the 
following information:  
 
a. The products that benefited from the grants under Export Partnership Program during its 
period of application?  
b. How is the SA Export Accelerator program different from the one that it replaced?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 304 - 
 
  c. Under which provision of the AoA is the new program being notified by Australia?  
d. How does Australia justify the grants under Export Partnership program to be categorized 
as exempt support under t he AoA and not an export subsidy?  
Answer by Australia  
 
a. The Export Partnership Program (EPP) was an economy -wide program and was not based 
on specific products or specific industries. Australia notified the AUD 40,000 expenditure 
under the Program to ensure  it was providing full transparency with respect to the Program 
and identified payments made under the Program that benefited the agricultural sector.  
b. The EPP  and SA Export Accelerator (SAEA)  are separate programs, although with similar 
policy objectives.  The EPP ended prior to the 2018 South Australian State election. 
The SAEA was launched in 2018 upon the election of a new government in South Australia.  
c. The SAEA is an economy wide, non -agriculture specific program. Consistent with 
notification requiremen ts, it will not be notified under the AoA.  
d. The agriculture -specific expenditure under the EPP notified in G/AG/N/AUS/130 provided 
widely available export promotion services and was consistent with Green Box provisions 
under Annex 2 of the AoA; and export subsidy provisions under Article 9 of the AoA, 
notably as it was not contingent on nor did it reduce the cost of exports.  
3.2.4.2   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/118)  
AG-IMS ID 95022: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
New Zealand 's recent DS:2  notification, in document G/AG/N/NZL/118, which concerns new or 
modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction, New Zealand mentioned a measure as 
"Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures (SFFF) ". New Zealand is requested to elaborate upon the 
follow ing: 
 
a. The criteria for industries to apply for funds under the programme.  
b. What is the reason behind merging the two funds Primary Growth Partnership and 
Sustainable Farming Fund?  
c. As per document G/AG/N/NZL/118, the programme is explained to be meeting the specific 
criteria of paragraph 2 of the General services e.g. (a) research; (b) pest and disease 
control; (c) training services; (d) extension and advisory services; (e) inspection services; 
(f) marketing and promotion services; or (g) infrastr uctural services. However, in the 
DS:1 notification for 2018 -19, G/AG/N/NZL/119, only the research component of the SFFF 
has been notified. What was the support provided for other components of paragraph  2 
under Annex 3, viz. (b) pest and disease control; (c) training services; (d) extension and 
advisory services; (e) inspection services; (f) marketing and promotion services; or 
(g) infrastructural services?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
a. Proposals are subject to eligibility requirements and are assessed against se veral criteria 
to determine if applicants qualify for funding. The criteria for SFF Futures applications are; 
sustainable benefits to New Zealand, innovation, beyond business as usual, the fit with 
relevant strategies, adoption and extension/path to market , ability to deliver, governance, 
risk identification and mitigation, budget. To be eligible for funding, proposals must also 
be consistent with New Zealand 's WTO obligations.  
b. The decision  to merge the two funds under the overarching Sustainable Food & Fi bre 
Futures was the outcome of a review to simplify the process for New Zealanders by 
creating one single gateway for producers to apply for investment in a diverse range of 
projects that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 305 - 
 
  c. The programme was notified under General services as to meeting the specific criteria of 
paragraph 2 however, payment has only occurred under the research component of 
the SFFF. We anticipate future payments to meet other specific criteria of paragraph 2.  
Export subsidy  commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
3.2.5.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/127)  
AG-IMS ID 95021 : Question by India - Quantity of total exports  
In its ES:2 notification, document G/AG/N/AUS/127 for the calendar year 2018, Australia mentioned 
that it has moved to repor ting on a Calendar Year basis from Fiscal Year with respect to export 
subsidy notification requirements.  Can Australia explain the reason behind such change in the 
reporting year?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for its question with respect t o Australia 's ES:2 notification reporting period.  
 
Prior to formalising the elimination of Australia 's scheduled agricultural export subsidy entitlements 
in 2017 as a result of the Nairobi Decision, Australia 's ES:2 notifications provided total exports on a 
calendar year basis for pears, and a financial year basis for butter and butter oil, cheese, skim milk 
powder and other milk products, pursuant to the entitlements under Australia 's schedule. In addition, 
Australia 's ES:2 notification report a dditional products on a calendar year basis for which Australia 
was a significant exporter or exceeded 5% of total world exports.  
 
In 2019, and following the elimination of Australia 's scheduled export subsidy entitlements, effective 
22 May 2017, Australia  made the decision to provide data on a standard and consistent reporting 
year basis. Australia chose to do so on a calendar year basis as the relevant export data is made 
available quicker to officials preparing the notification, than it would be on a fin ancial year basis.  
 
As noted in the footnote of G/AG/N/AUS/127, Australia 's ES:2 notification for 2017 included export 
data for both CY2017 and CY2018 to ensure there were no gaps in data as a result of changing the 
reporting period.  
 
Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
3.2.6.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  
AG-IMS ID 95112 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Could the Kyrgyz Republic please confirm that all of its notified export restrictions will expire 
on 22 September  2020?  
 
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
 
By the Government Decree of the Kyrgyz Republic «On introduction of temporary prohibition on the 
export certain types of goods from the Kyrgyz Republic» of 22 March  2020 #174 was introduced a 
temporary prohibition for a period of six months on the export of wheat, flour, vegetable oil, rice, 
pasta, sugar, salt, eggs, feed, napkins, antibacterial and disinfectants. This regulation is valid until 
22 September  2020. In case the government of the Kyrgyz Republic extends  the measure or 
introduces new one, the Members of the WTO would be informed in due course.  
 
3.2.6.2   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/13)  
AG-IMS ID 95113 : Question by Japan - Timely notification  
Japan recognizes the notification of Viet Nam 's measure made to the Committee on Agriculture 
on 4 August 2020, after the discussions in the special meeting. It was unfortunate that the 
notification was delayed in light of Article 12 of Agreement of Agriculture, but at least this reminds 
other countries not having notified their measure s yet of the transparency obligation, which does 
not disappear even after the withdrawal of such measures. Japan appreciates the Viet Nam 's 
notification in this regard.  In future occasions, Japan would like to see Viet Nam 's maximal efforts G/AG/W/216  
 
- 306 - 
 
  to avoid introd ucing the export restrictions and in case that such measures are necessary, 
notification obligations of Viet Nam will be properly met. Japan would like to appreciate it if Viet Nam 
could share any useful experiences with the Committee on how to avoid the d elay with a view to 
ensuring the future compliance of notification obligation.  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam always tries its best and fully complies with WTO regulations, including transparency 
commitments. In addition, in the context of the complicated COVID -19 epidemic in several regions 
of the world, Viet Nam has also been actively participating in joint statements and initiatives in 
finding effective and timely solutions to help businesses and individuals cope with the negative 
impacts of the epidemic, inc luding refraining from applying trade restrictions unnecessary . Viet Nam 
is looking forward to cooperating and sharing experiences with Japan and other Members in this 
regard.  
  
Follow -up: New Zealand commended Viet Nam's efforts in notifying the measure and invited 
Viet Nam to share its experience with the Committee regarding how to avoid delays of export 
restriction notifications.   
 
Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  
3.3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
Australia  
AG-IMS ID 95017: Question b y India  
Australia 's last DS:1 notification is for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018. Can Australia indicate 
when it will notify its DS:1 notification for 2018 -19? 
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia is finalising its DS:1 notification for 2018 -19 and expects to submit it before the 
96th Committee on Agriculture in November 2020.  
 
Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 95114 : Question by Canada  
Export Subsidies  
 
Canada notes that Turkey submitted its draft export subsidies schedule in June 2019 and that it was 
certified in  September 2019.  However, Turkey retains the right to use export subsidies for a relatively 
large number of agricultural products. Could Turkey indicate when it expects to submit export 
subsidy notifications subsequent to 2013, the date of its most recent notification?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey has submitted notifications for the period of 2010 -2013 and is working on the notifications 
for the following years. Turkey expects to complete them soon.  
 
AG-IMS ID 95115 : Question by Canada  
Domestic Support Notific ation 
 
Canada notes that in its response to questions AG -IMS ID 93151 and AG -IMS ID 93153, Turkey 
indicated that work on its 2014 – 2016 annual domestic support notifications was in progress. Could 
Turkey provide the Committee with an update on when it can  expect to submit these notifications?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey plans to submit its 2014 -2016 annual domestic support notifications before the 96th 
Agricultural Committee Meeting.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 307 - 
 
   
3.4  EXPORT COMPETITION  
Argentina  
AG-IMS ID 95118: Question by United States of America  
Export Credit  
 
The United States notes that Argentina did not provide updates since 2018.  Please update responses 
to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) with 2018 and 2019 data for the Investment and 
Foreign Trade Bank (BICE).   
 
Answer by Argentina   
 
COA – Export Competition Questionnaire 2020  
  
BANK OF THE ARGENTINE NATION  
 
1. Description of the programme (classification within the following categories: direct financing 
support, risk cover, government to government credit agreements or any other form of 
governmental export credit support) and relevant legislation.  
 
Regarding  the Export Competition Questionnaire during 2020 the Bank of the Argentine Nation does 
not participate in any form of governmental export credit support programmes.  
 
2. Description of Export Financing Entity  
The Bank of the Argentine Nation does not part icipate in export credit support programmes.  
3. Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees 
or insurance programmes and use per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not pa rticipate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
4. Annual average premium rates/fees per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes . 
5. Maximum repayment terms per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
6. Annual average repayment periods per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
7. Export destination or group of destinations per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
8. Programme use by product or product group  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 308 - 
 
  INVESTMENT AND FOREIGN TRA DE BANK (BICE)  
1. Description of the programme (classification within the following categories: direct financing 
support, risk cover, government to government credit agreements or any other form of 
governmental export credit support) and relevant legislati on 
Direct financing support.  
2. Description of Export Financing Entity  
Investment and Foreign Trade Bank S.A.  
3. Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees 
or insurance programmes and use per programm e 
USD 141,078,295.09  
4. Annual average premium rates/fees per programme  
10.25%.  
5. Maximum repayment terms per programme  
360 days.  
6. Annual average repayment periods per programme  
180 days.  
EXPORT DESTINATION OR GROUP OF DESTINATIONS PER PROGRAMME  
PROGRAM ME: DIRECT FINANCING SUPPORT  
COUNTRY  PERCENTAGE  
Algeria  1.13 
Australia  0.28 
Belgium  1.98 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  0.85 
Brazil  23.80  
Bulgaria  0.28 
Canada  2.27 
Chile 4.25 
China  3.68 
Colombia  0.57 
Comoros  0.28 
Croatia  0.57 
Denmark  0.28 
France  0.57 
Germany  4.82 
Hong Kong, China  0.28 
India 1.42 
Indonesia  0.28 
Ireland  0.28 
Israel  0.85 
Italy 1.98 
Japan  0.85 
Netherlands  5.38 
New Zealand  0.28 
Paraguay  1.98 
Peru 0.85 
Philippines  1.70 
Poland  1.13 
Portugal  1.42 
Russian Federation  2.55 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  1.13 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 309 - 
 
  COUNTRY  PERCENTAGE  
South Africa  0.85 
Spain  1.70 
Switzerland  0.28 
United Arab Emirates (Dubai)  0.28 
United Kingdom  1.42 
United States of America  23.51  
Uruguay  3.40 
Viet Nam  0.57 
 
PROGRAMME USE BY PRODUCT OR PRODUCT GROUP  
PROGRAMME: DIRECT FINANCING SUPPORT  
PRODUCT (CHAPTER TARIFF NOMENCLATURE)  PERCENTAGE  
2 - Meat and edible meat offal  6.80 
4 - Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products…  3.68 
5 - Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included.  0.28 
7 - Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers.  8.78 
8 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons.  20.68  
9 - Coffee, tea, maté and spices.  6.52 
10 - Cereals  7.37 
11 - Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten.  2.27 
12 - Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial or 
medicinal plants; straw and fodder.  4.82 
15 - Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their cleavage products; prepared edible fats...  0.85 
16 - Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic 
invertebrates.  0.57 
17 - Sugars and sugar confectionery.  1.13 
19 - Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks' products.  1.70 
20 - Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants.  12.18  
21 - Miscellaneous edible preparations.  0.85 
22 - Beverages, spirits and vinegar.  10.76  
23 - Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder.  2.83 
24 - Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes.  1.70 
33 – Essential oils and resinoids; Perfumery, cosmetic or toilet preparations  0.28 
38 – Miscellaneous chemical products  0.28 
41 - Raw hides and skins (other than furskins) and leather.  4.25 
51 - Wool, fine or coarse animal hair; horsehair yarn and woven fabric.  1.13 
52 – Cotton.  0.28 
 
Australia  
AG-IMS ID 95119: Question by European Union -  
Australia – Follow up to question AG-IMS ID 94048 - Australia's International Freight Assistance 
Mechanism  
 
In its reply to question AG-IMS ID 94048 Australia has referred to its response to a question posed 
by Canada. This reply provides useful background  information on the reasoning behind the 
establishment of IFAM. However, it does not clarify the doubts expressed by the EU in its question.  
 
As pointed at in question AG-IMS ID 94048, IFAM appears to be an export subsidy as defined in 
Article  9.1 (d) of t he Agreement of Agriculture, which covers "the provision of subsidies to reduce 
costs of marketing exports of agricultural products (other than widely available export promotion 
and advisory services), including handling, upgrading and other processing cos ts and the costs of 
international transport and freight ". For Developed WTO Members such as Australia, paragraph  6 of 
the Nairobi Ministerial decision of 19 December (WTO document WT/MIN(13)/40) provides for the 
elimination of export subsidies as of the da te of the adoption of that Decision.  
 
a. Australia was among the strongest supporters of tightening the disciplines on export 
competition, and in fact, the first Member to modify its Schedule to comply with Nairobi.  
Can Australia explain how the IFAM respects  its WTO obligations on agricultural export subsidies as 
set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture, as well as in its own 
Schedule?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 310 - 
 
   
b. For how long will this export subsidy continue?   
Answer by Australia  
 
IFAM is a temporary, targeted and proportionate emergency measure to try to keep open a critical 
number of pre -COVID -19 international airfreight supply chains into and out of Australia. Australia is 
continually and judiciously monitoring the market for airfreight, w hich is heavily reliant on 
international passenger flight activity including on individual routes, and will cease IFAM assistance 
on specific routes once the market re -adjusts . 
AG-IMS ID 95120: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
 
Regarding its notification of The Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales ' STE activity, 
would Australia please provide the average exported price and the average representative domestic 
sales price for rice in marketing years 2015/2016 to 2018/19?  If Australia cannot provide this 
information, please explain why not.   
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Official statistics on rice exports from Australia are not available due to confidentiality concerns. A 
description of the process used to come to that de cision is available on the ABS website. That said, 
the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Science (ABARES) does create 
estimates of rice export volume and value. Those estimates for the referenced reporting periods 
(Financial Year  = 1 July – 30 June) are available on the ABARES website and are notified as part of 
Australia 's STE notifications. Australia 's latest STE notification (G/STR/N/17/AUS) includes data 
for 2015-16 through 2017 -18. Australia 's STE notification for the latest reporting period is being 
prepared for submission.  
 
The NSW Rice Marketing Board 's vesting and export arrangements apply only to rice produced and 
exported from the State of New South Wales. Rice produced in Australia 's other States and 
Territories are not  subject to NSW legislation or the Rice Marketing Board 's vesting and export 
arrangements.  
 
The NSW Rice Marketing Board has no privileges on rice imports – rice may be imported into and 
marketed in Australia, including into the State of New South Wales, by any entity and without any 
seasonality restrictions. Australia 's rice import market is fully liberalised, with all goods under HS 
code 1006 enjoying a 0% applied tariff rate. Given the openness of Australia 's domestic rice market 
and operation of market -based forces on domestic prices, the capture of domestic sales price data 
is not prioritised in published government statistics.  
 
Rice is a relatively minor crop in Australia and contributed around 0.4% of the total value of 
Australia 's agricultural prod uction in 2017 –18. Australian farmers harvested approximately 
57,000  tonnes of rice for the 2019 –20 crop.  
 
Australians are estimated to consume about 300,000 tonnes of rice every year. Normally, about half 
of this volume comes from imports (mostly long gr ain rice, such as basmati and jasmine) and the 
other half from domestic production (mostly medium grain rice). Annual rice imports 
between  2009-10 and 2018 –19 averaged 173,000 tonnes. However, given the current production 
levels, Australia has had to rely even more on rice imports for domestic consumption. Australia 's 
imports represent 0.4% of world rice trade, meaning that changes in Australian import volumes 
result in no material change to world markets, noting that rice imports into Australia are fully 
liberalised and subject to global market forces, along with demand for numerous rice varieties that 
are not produced in Australia.  
 
Australia is a small exporter of mostly medium grain rice, representing around 5% of global medium 
and short grain rice expo rts and 0.4% of total global rice exports in 2019. This very small share of 
global rice exports means that Australia 's rice exports – as traded by the NSW RMB – have no 
influence over the world price of rice. Australia is a price taker. As such, Australian  exports are fully 
subject to market forces and competition from major exporters of similar rice varieties, such as the 
United States and China.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 311 - 
 
    
Brazil  
AG-IMS ID 95121: Question by European Union  
Brazil - Schedule update following Nairobi  
Over four years  after Nairobi, Brazil did not provide its  
updated schedule. When will Brazil comply with the commitments undertaken in  
this respect in Nairobi?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
Although Brazil has not yet circulated an updated version of Part IV, Section II of its Schedule of 
Concessions, Brazil has never used its rights to provide export subsidies for agricultural products, 
hence Brazil is in fulfilment of its obligations pursuant to the 2015 Ministerial Conference.  
  
The evaluation of the Nairobi Decision by the N ational Congress, a constitutional requirement, was 
hampered by the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic, but the issue remains a priority for the 
Brazilian government. We aim at providing an updated version of Brazil 's schedule of concession in 
the near futu re. 
 
Follow -up: The EU looked forward to Brazil's revised export subsidy schedule.   
 
China  
AG-IMS ID 95143: Question by Canada  
Canada notes that information for Item #3 – total value of export of agricultural products covered 
by export credits, export cred it guarantees or insurance programmes and use per programme has 
been provided for years 2015 – 2016 for programmes under the Agricultural Development Bank of 
China and the Export Import Bank of China.  
 
Could China indicate when it will provide more recent  data?  
 
Answer by China  
 
According to the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted by the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in 2015, developing members shall implement the Annex to the Decision no later than 
5 years following the date of adoption of  the Decision. China will provide relevant information as 
required from 2021.  
AG-IMS ID 95122: Question by European Union  
China – outstanding replies to questions 91064 and 91070  
 
The EU would like to reiterate its questions 91064 and 91070 posed within th e framework of the 
previous dedicated Session on Export Competition to which China did not provide yet a reply:  
 
a. AG-IMS ID 91064: Data on Export Financing has not been updated since 2016. When will 
China provide the missing information for 2017 and 2018?  
b. AG-IMS ID 91070: When will China provide answers to the Export Competition 
Questionnaire concerning agricultural exporting STEs as notified to the WTO STE working 
party?  
Answer by China  
 
According to the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted by  the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in 2015, developing members shall implement the Annex to the Decision no later than 
five years following the date of adoption of the Decision. China will provide relevant information as 
required from 2021.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 312 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95123: Question by United States of America  
Export Credit  As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 92031, the United States notes that China responded 
with 2017 and 2018 data.  However, the United States notes that the 2020 ECQ did not include this 
notification update o f China 's export financing programs.   
 
a. Please update the 2020 ECQ with 2017, 2018 and 2019 data.   
b. Please explain what steps China is taking to provide programme use by product or product 
group for SINOSURE.  
Answer by China  
 
According to the Ministerial Dec ision on Export Competition adopted by the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in 2015, developing members shall implement the Annex to the Decision no later than 
five years following the date of adoption of the Decision. China will provide relevant information  as 
required from 2021.  
AG-IMS ID 95124: Question by United States of America  
Food Aid  In response to AG -IMS ID 92031, China states that it "provided food aid with the total 
value of 2 billion RMB to relevant countries through both multilateral and bilater al channels from 
2017 to  2018. "Please provide the quantities of in -kind food aid provided by commodity and the 
values of all untied cash -basis food aid for each specific year.  If this information cannot be provided, 
please explain why not.  
 
Answer by China  
 
The data is being collected.  
AG-IMS ID 95125: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
 
a. For each exported product listed in the ECQ, please provide the average exported price, 
average procurement price, and the average representative domestic sales price for 
marketing years 2015 to 2017.   
b. If unable to provide, please explain why not.  
c. Please list the export destination for rice and tobacco for year 2017; and for corn and 
cotton for years 2016 and 2017. If China cannot pro vide this information, please explain 
why not.  
d. Finally, please update the 2020 ECQ with 2018 and 2019 data.  
Answer by China  
 
According to the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted by the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in 2015, developing membe rs shall implement the Annex to the Decision no later than 
five years following the date of adoption of the Decision. China will provide relevant information as 
required from 2021.  
 
Colombia  
AG-IMS ID 95126: Question by European Union  
Colombia – Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 93183 – Sugar Fund  
 
Colombia's reply to question AG -IMS ID 93183 is not complete. Could Colombia provide data for the 
three latest marketing years, 2017, 2018 and 2019 on:  
 
a. total payments made from the sugar fund for the exp ort of sugar.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 313 - 
 
  b. The average amount per tonne of sugar paid into the fund from sugar sold on the 
Colombian market.  
c. It seems that due to the nature of the fund and the government's involvement in the 
establishment and its role in the committee, FEPA could be seen as a de facto  export 
subsidy as referred to in Article 9.1 (c) of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). To 
the extent that the reference price is higher than the average export price, the resulting 
compensation paid to exporters could be qualified a s an export subsidy even if this result 
is not intended.  
d. Can Columbia explain how it is planning to ensure compliance of FEPA with the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition?  
Answer by Colombia  
 
European Union  
AG-IMS ID 95127: Question by United States of America  
Bulgaria – Export Credit  
 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, United States notes Bulgaria did not respond to maximum 
repayment terms and the annual average repayment periods in the 2020 ECQ notification.   
 
a. Please update the ECQ with maximum terms a nd annual average repayment periods.   
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU would note that the question is identical in substance to the  one received  from the US last 
year, and to which response has been duly provided in 2019.  
 
The Bulgarian Export Insurance A gency (BAEZ) reconfirms that its  risk cover programme 
operated  included in the EU's reply to the WTO questionnaire does not involve any credit 
instruments. Hence repayment, respectively maximum repayment term and annual 
average repayment period, are not ap plicable.  In consequence items 5. and 6. of Bulgaria's 
input (page 18 of WTO document G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.2 refers) does not require an update.  
AG-IMS ID 95128: Question by United States of America  
Denmark – Export Credit  
 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, the United States notes that Denmark has not updated data on 
its reinsurance program.   
 
a. Please explain what steps Denmark is taking to provide this data.  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU would note that the question is identical in substance to the  one received  from the US last 
year, and to which response has been duly provided in 2019.  
 
The Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency (BAEZ) reconfirms that its  risk cover programme 
operated  included in the EU's reply to the WTO questionnaire does not involve a ny credit 
instruments. Hence repayment, respectively maximum repayment term and annual 
average repayment period, are not applicable.  In consequence items 5. and 6. of Bulgaria's 
input (page 18 of WTO document G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.2 refers) does not requir e an update.  
AG-IMS ID 95129: Question by United States of America  
Italy - Export Credit  The United States thanks Italy for the transparency it provided in responding 
to the ECQ by providing 2019 data for SACE Spa.  
 
a. Please provide 2016, 2017 and 2018 data for SACE Spa as well.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 314 - 
 
  b. The United States notes that in the SACE SIMEST 2018 annual report, credit insurance 
operations abroad totalled  EUR 0.8 billion where the sector for agri -food accounted for 
10.9% of this total.   
i. Please explain why SACE subsidiaries su ch as SIMEST are not being reported in the 
EU's ECQ.   
Answer by European Union  
 
Ad. a)  
 
2016  
Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programs and use per program: EUR 2 764 211 . 
Annual average premium rates/fees per program: 1.26% . 
Maximum repayment terms per program: 18 month s. 
Annual average repayment periods per program: 10 months  
Export destination or group of destinations per program: Albania ; Algeria ; Armenia ; Brazil ; Chile; 
Cuba; China ; India; Israel ; Lebanon ; Malaysia ; Mexico ; Russia n Federation ; Saudi Arabia , 
Kingdom  of; Thailand ; Turkey ; United Arab Emirates . 
Program use by product or product group: Insurance Policy "Supplier Credit" . 
 
2017  
Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programs and use p er program: EUR 4 240 115 . 
Annual average premium rates/fees per program: 1.19% . 
Maximum repayment terms per program: 18 months . 
Annual average repayment periods per program: 10.5 months . 
Export destination or group of destinations per program: Algeria ; Brazil; China ; Greece ; India; 
Indonesia ; Israel ; Lebanon ; Mexico ; Russia n Federation;  Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of;  Serbia ; 
Thailand ; United Arab Emirates.  
Program use by product or product group: Insurance Policy "Supplier Credit" . 
  
2018  
Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programs and use per program: EUR 2 040 496 . 
Annual average premium rates/fees per program: 1.14% . 
Maximum repayment terms per program: 18 month s. 
Annual average repayment periods per program: 10.5 months . 
Export destination or group of destinations per program: Algeria ; Brazil ; China ; India; Indonesia ; 
Mexico ; Russia n Federation;  Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of;  Serbia ; Thailand ; United Arab Emirates.  
Program use by product or product group: Insurance Policy "Supplier Credit"  
 
Ad b)  
SACE is a joint stock company fully owned by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (which in turn is 80% Ministry 
of Economy and Finance). As an Export Credit Agency, SACE also benefits  from the state guarantee 
on its commitments. Hence, SACE 's activities could be qualified as official support. However, the 
transactions examined by the US do not refer to SACE, but to its subsidiary SACE BT . 
 
SACE BT, a wholly -owned subsidiary of SACE Spa , is a market operator that applies market prices 
in a fully competitive regime with other operators. It does not benefit from state funds or from state 
counter -guarantee on its commitments. Further, it is supervised by ISVAP and it is subject to the 
regulation of the sector like any other private insurer.  
 
SACE BT covers short -term transactions (under 24 months) not subject to the rules of the OECD 
arrangement nor to notification obligations as it does not fall under the categories of public body 
under th e ASCM Agreement and is thus not covered by the Nairobi Decision either.  
 
Ad i) 
In its export financing support activity SIMEST has not been requested to support agricultural 
products.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 315 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95130: Question by United States of America  
Spain – Export Credit  
 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, United States reiterates that the Decision on Export Competition 
is not limited to just agricultural -specific programs.  a. Please provide information for ICO export 
financing programs for agriculture that a re in non -specific sector programs.   
 
Answer by European Union  
  
The information will be provided once available.  
AG-IMS ID 95131: Question by United States of America  
Food Aid  
 
The United States notes the European Union provided an ECQ food aid notification for Austria, 
Czech  Republic, Slovenia and Sweden. However, the United States noted that the EU did not 
provided a response for the European Commission and for several other member states such as 
Denmark, Finland, France, Luxemburg, and Spain, which are all members of the Food Assistance 
Convention.  
 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID s 91119, 87052 and 84122, can the EU and the later mentioned member 
States please provide the total value of untied cash -based food aid for all non -notified years. If th e 
information cannot be provided, please explain why not.   
 
Answer by European Union  
  
European Commission : Please refer to EU NF:1 Notifications - G/AG/N/EU/60.  
 
Finland : Finland provided cash contributions ( EUR million) to the Word Food Program in the 
years 2014-2019 as follows:  
 
2014: 20,0 
2015: 22,9 
2016: 28,5 
2017: 20,7 
2018: 13,0 
2019:13,0 
 
The remaining data will be communicated once available.  
 
India  
AG-IMS ID 95132: Question by European Union -  
 
India – outstanding reply to question AG -IMS ID 92007  
 
The EU would like to remind India, that its reply to point (c)  of question AG -IMS ID  92007 is still 
outstanding.  
"c. Can India indicate  the quantity of sugar exported during the 2018/19 marketing year (total and  
with subsidies) and the total amou nt spent on subsidy for these exports (by  both national and 
provincial authorities)."  
 
Answer by India  
 
Export data of sugar can be accessed from: https://commerce -app.gov.in/eidb/ . 
 
Other required informat ion will be submitted in India 's ES:1 notification.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 316 - 
 
  
Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 95133: Question by European Union  
Indonesia – Schedule update following Nairobi  
 
Over four years after Nairobi, Indonesia did not provide its  updated schedule. When will Indonesia 
comply with the commitments undertaken in  this respect in Nairobi?  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia has updated its schedule of commitment through the modification of Schedule of 
Concession (SoC) XXI INA to comply with its commitment in respect to Nairobi Ministerial Decision.   
Moreover, Indonesia is pleased to reinform that up to 2019 no export subsidy on rice has never been 
provided, as previously stated in our export subsidy notifications.  
 
Israel  
AG-IMS ID 95007: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
 
Can Israel please provide the average exported price and the average representative domestic sales 
price for years 2016 to 2019?  If the information cannot be provided, please explain why not.  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
Descriptio n of 
product(s)  Export value for 
state trading 
enterprise  Quantity exported by 
state trading 
enterprise  Average 
export price  Domestic average 
producer price 
(nominal)  
(million USD)  (metric tonnes)  (USD/MT)  (USD/MT)  
Groundnuts          
2013 22.1 5,393  4,102  1,036  
2014 22 6,011  3,660  1,747  
2015 19.1 6,026  3,173  1,609  
2016 22.9 7,030  3,254  1,562  
2017 23 7,159  3,242  1,667  
2018 22 6,364  3,429  1,668  
2019 23 6,801  3,416  1,681  
 
New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 95144: Question by Canada  
Export competition questionnaire - Export financing  
 
Canada notes that the information provided under Item #8 program use by product or product group 
includes a list of over 20 products from the period 2013 – 2019.   
 
What product or product group was covered by New Zealand 's programmes in 2019?  
 
Answer by New Zealand  
 
The agricultural products that New Zealand Export Credit supported under its short -term trade credit 
insurance program during 2019 were: apples, kiwifruit, wine, butter, seeds, milk powde r, wool, and 
dairy cattle for breeding purposes.  
 
AG-IMS ID 95134: Question by European Union  
New Zealand – follow up to question 94050 – International Airfreight Capacity schemes  
 
New Zealand has introduced the International Airfreight Capacity scheme (IAFC), by which it 
supports the export of New Zealand's product by air to export destinations. In its reply to EU question  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 317 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID  94050, N ew Zealand  has provided some information on background and operation of the 
scheme, but its compliance with  WTO export competition disciplines is not clear.  
 
a. Could N ew Zealand  explain how IAFAC is not an export subsidy falling under Article 9.1(d) 
– "the provision of subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultural 
products including (…) the c osts of international transport and freight. " 
b. For how long will this export subsidy continue?   
Answer by New Zealand  
 
a. New Zealand 's temporary International Air Freight Capacity scheme is necessary to 
maintain vital air links during COVID -19. 1,700 km of oc ean separates New  Zealand from 
the nearest landmass.  The only way to reach New  Zealand other than by a long sea voyage 
is by air.  Given this geographical context, New  Zealand, in company with some 17 other 
WTO Members, has implemented temporary  air connect ivity support.  
The EU is comparatively fortunate in its geographical location, yet some Members States have 
nevertheless provided very extensive support for their air transport sectors.  The useful report from 
OAG Aviation Worldwide Limited, 'Strapped for cash: how airlines can survive the winter season ' of 
2 September 2020, lists the top 10 airlines by level of State support.  The list is headed by Lufthansa 
Group, followed by Air France -KLM. Air New  Zealand is not in that top 10 list.  Given passenger 
aircrafts also carry freight, similar questions could arise with respect to any airline in receipt of any 
kind of government support.  
 
We note the EU has placed its air transport facilitation measures on the WTO 's COVID -19 'services ' 
measures ' tracker.  Similarly, New Zealand 's air transport scheme is a services measure and 
New Zealand will be placing it on the same tracker.  Services are outside the scope of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
  
b. This scheme is a temporary response to the current COV ID-19 pandemic crisis.  The 
broader air services market is being regularly monitored to help determine when the 
scheme can be concluded.   
Norway  
AG-IMS ID 95135: Question by United States of America  
Food Aid  
 
The United States notes that Norway does not respond to the food aid questions following the 
ECQ structure.  However, Norway ask Members to refer to its NF:1 Notifications, which does not 
provide the total amount of food aid provided but rather uncomprehensive data reported to the 
OECD 's Development A ssistance Committee (DAC).  
 
a. Please update the 2020 ECQ and include data following the Nairobi Annex structure, 
including the total value of multilateral and bilateral food aid from 2016 to 2019.   
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway thanks the United States for its in terest in our export competition questionnaire and 
NF:1 notification regarding food aid. Our NF:1 Notification provides comprehensive information 
regarding our annual food aid support. Thus, we believe the reference in the ECQ to our  NF:1 
provides sufficie nt information regarding Norway 's food aid support.  
 
Please be informed that we have submitted our NF1 for 2019. We have included the total value of 
our food aid support in the notification ". 
 
Follow -up: The US reminded Norway of the paragraph on food aid  contained in the annex to the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition which required Members to provide information on food aid 
along the six elements listed below that paragraph. The US stated that while Norway's NF:1 
notifications provide useful informat ion, the data reported to the OECD's Development Assistance G/AG/W/216  
 
- 318 - 
 
  Committee (DAC) is not comprehensive as contribution on technical assistance and fisheries are not 
necessarily related to food aid activities or defined as agricultural products by the Agreement o n 
Agriculture.  
 
Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 95136: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 91125, the United States notes that Pakistan did not reply to the question 
with regards to the Trading Corporation of Pakist an Ltd (TCP).  Therefore, we restate the question.  
 
a. Please explain the basis for not reporting the TCP as an agricultural exporting STE.  
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
TCP is not an exporting STE, it is only involved in the import of essential commodities to address 
food shortages. All of its operations are market based and carried out through tendering and bidding.  
 
Russian Federation  
AG-IMS ID 95145: Question by Canada  
Export competition questionnaire:  state trading enterprises  
 
Canada refers to the Russian Federation 's responses to questions from the United States 
(AG-IMS IDs 87058 and 91127) regarding the operation of the United Grain Company  (JSC UGC) 
and the assertion by the Russian Federation that this entity is not a State Trading Enterpr ise.  
 
Could the Russian Federation clarify if the status pf the JSC UGC has evolved since the response to 
the questions from the United States given the following description of the JSC UGC on its website 
(emphasis added)?  
 
JSC UGC, being a strategic stat e-owned operator in the Russian grain market, and acting in the 
interests of executing the state strategy for the development of infrastructure and logistics facilities 
and the export potential of agricultural products, implements large -scale investment pr ojects.   
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
The United Grain Company (UGC) is not a state trading enterprise within the meaning of Article XVII 
of GATT 1994 and paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the 
GATT 1994.  
 
The gover nment of the Russian Federation has not granted to UGC exclusive or special rights or 
privileges, including statutory or constitutional powers, in the exercise of which UGC influences 
through their purchases or sales the level or direction of imports or ex ports.  
  
AG-IMS ID 95137: Question by European Union  
The Russian Federation - Follow up to question AG -IMS ID  93186 - subsidies to 
"certification of agricultural products in foreign markets"  
 
In its reply to question AG -IMS ID 93186 the Russian Federation has stated that government support 
to legal entities for compensation of part of costs on certification of agro -industrial products to 
foreign markets in the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1816 of 25 
December 2019 is not an expo rt subsidy within the meaning of Article 9.1 (d).  
 
Can the Russian Federation justify its reply by:  
 
a. Explaining how it ensures that this new subsidy does not compensate for costs incurred 
as part of and during the process of selling a product to foreign ma rkets and is not an 
illegal export subsidy?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 319 - 
 
  b. Explaining how the decree in question complies with the requirements of Articles 8 -10 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95037.   
  
AG-IMS ID 95138: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 92032, the United States thanks the Russian Federation for its 
transparency regarding the JSC Russian Export Center export financing interest rat e support 
program for agricultural products.  However, the United States notes that the 2020 ECQ does not 
include a notification of this measure.   
 
a. Please update the 2020 ECQ and also include 2019 data.   
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. No export financing support has been provided in 2019 under the Government Resolution 
№ 620 of 24 May 2017 "On approval of the rules for providing financing for JSC Russian 
Export Center to subsidize interest rates on export credits extended through commer cial 
banks ". 
Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 95139: Question by United States of America  
Export Credit  
 
The United States notes that Thailand responded to the 2020 ECQ.  
 
Please provide value of programme use by product or product group.  If the information cannot be 
provided, please explain why not and what steps Thailand is taking to provide this data.   
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand thanks the United States for her interest in our Export Credit and Export Credit Insurance 
Programmes.  
In this regard, Thailand would like  to inform the committee that Thailand had already submitted the 
export credit questionnaire to the WTO, which states in the notification G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add .2. 
follow the requirement of Nairobi Declaration.  
AG-IMS ID 95140: Question by United States of  America -  
State Trading Enterprises  
 
The United States thanks Thailand for its response to 2020 ECQ and the inclusion of Public 
Warehouse Organization as an agricultural exporting STE.   
 
Can Thailand please update the 2020 ECQ and provide statistical information such as the quantity 
exported by STE, the average export price and destinations for the calendar years 2014 and 2019?  
 
If the information cannot be provided, please explain why not.   
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
The Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand is gathering the information from the relevant 
agencies and will inform the committee as soon as we have those information . 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 320 - 
 
  
United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 95141: Question by China  
According to the notification of the United Sta tes on international food aid (G/AG/N/USA/138), a 
total of 414,540 ton nes of coarse grains were exported for the fiscal year of 2018 (from 01 -10-2018 
to 30 -09-2019). However, in its replies to the Export Competition Questionnaire submitted in 2019 
and 2020 , the United States notified that 354,700 tonnes of sorghum was provided as food aid in 
the fiscal year of 2018 and 413,830 tonnes of sorghum was provided for the fiscal year of 2019.  
 
Could the United States clarify if there is any connection between thes e products and volumes as 
mentioned above ，i.e., is the sorghum part of the food aid notified as "coarse grain "?  
 
In addition, we fully understand that the U.S. government chooses agricultural products for food aid 
based on detailed market analysis, and wo uld like to ask the United States for further information 
regarding the destinations and usages of the sorghum provided as food aid, and the demand 
assessment for each donation?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 ( 1 October  2018 to 30 September  2019), the United States 
provided a total of 414,540 tonnes of coarse grains towards in -kind food aid.  This number 
is inclusive of sorghum (413,830 ton nes) and corn (710 ton nes). This is the total quantity 
of food aid notified in both the 2020 ECQ and the United States ' 2018 ES:3 notification 
(G/AG/N/USA/138).  
  
b. In FY 2019, the United States provided in -kind sorghum to Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti, 
Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.  
 
The U.S. governmen t works with recipient governments and implementing organizations to analyze 
the markets and choose agricultural products that will not disrupt local production, prices, local 
markets, or commercial trade. Prior to the approval of a proposed U.S. food aid program in a 
recipient country, the U.S. government must make a determination that the recipient country has 
adequate storage facilities to prevent spoilage or waste, and that distribution in the recipient country 
will not result in a substantial disincent ive to domestic production.  This analysis is based on local 
and regional market analysis that considers various market information such as various quantitative 
and qualitative information, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the co untry, 
suitability of commodity, and other policy issues. Additional food security data is available through 
the Famine Early Warnings System Network at  https://www.fews.net/ . 
AG-IMS ID 95142: Question by European Union  
US – Food Aid  
 
In the US Fiscal Year 2019 the US has provided 2.0 million  tonnes of in -kind food aid with a total 
value of USD 741 million for which  monetisation was permitted.  
 
a. Can the US explain how it complies with paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Nairobi  Decision, 
which defines the conditions under which monetization of in -kind food  aid can take place?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
The U.S. government works with recipient governments and implementing organizations to analyze 
the markets and choose agricultural products that will not disrupt local production, prices, local 
markets, or commercial trade. Prior to the approval of a proposed U.S. f ood aid program in a 
recipient country, the U.S. government must make a determination that the recipient country has 
adequate storage facilities to prevent spoilage or waste, and that distribution in the recipient country 
will not result in a substantial d isincentive to domestic production.  This analysis is based on local 
and regional market analysis that considers various market information such as various quantitative 
and qualitative information, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity i n the country, 
suitability of commodity, and other policy issues.  Additional food security data is available through 
the Famine Early Warnings System Network at  https://www.fews.net/ . 
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 321 - 
 
  In fiscal year 2019, more than 8 5% of the US in -kind commodities were provided for food aid 
emergency purposes for which monetization was not permitted.  In addition, the 2018 Farm Bill 
included key technical changes to the Food for Peace Act that increased the efficiency and improved 
the oversight and management of food assistance under Title II during FY 2019, including the 
following:  
 
"Monetization:  The elimination of the monetization requirement for USAID's Title II Food for Peace 
programming  enables more funding to go toward programs funded under Title II, which allowed 
USAID to reach more beneficiaries with food assistance. "  
 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 95063: Question by European Union  
 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - Schedule update following Nairobi  
 
Over four y ears after Nairobi, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela did not provide its  updated 
schedule. When will Indonesia comply with the commitments undertaken in  this respect in Nairobi?   
 
Answer by Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
 
This question has been forw arded to our national authorities for due analysis. However, it will not 
be possible to provide a reply for the Committee on Agriculture meeting, due to the travel restrictions 
in Venezuela as a result of the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
It is also important to ind icate that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is on the list of net food 
importing countries and is therefore entitled to benefit from Article 9.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, which allows for the granting of export subsidies related to transport and  marketing 
until 2030.  
 
_______________  
 
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 322 - 
 
  4  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 30 NOVEMBER 2020  AND 1 DECEMBER 2020  
4.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector  
4.1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96021)  
The Australian government has introduced a package of reforms for the Australian agricultural sector 
in October 2020, as part of the Economic Recovery Plan from the COVID -19 recession and to rebuild 
the economy. The Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package is worth over $328.4 million 
over four years from 2020 -21. In this regard, Australia is re quested to provide the following details:  
 
a. Can Australia explain how the Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package is 
compatible with Australia's WTO obligations on agricultural export subsidies as set out in 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision an d the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. How are the funds available under the scheme distributed?  
c. Are exporters eligible to receive funds under the package directly?  
d. Could Australia elaborate upon the product coverage and eligibility criteria for receiving 
support  under this programme?  
e. Could Australia please advise how it will ensure that these measures do not negatively 
impact the global markets?  
f. When and how does Australia propose to notify its export subsidies to the Committee on 
Agriculture?  
g. How is the Australi an government ensuring that this four -year package is "Temporary, 
Transparent, Targeted and Proportionate " to mitigate the adverse impact of COVID -19? 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for its question and interest in this important package to su pport Australia's 
efficient and productive agricultural sector. Australia was pleased to have sent India information on 
this package in early October and appreciates the opportunity to further discuss this package and 
its objectives with India and other Me mbers.  
  
With respect to the questions:  
  
a. All measures under the Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package will be fully 
consistent with Australia's commitments at the WTO and will be notified in due course, 
consistent with Australia's notifica tion obligations. No funding will be provided to producers 
– funding will be used to achieve the objectives of the package and to fund the increased 
staffing and operational requirements of the relevant government agencies. The primary 
objective of the pac kage is to reduce the burden on agricultural producers with respect to 
bureaucratic procedures and out -dated export regulatory systems.   
For example, for some Australian agricultural producers, current regulatory requirements mean up 
to 20 forms need to be  completed in order to export, meanwhile in 2017 -18 on average 550 paper 
export certificates were manually handled by government and exporters to send goods overseas.  
  
To address this, the package will create a more efficient, effective and sustainable ex port regulatory 
system, improving data and technology supported regulation post -COVID -19; and taking systems 
online and providing a single portal for exporters to engage with government to make export rules 
clearer and easier to navigate.   
  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 323 - 
 
  b. Funding will b e provided to governmental agencies to implement the aforementioned 
enhancements in Australia's export regulatory systems. Expenditures under the package 
will be notified to the WTO as appropriate and in due course under Australia's Domestic 
Support notifi cation obligations.  
c. No, agricultural producers and/or exporters will not receive funds under the package.  
d. The package will be implemented across Australia's agricultural sector. Each different 
commodity sector currently has a number of regulatory requireme nts. Hence, some of the 
measures under the package will address specific commodities, but only so far as to 
harmonise and modernise those systems consistent with the overall objective of the 
package. For example:  
i. Seafood (not covered by AoA) and live animal export regulations will be enhanced 
under a AUD 14.3 million funding package over a 3 -5 year period;  
ii. Meat industry regulations will be enhanced under a AUD 10.9 million funding package 
over a 3 -5 year period; and  
iii. Plant industry regulations will be h armonised and streamlined under at AUD  10 million 
funding package over a 3 -5 year period.  
e. The measures under this package will not impact negatively on global markets. These 
measures will improve Australia's agricultural producers' abilities to navigate Au stralia's 
regulatory systems, which subsequently will more efficiently respond to global demand 
and their customers' orders. The quantum of Australian product exported is fully subject 
to market conditions and competitiveness. These measures ensure that Au stralia 
maintains its rigorous, effective and reliable regulatory systems, but does so in a modern 
and streamlined manner.  
f. The package will be implemented over four years, starting in financial year 2020 -21. 
Expenditures under the package will be notified to the WTO in Australia's 2020 -21 
DS:1 notification onwards.  
g. The measure is not a "Temporary, Transparent, Targeted and Proportionate" to mitigate 
the adverse impact of COVID -19. The measure's objective is to modernise and streamline 
Australia's regulatory  systems for the future. This will be an important part of the 
Australia's economic recovery from COVID -19, but is not a COVID -19 specific measure.  
Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
4.1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96022)  
India thanks Aust ralia for its response to AG -IMS ID 95008 on additional AUD 241.9 million to 
continue the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM), for international freight routes and 
flights operating until the end of the year. In October 2020, the Australian government committed 
a further AUD 317.1 million to extend IFAM until the middle of 2021.  
 
As has earlier been mentioned in Question AG-IMS ID 95008, the IFAM appears to be an aid provided 
to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultural products, namely, the costs of international 
transport and freight. As such, it appears to be an export subsidy as defined in Article 9.1(d) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture which covers "the provision of subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing 
exports of agricultural products (other than widely available export promotion and advisory services) 
including handling, upgrading and other processing costs,  and the costs of international transport 
and freight". In addition, Australia is the first WTO Member among the 16 Members with export 
subsidy entitlements in their schedules of commitments to take the step of modifying their 
schedules. Australia has info rmed the WTO Membership that the IFAM is a temporary measure. India 
requests Australia to answer the following questions with respect to this measure:  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 324 - 
 
  a. Can Australia explain how the IFAM and its subsequent extension meets its 
WTO obligations on agricultura l export subsidies as set out in the Agreement on 
Agriculture and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision?  
b. Has the extension of the IFAM scheme in October 2020 broadened the product coverage 
under the scheme?  
c. Could Australia please advise how it will ensure that these measures do not negatively 
impact global agricultural markets?  
d. Can Australia explain how these funds are distributed, noting specifically how freight rates 
are determined for agricultural exporters and whether any funds can be received by 
exporters d irectly?  
e. Australia in its response to Question AG-IMS ID 95008 stated that it will cease IFAM 
assistance on specific routes once the markets re -adjust. Can Australia explain the 
mechanism being used to analyse the market situation? What thresholds have bee n 
identified by Australia in this regard?  
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for its questions regarding the International Freight Assistance Mechanism 
(IFAM). IFAM is a temporary, targeted and proportionate emergency measure to try to keep open a  
critical number of pre -COVID -19 international airfreight supply chains into and out of Australia. 
Australia is continually and judiciously monitoring the market for airfreight, which is heavily reliant 
on international passenger flight activity including on individual routes, and will cease 
IFAM assistance on specific routes once the market re -adjusts. IFAM is not specific to agricultural 
products, but rather applies for time -sensitive products that are reliant on airfreight.  The extension 
of the IFAM sche me in October 2020 did not broaden the product coverage under the scheme.   
  
IFAM does not pay any funds to agricultural producers or exporters. IFAM provides support to the 
aviation and freight forwarding industry to keep Australia 's critical air links wi th the world open while 
Australian export -focused businesses review their pre -COVID -19 business models and adjust to the 
'new normal ', which will likely comprise of significantly increased costs to export or import. Under 
IFAM, airfreight costs for importe rs and exporters are always more than pre -COVID airfreight rates 
with Australian businesses required to pay the majority of the increased cost of their freight.  
  
Australian authorities are monitoring in -bound and out -bound flight numbers (passenger and fr eight) 
on all routes. A number of routes have already returned to a level that has seen IFAM removed from 
those routes and businesses using those routes are either adjusting to the increased costs or are re -
adjusting their business models and consideration s of their export capacity.  
 
Follow -up: India enquired about the duration of the measure in question and other measures 
imposed in response to COVID -19.  
 
Canada's new milk ingredient class  
4.1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96040)  
New Zealand has previously expressed concern about Canada 's formerly utilised milk classes 6 and  7 
and their consistency with the Agreement on Agriculture. Under CUSMA, Canada eliminated Class  7, 
but has since instituted a new Class 4(a) which appears to have many of the same characteristics 
and impacts.  
 
a. How does milk Class 4(a) conform with Canada 's commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
b. In what way(s) can Canada reassure other Members that any export of Class 4(a) protein 
products would not be a means to circum vent Canada 's WTO obligations due to its pricing 
below the cost of production, payment upon export, and financing by virtue of government 
action?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 325 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
a and b:  Canada notes that class 4(a) is not a new milk class and has been in place for deca des. 
Milk class 4(a), along with all of Canada 's milk classes, conform to Canada 's commitments under the 
Agreement on Agriculture.   
 
4.1.3.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96082)  and United States of America (AG -
IMS ID 96004)  
The United States thanks Canada fo r its response to AG -IMS ID 95005. As Canada noted, in 
AG‑IMS ID 80025, milk prices are set in the Province of Ontario; however, the milk prices, the class 
system, and Ontario regulations seem to have changed since then. In AG -IMS ID  86033, Canada 
commented on the National Ingredient Strategy and certain milk classes, including class 7 and 4m. 
For example, in AG -IMS ID 86033, Canada stated, "Utilization is no longer declared in any province 
(other than for retroactive audit adjustments), and permits  are no longer issued for milk class 4m". 
However, in June 2020, Canada began publishing prices for 4m on milkingredients.ca. Other changes 
to the operation of various classes may have also occurred. In AG -IMS ID  87015, Canada mentions 
that it is the work of the Canadian Dairy Commission to commission studies on processor margins 
as needed, but the Canadian Dairy Commission website ( https:// cdc-ccl.ca/index.php/en/supply -
management/how -is-the-price-of-milk-set-in-canada/ ) does not seem to have announced any 
processor margins, other than for skim milk powder in class 4a. In AG -IMS ID 91132, 
AG‑IMS ID 92002, and AG -IMS ID  93003, Canada commente d that federal and provincial authorities 
work together on milk marketing and noted that certain powers were not defined. However, changes 
have occurred in Canadian milk class pricing in the past few months. The United States is seeking 
additional detail a nd requests:  
 
a. Please provide the name and website for each of the provincial boards and agencies 
exercising authority over milk class pricing. Also, please provide any websites reporting 
prices, as well as any information regarding how milk class prices ar e calculated and 
applied.  
b. In AG -IMS ID  8701, Canada stated, "Under the Canadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee (CMSMC) and federal -provincial agreements, these entities [provincial boards 
and agencies] coordinate the exercise of their delegated federal and provincial 
authorities." Are there new federal -provincial agreements?  
c. Please explain how each federal -provincial agreement is implemented.  
d. Please provide a website for each agreement with the text of that agreement.   
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada notes th at the United States, as well as other Members, should exercise caution in citing 
responses from several years ago, where information may no longer be current. For example, 
Canada's dairy industry re -established class 4(m) on June 1, 2020.  
With respect to the requests of the United States:  
 
a. Information on stakeholders in the Canadian dairy sector, including provincial marketing 
boards and agencies can be found in the following link: 
https://ww w.dairyinfo.gc.ca/eng/industry -related -links/?id=1503600807329  . 
Information on current milk class prices can be found in the following link: 
https://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/eng/dairy -statistics -and-market -information/the -dairy-processing -
sector/canadian -milk-class-prices/?id=1592939370980   
 
Information on how milk prices are set can be found at the following link: https://cdc -
ccl.ca/index.php/en/supply -management/how -is-the-price-of-milk-set-in-canada/  
 
b. The government of Canada and the provincial governments work on a variety of issues 
under various configurations, arrangements and agreements.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 326 - 
 
  For example, Canada's First Ministers recently agreed to the Safe Restart Agreement (SRA) in 
September 2020. The SRA is a federal investment of more than $19 billion to help provinces and 
territories safely restart their economies and make Canada more resilient to possible future surges 
in cases of COVID -19. The SRA would constitute a new  federal -provincial agreement.  
 
c. Federal -provincial agreements are implemented in accordance with the terms of those 
agreements on a case -by-case basis.  
d. Not all federal -provincial agreements are published with the full text of the agreement on 
a website.   
More information on federal and provincial acts, regulations, codes, and standards related to the 
Canadian dairy sector can be found at the following link: https://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/eng/acts -
regulations -codes -and-standards/?id=1503082953507  . 
 
4.1.3.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96083)  and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 96005)  
Canada's milk class prices are now listed by Western Milk Pooli ng Agreement, Quebec/Ontario, Nova 
Scotia/New Brunswick, and Newfoundland/Prince Edward Island 
(https://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/eng/dairy -statistics -and-market -information/the -dairy-processing -
sector/canadian -milk-class-prices/?id=1592939370980 ) instead of by individual province.  
  
Please describe the reasons for this change and the effects this change is expected to have on 
Canada's milk class pricing, including for the pricing of dairy exports and authority of provincial 
boards and agencies over milk class pricing.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The co -ordination of prices between provinces based on pooling arrangements is not a new practice. 
There has been no change in this regard.  
 
4.1.3.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96084)  and United States of America (AG -
IMS ID 96011)  
Regarding Canada's Milk Pricing, Canada's milk price class 7 no longer appears in the Har monized 
Milk Classification System ( https://cdc -ccl.ca/index.php/en/supply -management/harmonized -
system -of-milk-classification/ ) nor in Canadian Mil k Class Prices 
(https://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/eng/dairy -statistics -and-market -information/the -dairy-processing -
sector/canadian -milk-class-prices/?id=1592939370980 ).  
  
Please identify all the specific milk class 7 products and ingredients that have been reclassified. Also, 
please provide the specific classes into which each of those specific products and ingredients have 
been reclassified.   
 
Answer by Canada  
 
As per Canada 's previous response to AG -IMS ID 93184, milk class  7 was eliminated, 
on 1 June 2020. It is not referenced on the cited web pages because it no longer exists.   
  
As of 1 June, products in milk class 7 were reclassified into milk class 4(a). Milk class 4(a) includes 
the following products: Butter and butteroil, concentrated milk as an ingredient in the food industry, 
concentrated milk protein, all types of powders, milk and mil k components used to make infant 
formula, rennet casein (dry or curd) used in processed cheese.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and New Zealand expressed interest in the matter noting that Canada's milk 
policies may have an effect on the world market. New Zealand conti nued to seek the data previously 
requested from Canada and noted that even after milk classes 6 and 7 were eliminated Canada's 
dairy policies continued to result in trade distorting effects. Noting its export share of skim milk 
powder in the world market w as below 3%, Canada questioned the statement that its milk policies 
had a significant impact on the global market.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 327 - 
 
  
Canada's review of the TRQ system  
4.1.4.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96023)  
Canada "temporarily suspended " its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocat ion and Administration of 
Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II " in May 2020.  India wishes to know 
the expected timeframe when Canada plans to resume its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocation 
and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
On 1st May, in light of the significant impact that COVID -19 was having on stakeholders, the Minister 
of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade temporarily suspended the 
Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of TRQs for Dairy, Poultry and Egg 
Products (the Review).  This temporary suspension recognized the impact the COVID -19 situation 
was having on stakeholders, allowing them t o focus on other pressing issues and operational 
requirements.  The Review, including stakeholder consultations, will resume in the future at an 
appropriate time when conditions allow. Canada will notify its stakeholders, and international trading 
partners,  upon resumption of the Review.  While the exact timing for the resumption is currently 
unknown, the aim is to have final TRQ policies in place for January 2022.  
 
Follow -up: Regarding Canada's statement that it aimed to have the final TRQ policies in place for 
January  2022, India sought Canada's clarification regarding whether it meant that the review would 
be resumed in 2021 and completed in 2022. Canada responded that, due to challenges posed by 
the COVID -19 pandemic, the review would be resumed when condi tions allow, and the objective 
would be to have the polices in place at the beginning of 2022.   
 
4.1.4.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96041)  
New Zealand notes the communication that was sent to tariff rate quota allocation holders on 
20 October 2020.  In that  message Canada advised that Global Affairs Canada would waive, on an 
exceptional basis, the under -utilisation penalty for all 2020 calendar year TRQs under the WTO and 
some specified preferential trade agreements.  The exception means eligible allocation h olders will 
not have their initial allocation(s) for the 2021 calendar year TRQs adjusted by any potential under -
utilisation penalties.  
 
a. What other steps is Canada taking to address TRQ underfill and ensure TRQs are filled in 
the 2020 and 2021 calendar yea rs? 
b. Has Canada considered the option of reallocation of unused TRQs to importers or exporters 
who would be more interested in using the quota?  If not, why not, given that current TRQ 
holders have not performed?  
c. Can Canada confirm that the waiving of under -utilisation penalties is a one -off measure, 
not to be repeated in subsequent years?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada's decision to waive under -utilization penalties for its TRQs was taken in light of the significant 
impact that COVID -19 was having on stakeho lders. Given the pandemic's sudden and significant 
disruption on food service, on supply chains and the resulting cancellation of contracts and purchaser 
arrangements, applying under -utilization penalties would have been harsh and unfair. This 
exceptional waiver of under -utilization penalties will allow allocation holders to move forward on a 
strong footing as sectors rebound.  
 
In order to encourage the maximum utilization of the TRQs, Canada waived its under -utilization 
penalties after the deadline to retu rn unused TRQs without penalty had passed and returned TRQs 
were reallocated. This approach preserved the incentive for allocation holders to return unused 
allocations and for importers who had used their allocation to apply for reallocated quantities. In 
addition, this year Canada further broadened its return policies by temporarily adding them to the 
few TRQs which previously did not have them (eggs, cheese and broiler hatching eggs and chicks).   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 328 - 
 
  COVID -19 has had significant impacts on importers and expo rters globally and the decision to waive 
underutilization penalties in 2020 was taken due to the unfortunately unique circumstances of 2020. 
There are no current plans to continue this practice.  
 
Follow -up: Regarding Canada's statement that it aimed to have the final TRQ policies in place for 
January 2022, India sought Canada's clarification regarding whether it meant that the review would 
be resumed in 2021 and completed in 2022. Canada responded that, due to challenges posed by 
the COVID -19 pandemic, t he review would be resumed when conditions allow, and the objective 
would be to have the polices in place at the beginning of 2022.   
 
is currently unknown, the aim is to have final TRQ policies in place for January 2022.  
 
4.1.4.3   Question by United States of Ameri ca (AG -IMS ID 96012)  and by New Zealand 
(AG-IMS ID 96085)  
Canada "temporarily suspended " its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of 
Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II " in May 2020.   
 
When will Canada re sume its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of Tariff 
Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II "? 
 
Answer by Canada  
 
On 1st May, in light of the significant impact that COVID -19 was having on stakeholders, the Minis ter 
of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade temporarily suspended the 
Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of TRQs for Dairy, Poultry and Egg 
Products (the Review).  This temporary suspension recognized the impact th e COVID -19 situation 
was having on stakeholders, allowing them to focus on other pressing issues and operational 
requirements.  
 
The Review, including stakeholder consultations, will resume in the future at an appropriate time 
when conditions allow. Canada will notify its stakeholders, and international trading partners, upon 
resumption of the Review.  While the exact timing for the resumption is currently unknown, the aim 
is to have final TRQ policies in place for January 2022.  
 
Follow -up: Regarding Canada's  statement that it aimed to have the final TRQ policies in place for 
January 2022, India sought Canada's clarification regarding whether it meant that the review would 
be resumed in 2021 and completed in 2022. Canada responded that, due to challenges posed  by 
the COVID -19 pandemic, the review would be resumed when conditions allow, and the objective 
would be to have the polices in place at the beginning of 2022.   
 
Canada 's Dairy Direct Payment Program  
4.1.5.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96042)  
New Zealand acknowledges and appreciates Canada's indication that it will notify the CAD 345 million 
paid to farmers through Canada's Dairy Direct Payment Program in accordance with its WTO 
domestic support obligations.   
  
a. Does Canada intend to notify their Da iry Direct Payment Program as a Green Box 
programme, and if so, what reassurance can Canada provide that the Dairy Direct Payment 
Program is minimally trade - and production -distorting?  
b. Or, as part of its AMS entitlement?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a and b.  As noted  in previous answers to New Zealand, this program will be notified as appropriate 
in Canada 's 2019 domestic support notification.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 329 - 
 
  
China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
4.1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96043)  
Australia would like to follow -up with China with respect to question AG -IMS ID 95044 submitted at 
the last CoA regarding Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement between China and the 
United States.  
 
Australia kindly requests China provide a written response to that question:  
 
In relation  to Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement between China and the United States, 
China has reportedly imported around USD 10 billion worth of US agricultural products (based on 
Chinese import data) in the first six months since entry into force of Ag reement. China's monthly 
targets for agricultural purchases have never been reached, with actual purchases in the first three 
months reaching well under half of their targets, and in the second three months only slightly above 
half of their monthly target.  At this rate, Members can reasonably expect Chinese purchases of US 
agricultural products to reach less than half of the 2017 benchmark and fall well under the target 
under the Agreement.  
 
Given this situation, Australia requests China provide answers to the following questions:  
 
a. Can China advise if all purchases made to date have been done so at market prices based 
on commercial considerations?  i. and if all measures implemented to facilitate these 
purchases have been applied on an MFN basis where relevan t? ii. and if so, describe the 
method used to evaluate these considerations?  
b. Can China provide a disaggregated break down for purchases in the first six months of the 
Agreement for each agricultural product listed in Annex 6.1 of the Agreement?  
c. Can China p rovide the current TRQ fill rates for wheat, rice and corn since 1 January 2020?   
i. i. and whether the TRQs will be filled or have high utilization levels in the remaining 
six months of 2020 to meet the purchase targets?  
d. Has China changed or introduced new m easures to facilitate purchases of US agricultural 
products beyond what is required in the Agreement, including:   
i. Advising Chinese SOEs to purchase increased volumes of US agricultural products?  
ii. Reducing applied tariffs for certain products?  
iii. Changing or removing non -tariff measures or amending the administration of imports?  
iv. Additional improvements to technical market access protocols?  
e. Is China planning any future changes or new measures to facilitate imports of 
US agricultural products to meet  the purchase targets under the Agreement?  
Answer by China  
 
Please refer to China's reply to Question AG -IMS ID 95044.  
 
Follow -up: Australia noted that its question covered several issues not only limited to TRQ fill rates 
and looked forward to China's ful l response. The EU signalled its systemic interest in this issue and 
in particular the respect of the MFN principle.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 330 - 
 
  
China's cotton policies  
4.1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96044)  
Australia notes recent reports by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service on 19 May 20201 that on 
26 March 2020, China's NRDC published a notice stating that the target price -based subsidy for 
cotton will continue through 2023. The programme was originally established in 2017 and was 
planned to expire in 202 0.  
 
a. Can China provide details on the target price -based cotton subsidy that will be in effect 
until 2023, including whether this support is being provide within the limits of China's 
Amber Box de minimis entitlement?  
b. How does this cotton subsidy compare t o the terminated cotton programme that China 
notified in its most recent DS:1 notification for 2016 that was in breach of China's 
de minimis support limit for cotton (worth 21.32% of the value of cotton production 
compared to China 8.5% limit)?  
i. Commodity I ntelligence Report - China Cotton – USDA Foreign Agricultural Service – 
19 May 2020.  
Answer by China  
 
a. China deepened the reform on target price subsidy for cotton in 2017 by applying a 
production limit for cotton in Xinjiang Autonomous Region that is eligi ble for target price 
subsidy, and the cotton production beyond the limit is ineligible for the subsidy. The target 
price will remain stable for three consecutive years, and evaluated every three years. The 
target price was 18,600 RMB yuan per tonne for the  3-year period from 2017 to2019. And 
the support program will remain in place for the next 3 -year period from 2020 to 2023, 
with the target price unchanged.   
b. The measure notified in the domestic support notification for 2016 was target price subsidy 
for co tton. Under this program, the government will provide target price subsidy for cotton 
farmers, if the market price fell below the target price. Since 2017, a production limit has 
been applied to the program, which ensures its compliance with the blue box c riteria, and 
China's commitment on de minimis .  
Follow -up: Noting its previous questions AG -IMS ID 90069 and 91197 to China on this subject, Brazil 
registered interest in the matter. The US posed a follow -up question to AG -IMS ID 96044 as follows: 
The US u nderstands that there is a recent announcement by China on plans to extend its cotton 
target price subsidy to 2023 and seeks to understand whether adjustments were made as part of 
the extension of the target price policy in 2020 or all aspects remained unc hanged. In particular the 
US is interested in learning more about the production limiting aspects of the programme before and 
after the extension, including whether individual farmer only receives payments on 85% of the 
individual production and if not, ho w are payments limited; Whether the programme limited the 
amount of production permitted at national, provincial, territorial or individual level; What percent 
of the current production during the 10  year of the previous target price policy did not receive  a 
payment due the payment limitations? China had indicated in response to AG -IMS ID 91197 that 
cotton production ranged from 6.3 to 7.7 million tonnes during the 2012 -2014 base period, while 
production was less than that in 2018; what was the production l evel in 2019, the forecast level 
in 2020 and the estimated level in 2021 -2023?   
 
4.1.7.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96045)  
Australia has become increasingly concerned about recent widespread reports that China has 
directed its businesses to stop or limit purchases and imports of Australian cotton.  
 
For example, the South China Morning Post1 and Wall Street Journal2 reported on 16 October that 
the Chinese National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC) had told Chinese millers to stop 
or limit purcha ses and imports of Australian cotton.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 331 - 
 
  It is claimed that Chinese businesses that do not stop purchases and imports from Australia risk 
losing access to imports of cotton under existing or future cotton tariff -rate quota (TRQs). This 
includes China 's WTO c otton TRQ of 894,000 tonnes with an in -quota rate of 1 % and a prohibitive 
out- of-quota tariff of 40 %. 
 
These reports are particularly concerning given China 's major role in the global cotton market. China 
was the largest importer of cotton in 2019, while Australia was the third largest exporter in 2019. 
Therefore, the potential disruption to the global cotton market and other cotton producers, exporters 
and importers, is significant.  
 
Australia has not seen any official directive from the NDRC or oth er Chinese authorities. However if 
such directives have been issued directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, Australia believes 
such directives would appear to be inconsistent with China 's WTO obligations, in particular 
Paragraph  116 of the Repo rt of the Working Party on the Accession of China to the WTO. This 
assertion would be supported by the accepted findings of the panel in DS517: China – Tariff Rate 
Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products, whereby Paragraph 116 was found to be operative wi th 
respect to China 's administration of its TRQs for agricultural products.  
 
Paragraph 116 states that:  
 
"…upon accession, China would ensure that TRQs were administered on a transparent, 
predictable, uniform, fair and non -discriminatory basis using clearl y specified 
timeframes, administrative procedures and requirements that would provide effective 
import opportunities; that would reflect consumer preferences and end -user demand; 
and that would not inhibit the filling of each TRQ.  China would apply TRQs fu lly in 
accordance with WTO rules and principles and with the provisions set out in China's 
Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods… " 
Australia is taking these reports seriously following concerns raised by Australian cotton exporters, 
disruption t o cotton imports from Australia, and the reports having been substantiated by some 
Chinese importers. Therefore, we kindly request China respond to the following questions with 
respect to these reports:  
 
a. Has the NDRC or any other Chinese authority directly  or indirectly, officially or unofficially 
instructed Chinese millers, businesses and State -Owned Enterprises to stop or limit 
purchases and imports of Australian cotton, or cotton from any other WTO Member?  
i. If yes, has China published a notice of these me asures domestically, and notified them 
to the WTO? If so, please provide copies of the relevant documentation.  
b. Can China provide assurances to Australian cotton exporters and Chinese cotton importers 
that consignments of Australian cotton will be issued im port licenses under existing and 
future TRQs, and cleared by the relevant Chinese customs officials consistent with China 's 
WTO obligations?  
i. Australia 's USD  750 million cotton trade with China targeted, with mills 'discouraged ' 
from purchases – South China  Morning Post, 16 October 2020 . 
ii. China 's Economic Squeeze on Australia Extends to Cotton – Wall Street Journal, 16 
October 2020.  
Answer by China  
 
China 's cotton TRQ is global quota, and the enterprises holding the quota can choose suppliers by 
themselves.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 332 - 
 
  
China's responses to Canada's questions   
4.1.8.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96075)  
As of 12 November 2020, China has not yet posted any of its answers of the 95th CoA meeting on 
the AG -IMS. Canada would like to ask China if its answers to the 95th CoA meeting could be posted 
prior to the 96th CoA meeting, especially in regard to Canada 's question number AG-IMS ID 95143.  
 
Answer by China  
 
The replies have been posted on the AGIMS, including the reply to question AG -IMS ID 95143.  
 
Follow -up: Canada had ho ped to see the data for years after 2016 and looks forward to seeing this 
information in China's response to the 2021 Export Competition questionnaire.  
 
Côte d'Ivoire – Tax on imported spirits  
4.1.9.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96046)  
Côte d'Ivoire appe ars to apply a tax of 25% only on imported spirits, under Article 419(3) of the 
"Code général des impôts "21. This tax discriminates between imported products and local products.  
 
How does Côte d'Ivoire explain that this tax does not restrict imports?  
 
How does it respects the following WTO commitments:  
 
• Article II:1(b) GATT (Schedules of Concessions);  
• Article III:2, first sentence, GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation).  
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
 
Egypt – Sugar import ban/restrictions  
4.1.10.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96047)  
By Decree No 259/2000 of  4 June, Egypt implemented a  three month  prohibition  on the import of 
white sugar, subject to certain exceptions.  By Decree  420/2020  of 3  September,  Egypt 
extended  this import  ban on sugar for another three  months until 3 December 2020.  
 
The EU has already raised already the issue in the Committee on Import Licensing meeting of 
9 October 2020. Based on the information provided by Egypt, the EU understands that the measures 
are supposed to be temporary in nature and regularly reviewed. Moreover, we understand from 
Egypt that the measure has been imposed in order to deal with the problem of the temporary surplus 
that has apparently accumulated due to a sharp decline i n sugar prices (by 30%).  
 
a. Could Egypt inform the Membership about the quantities that created the temporary 
surplus? Could it give an update on the sugar market situation today?  
b. Could Egypt inform the Membership if it intends to further extend the import r estrictions 
on white sugar and raw sugar?  
c. Could Egypt explain how the import restrictions on white sugar and raw sugar respect its 
commitments under Article XI GATT on the General Elimination of Quantitative 
Restrictions?  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Follow -up: The EU  reminded Egypt of other questions posed at previous meetings to which the 
replies were also pending and noted that the ban had affected EU's exports of sugar to Egypt. Brazil 
 
21 http://www.dgi.cgici.com/indexs.htm . G/AG/W/216  
 
- 333 - 
 
  repeated its intervention at the last CTG meeting. Noting that the sugar ban imp osed by Egypt 
remained a systemic concern, Brazil called on Members to comply with Article 4 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and not to resort to quantitative restrictions to ensure the stability of agricultural 
trading system and strengthen its resilience  and robustness.   
 
Australia and the EU welcomed Egypt's announcement that the measure had been suspended and 
encouraged Egypt to respond to some of the specific questions posed at this Committee in order to 
have more clarity on this matter.   
 
EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
4.1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96048)  
The Commission had proposed to release the funding between 2022 and 2024, but now around 30% 
of the EUR 8.07 billion aid will become available in 2021, and the remaining 70% w ould be released 
in 2022. We understand that 37% of this support will be provided via a number of measures for 
organic farming, environment and climate -related actions and animal welfare and at least 55% of 
the funding will support young farmers' start -ups and on -farm investments that contribute to a 
resilient, sustainable and digital recovery.  
 
Australia shares the objectives of supporting economies during the pandemic and the associated 
recovery, and the goal of a sustainable and well -functioning global a gri-food system – including via 
Green box measures. However, the injection of significant funding over a short period of time may 
have a distortive effect on global markets and impact third parties and their recovery.  
 
With that in mind, can the EU provide  more details about:  
 
a. The proposed spending and explain how it will ensure the measures under the EUR 8 billion 
support package, including those for organic farmers, will ensure the support is targeted, 
proportionate, temporary and does not disrupt global trade and supply chains?  
b. b. If the support is expected to be Green box, can the EU explain how it will ensure these 
measures have no, or at most minimal trade -distorting effects or effects on production?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The proposal on the amount s for Next Generation for Europe is at time of drafting this reply not yet 
agreed by the Council and European Parliament. The legal proposal on what and how to spend the 
amount is also still under discussion by the Council and European Parliament. The EU w ill revert with 
a detailed and substantive reply as soon as possible after legal the texts have been agreed, approved 
and published, which might occur around the end of 2020 or early 2021. Any necessary notifications, 
including a DS:2, will also be made.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay, in relation to the question posed by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96048), expressed 
concern on significant use of Green Box by developed countries. To evaluate whether the measure 
in question would distort trade, Paraguay sought further detail s of the programme and a timeline 
regarding when the EU could provide such information. The EU responded that discussions were still 
ongoing on the proposed measure and it would submit a Table DS:2 notification where it would 
indicate whether the measure w ould be Green or Blue Box. Regarding the EU's response to question 
e of AG -IMS ID 96027, India asked the EU when the measure would be notified. The EU noted that 
its notifications covered marketing years from 1 July to 30 June and the payments taken into a ccount 
in the notifications followed the budget year. For instance, the EU's DS:1 notification for marketing 
year 2019/20 would cover the expenditures made during budget year 2020. The EU had been 
following the same practice for its DS:1 notifications sinc e 1995. Therefore, the expenditure which 
would be paid out during the budget year of 2020 would be reported in the notification of marketing 
year 2019/20 and the expenditures made in budget year 2021 would be related to the notification 
of marketing year 2 020/21. Brazil noted that EU's state aid for agricultural products during the 
COVID -19 pandemic was estimated to amount to EUR 1.2 billion and there was no indication that 
this amount would decrease in the near future. Brazil noted its concern in this rega rd, especially 
given the authorization of new payments of EUR 80 billion to EU farmers as indicated by Australia in 
its question. Regarding the effect of the support on the international market, Brazil drew Members' 
attention to the recent report published  by the EU commission which mentioned that "Despite G/AG/W/216  
 
- 334 - 
 
  COVID -19 disruptions, EU-27 exports between January and July 2020 reached a total value of 
EUR 105 billion, an increase of 2.1% compared to the same period in 2019. As a result, the agri -food 
export surpl us stood at EUR 32.9 billion, an increase of up to 3% compared to the corresponding 
months of 2019." The EU noted that its good export performance in 2020 did not mean the situation 
for its farmers was good.   
 
4.1.11.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96027)  
During the  COVID -19 pandemic, the European Union has taken measures to support food producers 
in the form of: a) direct support to farmers and rural areas; b) flexibility under the CAP; and 
c) exceptional market measures.  
 
The EU has mentioned that it intends to inc rease state aid to farmers and food -processing 
companies, as direct support, up to EUR 100,000 per farm and EUR 800,000 per food -processing 
company. This amount can be topped up by ' de minimis ' aid. This type of national support specific 
to the agricultura l sector can be granted without prior approval from the Commission and has a 
ceiling of EUR 20,000 (and EUR 25,000 in specific cases).   
  
In view of the above, could the European Union please elaborate on the following:  
 
a. Has this policy been put into opera tion? 
b. What is the meaning of 'de minimis ' aid? What kinds of support does it encompass?  
c. In what cases could the EUR 100,000 payment be additionally topped up by de-minimis 
aid? 
d. What are the specific cases in which the de-minimis ceiling can be EUR 25,000 instead of 
EUR 20,000?  
e. Whether such support has been notified at WTO in any of the notifications? If yes, please 
provide details. If no, by when will the support be notified?  
f. Is the European Union considering this as a temporary measure or is it likely to continue?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. Yes. These measures have all been included in the EU ad -hoc reports G/ AG/GEN/159,  
G/AG/GEN/159/ Add.1, G/ AG/GEN/159/ Add.2 and G /AG/GEN/159/ Add.3 as submitted just 
before this meeting.  
b. "De minimis  aid" is aid whose impact on the EU internal market is so minimal that it cannot 
distort or risk to distort competition and is therefore considered not to be state aid within 
the meaning of the Treaty on  the Functioning of the EU - which the member States would 
have to notify to the Commission. The EU would note that the concept of "de minimis " as 
related to state aid in the Treaty is unrelated to the concept of "de minimis " in Article  6 of 
the WTO Agreement of Agriculture.  
c. According to Article 5(3) of the de minimis  Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013, de minimis  aid 
can only be cumulated with aid und er the Temporary Framework if it is not granted for or 
attributable to specific eligible costs. So if aid is granted under the Temporary Framework 
as a lump sum payment to grant liquidity aid, in principle it is possible to add de minimis  
aid on top of suc h payments.  
d. The conditions are set out in Regulation (EU) No 2019/316. The greater amount can only 
be granted under the conditions that:  
- the member State in question operates a central register of de minimis  aid containing 
complete information on all de minimis  aid granted within that member State; and  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 335 - 
 
  - the member State respects a sector cap, i.e. , no more than 50% of the maximum 
amount of de minimis  aid granted by that member State as set out in Annex II to 
Regulation (EU) No 2019/316 benefits one single product sector.  
 
e. These measures are to be paid out during 2020 and 2021 budget years, and will therefore 
be included in the EU DS:1 notification for 2019/20 and 2020/21 marketing years 
respectively.  
f. This is a temporary measure that will apply only until 30 June 2021.  
Follow -up: Paraguay, in relation to the question posed by Australia (AGIMS ID 96048), expressed 
concern on significant use of Green Box by developed countries. To evaluate whether the measure 
in question would distort trade, Paragu ay sought further details of the programme and a timeline 
regarding when the EU could provide such information. The EU responded that discussions were still 
ongoing on the proposed measure and it would submit a Table DS:2 notification where it would 
indica te whether the measure would be Green or Blue Box. Regarding the EU's response to question 
e. of AGIMS ID 96027, India asked the EU when the measure would be notified. The EU noted that 
its notifications covered marketing years from 1 July to 30 June and t he payments taken into account 
in the notifications followed the budget year. For instance, the EU's DS:1 notification for marketing 
year 2019/20 would cover the expenditures made during budget year 2020. The EU had been 
following the same practice for its  DS:1 notifications since 1995. Therefore, the expenditure which 
would be paid out during the budget year of 2020 would be reported in the notification of marketing 
year 2019/20 and the expenditures made in budget year 2021 would be related to the notifica tion 
of marketing year 2020/21. Brazil noted that EU's state aid for agricultural products during the 
COVID -19 pandemic was estimated to amount to EUR 1.2 billion and there was no indication that 
this amount would decrease in the near future. Brazil noted its concern in this regard, especially 
given the authorization of new payments of EUR 80 billion to EU farmers as indicated by Australia in 
its question. Regarding the effect of the support on the international market, Brazil drew Members' 
attention to the  recent report published by the EU commission which mentioned that "Despite 
COVID -19 disruptions, EU-27 exports between January and July 2020 reached a total value of 
EUR 105 billion, an increase of 2.1% compared to the same period in 2019. As a result, th e agri -food 
export surplus stood at EUR 32.9 billion, an increase of up to 3% compared to the corresponding 
months of 2019." The EU noted that its good export performance in 2020 did not mean the situation 
for its farmers was good.   
 
European Union - Modif ication of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
4.1.12.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96049)  
With less than two months now before the end of the UK transition period, we ask the EU to provide 
updated information to WTO Members on how it intends to ad dress the concerns that other 
WTO Members have raised regarding the substantial reduction in quantity and quality of access the 
EU has proposed to apply to 130 of its 142 current bound tariff rate quotas (including 23 quotas for 
which the EU has proposed c ut backs of more than 50%)?  
 
We also ask the EU to provide updated advice on the actions it intends to take to ensure other 
WTO Members will retain full access to its MFN quotas, as intended when these quotas were 
negotiated, and that this access is not 'crowded out ' by UK -EU trade?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Negotiations on the TRQ apportionment under the Article XXVIII procedure are still ongoing with the 
partners who have recognised rights. The EU welcomes the increased engagement of many 
WTO Members in recent weeks and aims to make progress paving the way towards a constructive 
finalisation of discussions with as many Members as possible by the end of the year.  
 
In terms of the MFN quotas, the EU is still working on the premise of reaching an agreement on 
duty-free, quota -free bilateral trade with UK, including a provision on the mutual exclusion from 
these TRQs. In our view, this approach is the best way to resolve the issue.  
 
Follow -up: Switzerland shared the concern over the possibility that  the bilateral trade between 
the EU and the UK could be counted against each other's MFN TRQs. The EU and the UK were asked G/AG/W/216  
 
- 336 - 
 
  to come up with a solution to exclude such scenario. Brazil reiterated its request made during the 
last two CTG meetings that the EU  and the UK to commit that, as part of Article XXVIII negotiations, 
all their TRQs contain the observation "except for the UK "and" except for the EU", respectively, if 
after the end of the transition period, an agreement would not be signed between the pa rties. Brazil 
noted that as the EU and the UK had not concluded their negotiations, there would be risk that the 
limited and essential TRQs that were comprised in the EU and UK's schedules would be flooded with 
products from the bilateral trade, displacing  other WTO Members' exports. Alternatively, based on 
the logic used by the EU during enlargements to 'net -out' bilateral trade from TRQ quantities, the 
EU could now add bilateral trade in TRQ quota volumes through a so -called 'netting -in' process. 
Brazil a lso urged for flexibilities in the EU's negotiating position on TRQs until Article  XXVIII 
negotiations were concluded rather than proceeding with apportioned TRQ quantities autonomously. 
Given the link of the issue to the WTO, Canada encouraged the EU to u pdate Members on its bilateral 
negotiations with the UK on this issue and provide transparency and predictability regarding how 
multilateral TRQs would be affected after the transition period post 1/1/2021. Paraguay expressed 
concern regarding the lack of clarity on the Brexit process, especially as regards the erga omnes 
TRQs and the calculation of the AMS limit and SSG rights by the UK. On AMS, Paraguay noted that 
the EU had not indicated a corresponding reduction of its AMS commitment and on SSG, Paragua y 
invited the UK to explain the automatic transfer of SSGs for the EU on tariff lines dealing with 
agricultural products that were not produced outside of the UK. China and Uruguay expressed 
support for the question.   
 
EU's environmental policies  
4.1.13.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 96007)  
This question is presented again, as question AG -IMS ID 95098 remains unanswered.  
 
We would like to know whether the EU could confirm that subsidies to compensate for the non ‑use 
of certain pesticides have not been introduced and that there are no plans to introduce such subsidies 
in any of the 26 other EU members in the near future.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU apologises for not having previously submitted a reply to this question.  
 
As already explained in the reply to question AG -IMS ID 95116, to a question from Paraguay, several 
EU member States in their Rural Development programmes have measures which allow farmers to 
be compensated for the obligation not to use/or reduce pesticides or other plant protection products.  
This could include obligations not to use such products near waterways or on certain type of soils.   
 
Follow -up: Brazil highlighted the relevance of Paraguay's question in the context of the 
implementation of the European Green Deal and the Farm 2 Fork St rategy. Brazil noted that 
European producers had acknowledged that their productivity was expected to fall because of the 
F2F target to reduce the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides. As an example, Brazil referred to 
a study by Teagasc, the main ag ricultural research centre in Ireland, which estimated that the F2F's 
goal of reducing the use of fertilizers would entail higher costs since there would be less grass 
available for animal feeding, and would also cause a drop in production. Brazil noted th at, 
consequently, as already noted in the public debate at the European level, there would be even more 
demand for Commission's support. In addition, Brazil referred to a recent USDA study, which 
estimated that Europe could leave 185 million people hungry all over the world, if the same ambition 
of its recent strategy was adopted globally. Paraguay stated that it would submit follow up questions 
and request further details on the programme. The EU took note of the concern expressed by Brazil 
and Paraguay an d noted that ensuring food production in the future to be more sustainable was a 
common challenge for Members. The EU noted that the conclusion of the study Brazil cited was not 
fully in line with its expectation how the policy would develop. The EU underl ined that so far no 
concrete proposal of the programme had been put forward and before doing so the EU would carry 
out further analysis and studies.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 337 - 
 
  
Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  
4.1.14.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96050)  
a. Japan re cognizes that Honduras introduced export prohibition on dried leguminous 
vegetables on 26 March 2020, and finds that the said measure is still maintained with no 
date of termination available. Japan would appreciate if Honduras could provide the reason 
behind. Japan would also appreciate if Honduras could provide the prospect under what 
condition the measure could be withdrawn.  
b. b. Japan noted a response from Honduras to our question at the COA held on June, which 
states that Honduras introduced the measure because of the risk of critical shortage of 
legumes. Japan would appreciate if Honduras could provide the updated situation of the 
domestic supply and demand of legumes.  
Answer by Honduras  
 
Honduras thanks Japan for its question on the issue of the ban on red bean exports.  
 
In this regard Honduras informs the Committee that, as of 26 August 2020, this measure is no longer 
in force and effect and red bean exports have resumed their course.  
  
India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  
4.1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96051)  
Australia would like to follow -up with India with respect to question AG -IMS ID 95055 submitted at 
the last CoA with respect to the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF).  
 
Australia kindly requests India provide s a written respo nse to that question.  
 
Question text for reference:  
 
On 9 August, Prime Minister Modi announced an Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF) which is a 
medium -long term debt financing facility for investment projects for post -harvest management 
infrastructure and community farming assets, including to enable the agriculture sector to be 
competitive with global levels. The scheme guidelines for the AIF note that eligible projects include 
providing supply chain infrastructure for 'clusters of crops including expo rt clusters'.   
 
Could India please provide further details of how financing will be provided for the projects, 
including:   
 
a. What crops fall within the definition of 'export cluster'?  
Answer by India  
 
India thanks Australia for the question. Our response is as under:  
  
The All scheduled commercial banks, the scheduled cooperative banks, the Regional Rural 
Banks  (RRBs), the Small Finance Banks, the Non -Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), and the 
National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) may participate in providing this financing 
facility after signing of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the National Bank for Agriculture 
& Rural Development (NABARD) /Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare.   
  
As regards the export cl usters, they are yet be identified.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 338 - 
 
  
India's pulses policies  
4.1.16.1   Question  by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96052)  
Australia would like to again raise its concerns with India's trade restrictive measures on pulses and 
its insufficient responses to Australia's questions at the 95th Committee on Agriculture.   
 
A number of the measures in question, notably the quantitative restrictions (QRs) appear to be 
WTO inconsistent and despite India's claims they are 'temporary', they have been in place for more 
than three years.  
 
India's response to Australia's questions at the last CoA was to refer to India's responses in other 
Committees; and that the measures had been implemented under Article XX (General Exceptions) 
of the GATT 1994. Australia has heard and considered carefully wh at India has said in other 
Committees.  
 
India's response in the Committee on Market Access and the Council for Trade in Goods was that it 
understood quantitative restrictions (QRs) were never required to be tariffied under the Uruguay 
Round negotiations, h ence the prohibition of QRs in Article 4.2 of the AoA does not apply.  Australia 
reminds India that Article 4.2 of the AoA states: "Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to 
any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted into or dinary customs duties 
[footnote 1], except as otherwise provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5". Footnote one says "These 
measures include quantitative import restrictions".  
 
From Australia's perspective, it is clear and unambiguous that Article 4 of the Ao A disciplines 
quantitative restrictions. In addition, India is continuing to claim these measures are implemented 
under Article XX (General Exceptions) of the GATT 1994. However, India has not provided a specific 
reason for all of the measures and how they  have been implemented, for example restrictions on 
landing ports and on what entities may import under the QRs.  
 
With this in mind, Australia requests India responds  to the following questions:  
 
a. Can India please explain what it believes is the purpose and  drafting of footnote 1, if it 
were not to strictly capture QRs under Article 4.2?  
i. Does India believe its QRs are not captured by Article 4.2 of the AoA?  
b. Under what specific provision of the GATT 1994 or other relevant WTO agreements does 
India justify:  
i. the restriction of pea imports to only one specific port?  
ii. the minimum import price for peas?  
iii. the restriction of additional imports of Urad to only Indian millers and refiners?  
iv. such a limited period for applications to be submitted for Urad imports?  
c. Can Ind ia explain how each measure in question b) conforms to the specific provision of 
the AoA and Article XX of the GATT 1994?  
Answer by India  
 
India thanks Australia for the question. Our response to the questions (a) to (c) of AG-IMS ID 96052 
is as under:  
 
The government has been continuously reviewing and monitoring the situation and measures. India 
has stated the legal basis of its measures about quantitative restrictions on certain varieties of pulses 
previously in response to Members' questions in the Comm ittee on Market Access and the Council 
for Trade in Goods.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 339 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia reiterated the concern on the quantitative restrictions imposed by India on pulse 
imports and strongly requested India to respond to its specific questions posed at this Comm ittee. 
Canada noted the import restriction measure had been imposed by India since 2017 and on Canada's 
exports since April 2018. Additional measures on imports of dried beans had been introduced in 
January this year. Canada noted that India referred to a general exception in its response to Canada's 
question raised previously regarding the measure's compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture 
and the GATT. Canada sought India's rationale for referring to the general exception for an issue 
that was covered  by a specific rule under the Agreement on Agriculture. The EU expressed 
disappointment with India's reply which was not substantive in the EU's view. The EU encouraged 
India to upload the responses it referred to as provided in the CTG and Market Access C ommittee. 
The EU also suggested India to contribute more concrete actions to respond to Members' concern. 
The Russian Federation hoped that India could resume imports of Russia's pulses products soon. 
Ukraine, viewing India's measures as non -transparent, n egatively affecting international market and 
failing to comply with the WTO rules, called India to improve its pulses policies. The US expressed 
support for the questions concerning India's quantitative restrictions on peas and looked forward to 
detailed r esponses from India.  
 
4.1.16.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96076)  
In reply to question AG -IMS ID  95056, where Canada addressed questions in regards to India WTO 
justification of India 's quantitative restrictions for dried peas, India referred Canada to the minute s 
of the meetings of the June 2020 Council for Trade in Goods for its answers. In the minutes of this 
committee, India noted that quantitative restrictions, minimum import prices, and discretionary 
import licensing procedures such as limiting imports to on e single port of entry, can be justified by 
arguing that Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture did not envisage the tariffication of 
temporary or short -term measures and that consequently, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture should not extend  to GATT 1994 Article XI:2(c).  
 
In regards to the legal justification raised, could India specify:  
 
a. On what grounds does India claim that Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture did not 
envisage the tariffication of temporary or short -term measures?  
b. What is India 's definition of temporary or short -term measures? After which period of time 
does a measure stop to be temporary or short -term?  
c. Could India explain how the situation is different in the WTO case Indonesia -Import 
Licensing Regime (DS477), where the appellate body report ruled that "Members cannot 
maintain quantitative import restrictions on agricultural products that satisfy the 
requirements of Article XI:2(c) of the GATT 1994 without violating Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. "? 
Answe r by India  
 
India thanks Canada for the question, and our response is:  
 
a. to c.: The government has been continuously reviewing and monitoring these measures. India 
has stated the legal basis of its measures about quantitative restrictions on certain varieties of pulses 
previously in response to Members' questions in the Committee on Market Access and the Council 
for Trade in Goods. India has taken these measures in the exercise of Article XX (General Exceptions) 
of the GATT 1994.  
 
Follow -up: Australia reiterated the concern on the quantitative restrictions imposed by India on pulse 
imports and strongly requested India to respond to its specific questions posed at this Committee. 
Canada noted the import restriction measure had been i mposed by India since 2017 and on Canada's 
exports since April 2018. Additional measures on imports of dried beans had been introduced in 
January this year. Canada noted that India referred to a general exception in its response to Canada's 
question raised  previously regarding the measure's compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture 
and the GATT. Canada sought India's rationale for referring to the general exception for an issue 
that was covered by a specific rule under the Agreement on Agriculture. The E U expressed 
disappointment with India's reply which was not substantive in the EU's view. The EU encouraged 
India to upload the responses it referred to as provided in the CTG and Market Access Committee. G/AG/W/216  
 
- 340 - 
 
  The EU also suggested India to contribute more conc rete actions to respond to Members' concern. 
The Russian Federation hoped that India could resume imports of Russia's pulses products soon. 
Ukraine, viewing India's measures as non -transparent, negatively affecting international market and 
failing to compl y with the WTO rules, called India to improve its pulses policies. The US expressed 
support for the questions concerning India's quantitative restrictions on peas and looked forward to 
detailed responses from India . 
 
4.1.16.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96056)  
As a follow -up to India's answer to the question AG -IMS ID 95057, could India clarify the following 
issues:  
 
a. Please, confirm that the share of yellow peas in total quota for peas is zero for the current 
year, and thus import of yellow peas is pro hibited.  
b. Bearing in mind the application of zero quota for the importation of yellow peas for the 
current year, please clarify the reasons for using in 2020 stricter policy measures for the 
importation of this product.  
c. Which other trade measures were cons idered by India with regard to the importation of 
yellow peas in order to ensure that de facto  import ban would not create disguised 
restriction on international trade?  
d. The Russian Federation is looking forward to receiving further clarification with rega rd to 
minimum price requirement for imported peas introduced by India. Could India, please, 
clarify the reasoning behind the requirement to import peas at not less than 200  Rs. per 
kilo. Could India provide the detailed explanation of how the price of 200  Rs per kilo was 
calculated.  
e. India has also restricted the number of ports through which peas could be imported into 
India. Could India, please, clarify the rationale why yellow peas could be imported only 
through the seaport of Kolkata?  
f. In the answer to qu estion AG -IMS ID 95057 India stated that quantitative restrictions on 
import of pulses were taken in exercise of Article XX GATT 1994. Could India please provide 
detailed clarification in which way restricting import of pulses and prohibiting import of 
yellow peas fall under the paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Article XX GATT (protection of 
public morals and protection of human life and health)?  
g. Could India, please, specify its plans to eliminate quantitative restrictions and prohibitions 
on importation of ye llow peas.  
Answer by India  
 
India thanks the Russian Federation for the question.  
 
Our response to questions a, b & c is as under:  
 
During the current year (2020 -21), a total quantity of 33,832 MTs of yellow peas has been imported 
(01.04.2020 - 21.11.2020) . In response to questions d, e, f, & g the response is as under:  
 
The government has been continuously reviewing and monitoring these measures. India has stated 
the legal basis of its measures about quantitative restrictions on certain varieties of pulses  previously 
in response to Members' questions in the Committee on Market Access and the Council for Trade in 
Goods. India has taken these measures in the exercise of Article XX (General Exceptions) of 
the GATT 1994.  
 
Follow -up: Australia reiterated the con cern on the quantitative restrictions imposed by India on pulse 
imports and strongly requested India to respond to its specific questions posed at this Committee. 
Canada noted the import restriction measure had been imposed by India since 2017 and on Canad a's 
exports since April 2018. Additional measures on imports of dried beans had been introduced in G/AG/W/216  
 
- 341 - 
 
  January this year. Canada noted that India referred to a general exception in its response to Canada's 
question raised previously regarding the measure's com pliance with the Agreement on Agriculture 
and the GATT. Canada sought India's rationale for referring to the general exception for an issue 
that was covered by a specific rule under the Agreement on Agriculture. The EU expressed 
disappointment with India's  reply which was not substantive in the EU's view. The EU encouraged 
India to upload the responses it referred to as provided in the CTG and Market Access Committee. 
The EU also suggested India to contribute more concrete actions to respond to Members' con cern. 
The Russian Federation hoped that India could resume imports of Russia's pulses products soon. 
Ukraine, viewing India's measures as non -transparent, negatively affecting international market and 
failing to comply with the WTO rules, called India to i mprove its pulses policies. The US expressed 
support for the questions concerning India's quantitative restrictions on peas and looked forward to 
detailed responses from India.  
 
India's PM -KISAN income guarantee scheme   
4.1.17.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96077)  
In India 's reply to question 95084, India noted that Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN) 
payments levels are not determined by the income of producers.  
 
a. Could India explain how payment levels are determined for each producer?  
b. What are the factors that influence the level of payment for each producer?  
c. Are all beneficiaries of this programme receiving the same amount?  
Answer by India  
 
India thanks Canada for the question.  Our response to questions a&b is as under:  Under the 
PM-KISAN, a fi xed payment of Rs.  6,000 per year per landholding farmer family is available in three 
equal instalments , every four months.  The reply to question number (c) is "Yes."  
 
India's transparency with Green Box measures   
4.1.18.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96078)  
India's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95083 did not directly address Canada's question regarding the 
conformity the programme called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) with paragraph  8, 
Annex  2 of the AoA.  
 
a. Could India clearly indicate whether the programme  called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima 
Yojana (PMFBY) meets the base period criteria of paragraph 8 (a), Annex 2 which requires 
the reference average production level to be set using the preceding three -year period or 
a three -year average based on the preceding  five-year period, excluding the highest and 
the lowest entry?  
b. If this programme does not meet the reference period criteria, could India indicate why 
this programme was reported under India's supporting table DS:1 as a Green Box 
measure?  
Answer by India  
 
India thanks Canada for the question, and our response is:  
 
a. and b. The scheme meet the general criteria under paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement 
on Agriculture. The purpose of taking average yield based on multiple years is to minimize the 
relevant data fluctuations due to various factors. Given that Indian agriculture is largely weather 
dependent and has inadequate irrigation facilities, yield data over a period has been taken.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 342 - 
 
  Follow -up: Canada expressed doubt regarding whether using yield da ta could match the criteria 
outlined in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and reserved its right to follow up on this 
matter.   
 
India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  
4.1.19.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96053)  
Several press reports suggest that the dairy company owning the Amul brand will be granted export 
subsidies for skimmed milk powder. A report from Dairy Industry Newsletter of 3 November states:  
 
"Gujarat Co -op Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF), who own the Amul brand, were 
ordered to purchase milk from private producers unable to sell it due to India 's 
COVID -19 lockdown. In return their 18 member unions are being offered US D 680/t in 
export subsidies by the government. During lockdown Amul procured 
35,000 -40,000  litres of ad ditional milk every day, which has led to excess SMP stocks 
estimated at 90,000  t. The export subsidy will be provided by the state government 
from November, continuing for 6mths to April 2021. Amul managing director RS Sodhi 
said they planned to export 50 ,000 t of milk powder this year, up from 12,000t last 
year". 
a. Can India confirm that Amul is being paid a subsidy of US D 680 per tonne of SMP that is 
exported?  
b. Can India indicate the quantity subsidized? Is there a maximum quantity for this subsidy? 
Or will  all 90,000 tonnes referred to in the press be exported with this subsidy?  
c. How has the level of subsidy has been calculated? Which elements or criteria were used?  
d. According to the press report this export subsidy is granted due to an internal support 
measu re for the dairy sector in India. The subsidy would thus not appear to fall within the 
exceptions for developing countries in Article 9:4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. How is 
this export subsidy justified in relation to India 's commitments under the Agr eement on 
Agriculture?  
e. Point 1 of the Nairobi Ministerial decision (WT/MIN(15), WT/L/980) reads:  
"Members  reaffirm  their commitment, pursuant to the 2013  Bali Ministerial Declaration 
on Export Competition, to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any re course to all 
forms of export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect. " How does 
this export subsidy respect this provision?  
Answer by India  
 
(Reply given in AG-IMS ID 98091)  
 
a. to e. The government of Gujarat announced a financial assist ance for skimmed milk powder for 
limited time frame of six months for limited quantity of 50,000 MTs and with maximum support of 
Rs. 50 per kg to defray the costs of marketing including handling, domestic and international freight 
which are allowed for developing countries under the WTO 's AoA and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition. This is a temporary measure to help the vulnerable farmers and cooperatives 
in view of the COVID -19 situation.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine noted that India's polic y had a strong potential to impact the global dairy market 
particularly skim milk powder prices. Ukraine called on India to give due consideration to the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition and indicated it would review India's compliance with the 
WTO obligations. Australia underlined its concern about the consistency of the measure with Article  9 
of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision. Australia referred to India's statement in 
other WTO forums that its domestic support arrangements di d not affect global market and export 
interests of others including developing countries and noted that this did not appear to be the case 
for skimmed milk powder. Australia asked India what reforms it was considering to ensure that such 
overproduction wou ld not occur again in the future and would not affect global dairy market.   G/AG/W/216  
 
- 343 - 
 
   
The EU hoped that India's data would include the number of products that were supported and 
recalled that ministers agreed under the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition to rest rict use of 
export subsidies.   
 
4.1.19.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96055)  
New Zealand understands that the state government of Gujarat will be providing up to 50 rupee 's/KG 
in subsidies to export 50,000 tonnes of skim milk powder over the period of 01/11/2 020 – 
30/04/2021. New Zealand is concerned that this will provide an export subsidy to Indian skim milk 
producers and significantly impact the world supply of skim milk powder.  
 
a. At Bali and Nairobi, as part of the historic outcome supported by all Members,  India 
committed to exercising utmost restraint with regard to all forms of export subsidies.  Can 
India indicate how the provision of these new export subsidies fits with their commitment 
to utmost restraint?   
b. The Nairobi Decision commits all Members not t o raise export subsidies above the previous 
five-year average on a product basis. Do India 's new export subsidies for milk in Gujarat 
mean that export subsidies for skim milk powder now exceed the previous five -year 
average of export subsidies provided to milk powder in India?   
c. The Nairobi Decision requires Members to ensure that export subsidies have at most 
minimal trade distorting effects and do not displace or impede the exports of another 
Member. What measures has India taken to ensure that its export subsidies for milk 
powder do not have a trade distorting effect?   
Answer by India  
 
(Reply given in AG-IMS ID 98091)  
 
a. to e. The government of Gujarat announced a financial assistance for skimmed milk powder for 
limited time frame of six months for limited quantity of 50,000 MTs and with maximum support of 
Rs. 50 per kg to defray the costs of marketing including handling, domestic an d international freight 
which are allowed for developing countries under the WTO 's AoA and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition. This is a temporary measure to help the vulnerable farmers and cooperatives 
in view of the COVID -19 situation . 
 
Follow -up: Ukraine noted that India's policy had a strong potential to impact the global dairy market 
particularly skim milk powder prices. Ukraine called on India to give due consideration to the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition and indicated it would review India's compliance with the 
WTO obligations. Australia underlined its concern about the consistency of the measure with Article  9 
of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision. Australia referred to India's statement in 
other WTO fo rums that its domestic support arrangements did not affect global market and export 
interests of others including developing countries and noted that this did not appear to be the case 
for skimmed milk powder. Australia asked India what reforms it was cons idering to ensure that such 
overproduction would not occur again in the future and would not affect global dairy market.   
 
4.1.19.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96013)  
The United States understands that the Gujarat government introduced Resolutio n No.  SDS/1020 
20/960/Kh to provide export subsidies for skim milk powder (SMP), in effect from 1  November  2020 
to 30 April 2021.  The resolution indicates the Gujarat government will provide total assistance of 
Rs 150 crores (USD  20 million) for a six -month period. The export subsidy will entail Rs  50 per 
kilogram of SMP exported by the milk cooperatives if the FOB price is Rs 180.  The total amount of 
SMP that can be exported under the scheme is 50,000 metric tonnes.  
 
a. Please confirm this export subsidy is c urrently in effect.  If so, please further explain how 
these measures are being implemented and provide any eligibility criteria.  
b. Please provide the measure authorizing and administering these export subsidies. If not 
available now, when will these document s be made available?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 344 - 
 
  c. Please explain how this is consistent with India's commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture including export subsidies commitments in Article 9.   
Answer by India  
 
(Reply given in AG-IMS ID 98091)  
 
a. to e. The government of Gujarat announced a financial assistance for skimmed milk powder for 
limited time frame of six months for limited quantity of 50,000 MTs and with maximum support of 
Rs. 50 per kg to defray the costs of marketing including handling, domestic an d international freight 
which are allowed for developing countries under the WTO 's AoA and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition. This is a temporary measure to help the vulnerable farmers and cooperatives 
in view of the COVID -19 situation . 
 
Follow -up: Ukraine noted that India's policy had a strong potential to impact the global dairy market 
particularly skim milk powder prices. Ukraine called on India to give due consideration to the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition and indicated it would review India's compliance with the 
WTO obligations. Australia underlined its concern about the consistency of the measure with Article  9 
of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision. Australia referred to India's statement in 
other WTO fo rums that its domestic support arrangements did not affect global market and export 
interests of others including developing countries and noted that this did not appear to be the case 
for skimmed milk powder. Australia asked India what reforms it was cons idering to ensure that such 
overproduction would not occur again in the future and would not affect global dairy market.  
 
India's export prohibition on onions  
4.1.20.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96054)  
a. Japan recognizes that India introduced export prohibition on all varieties of onion on 
14 September 2020, but finds that the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Japan would appreciate it if India could provide the reas on behind.  Japan 
would also appreciate it if India could explain how it has given due consideration to the 
effects of the measure on importing Members ' food security, as required in Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if India could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, ii) criticalness of the shortages and iii) temporality of the 
impositio n. Japan would also appreciate it if India could provide the reason why it resorted 
to the export prohibitions on the products rather than an export quota which would allow 
a certain amount of exports.  
Answer by India  
 
India thanks Japan for the question, and our response is:  
  
a. and b. The said measure was temporarily in force to ensure the availability of onions in the 
domestic market at reasonable prices. The measure was relaxed within a month, w.e.f. 
9 October  2020.  
 
Follow -up: Japan flagged remained concern on India's export prohibition measure and asked India 
to provide more comprehensive explanation on this matter.   
 
Indonesia - Import permission for rice  
4.1.21.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96057)  
Japan would like to make a follow up question conc erning import licensing on rice, which was raised 
at the COA in September as well as Import Licensing Committee in October.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 345 - 
 
  In the COA meeting, Indonesia stated that the issue is a B to B matter, but according to our 
understanding, the Minister of Commerc e has not issued license to the submitted application without 
any reason. In Japan 's view this issue involves a national authority.  
 
While Indonesia also responded that the Ministry of Commerce had issued import licenses for several 
occasions to the import  of Japonica rice, as far as we understand, licenses have been issued for the 
imports of Japonica rice from other countries, but not from Japan.  We would like to request Indonesia 
to give us clear explanation on the reason, or to issue the license as soon as possible. The lack of 
transparency continues hindering the trade significantly.  
 
In addition, the provided explanation (i.e. , procedural delay is due to the COVID -19 situation) does 
not seem convincing, as some of the applications have been not dealt wi th for almost a year now.  
 
Japan would appreciate if Indonesia could solve this issue as soon as possible, and at least provide 
us with a prospect when and how the situation in question could be solved.  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia thanks Japan, for the ir continued interest cooperation in utilizing the  proper and 
established consultation channels – including bilateral meetings – in order to resolve this continued 
misunderstanding.  
 
Indonesia wishes to re -iterate that the Indonesian government has not imp osed any country -specific 
import restriction on Japonica rice. Which means, that the  Indonesian government has not imposed 
any import restriction on Japanese  Japonica rice.  
  
Our import licensing regulation applies equally for every country, and the measure  has been 
published through the Ministry of Trade regulation number 1 of year  2018; and available for public 
access, through the Ministry of Trade website.  
  
Moreover, and for additional clarity, the import procedures for Japanese rice is  clearly s tated in the 
Joint Report of the IJEPA General Review (or the Indonesia  Japan Economic Partnership Agreement), 
which was agreed by both Indonesia and  Japan.  
  
The import license on Japonica rice that the Indonesian government issues, does  not restrict the 
import origin of the rice. The choice of origin is purely a business  decision, based on prevailing 
market parameters.  
 
To add even further clarity, as Indonesia did to  the Import Licensing Committee that Indonesia has 
recently issued import  approvals during the period of February to June of 2020, on Japonica rice  
application originating from Japan, Viet Nam, Thailand, China, the United States,  and India.  
 
The import licensing approval opened up an opportunity for our domestic market  to take in a total 
of 6,850 ton nes of Japonica rice. However, our data shows that, the  business sector chose to import 
only 1 ,393 ton nes -- or equal to 20.33% of that total  amount originally earmarked. And the data 
shows that business players chose  Japonica rice orig inating from Viet Nam.  
  
Again, Indonesia re -emphasizes that importers of Japonica rice are free to import from any  country. 
In the end, it all goes back to the preferences of the business players and  the consumers.  
  
At the government side, Indonesia wil l do a follow up on import requests from business  actors.  
  
Indonesia takes note of Japan 's concern. Indonesia hopes, this response  shed additional and enough 
lights for Japan to resolve its concern.  
 
Indonesia remains open for further  discussion and consu ltation.  
 
Follow -up: Regarding Indonesia's view of the matter as a business to business issue which was not 
subject to governmental action, Japan commented that the import license was issued by Indonesia's 
Ministry of Trade and there was one case where imp ort license was issued at the end of November 
but the validity of the license was only until the end of December. Japan noted that despite the 
issuance of the licenses, with such a short period of validity, it would not be feasible for imports to G/AG/W/216  
 
- 346 - 
 
  take plac e. Japan also questioned the absence of import restriction as mentioned by Indonesia. 
Japan looked forward to further discussions on this topic.   
 
Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
4.1.22.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96058)  
Follow up to questio ns AG -IMS ID s 87094, 88104, 90027, 91011, 92098, 93072 and 95060:  
 
In 2020 Mongolia did not open quotas for importation of liquid milk and wheat flour and stated that 
there were no quantitative restrictions for the following products for 2020. However, Mo ngolia did 
not exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products subject to quota regime, 
which means that the quotas may be imposed in future.  
 
Referring to the Mongolia 's answer to the question AG -IMS ID 93072, we highlight the fact that 
Mongolia stated that import quotas were applied only before the Law on the Enrichment of Food 
Products would come into force. Nevertheless, after the Law came into effect the quota regime was 
not eliminated, but remains in force even now.  
 
In light of this the Russian Federation expects to receive the following information from Mongolia:  
 
a. When will Mongolia exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products 
subject to quota regime?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future 
(in 2021 and further)?  
c. Please confirm that Mongol ia will not apply quotas for importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk. 
Answer by Mongolia  
 
Mongolia thanks the Russian Federation for its continued interest in our trade policy.  
  
Since there is no substantial change, we just would like to refer to our statement at the last week 's 
meeting of the CTG as well as the ones that were given at the previous meetings of this Committee 
of 28 July and 22 September.   
 
Nigeria's DS notifications  
4.1.23.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96059)  
Australia would like to follow up on its questions to Nigeria, AG -IMS IDs 95062 , 93131 and 92117, 
with respect to its DS notifications for the period 2012 -16 (G/AG/N/NGA/17), in which it notified 
that it did not provide domestic support during this period. No response has been received.  
 
a. Australia would like to know if Nigeria plans to include key agricultural elements of its 
Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support 
notifications.  
b. Specifically, how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the inte grated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria wishes to thank Australia for its questions regarding Nigeria 's outstanding DS Notifications. 
Nigeria believes timely  and effective notifications of measures as well as transparency are essential 
for the proper functioning of the Multilateral trading system. However, it is pertinent to note that 
the delay by Nigeria in fulfilling its DS Notification obligation is not wil lful. It is due to resource and 
capacity constraints. This notwithstanding, Nigeria government has set in motion an inter -Agency G/AG/W/216  
 
- 347 - 
 
  process for detailed compilation of its DS programmes for the year 2017 to 2020 to enable it notify 
them accordingly. Nigeria i s also in the process of reviewing its DS programmes for the period 2012 
to 2016 with a view to submitting revised notification for these periods where necessary. Nigeria will 
soon fulfill its DS Notifications obligations.  
 
Nigeria's border closures   
4.1.24.1   Quest ion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96014)  
On 14 October 2019, the government of Nigeria closed its land borders to all trade. At the time, 
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari stated that the border closures are temporary measures to 
prevent smuggli ng, especially rice smuggling.  On 24 September 2020, Nigeria 's Vice President Yemi 
Osinbajo stated that the government was planning to reopen the borders soon.  However, the borders 
are still closed to all trade as of early November 2020, and no further pla ns for reopening have been 
announced.  
 
a. When will the borders be reopened?   
b. What criteria will the government of Nigeria use to decide when to reopen the borders?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria thanks the United States for its questions regarding the temporary closure on Nigeria 's land 
borders. This measure was taken to: (i) check the recent unprecedented influx of illegal arms and 
other weapons through our land borders that further worsen our National Security difficulties 
(Article  XXI of the GATT); ( ii) Curb the influx of banned drugs and substances through the land 
borders to protect the health of Nigerians as envisaged under Article XX (b) of the GATT; and (iii) to 
address non – adherence with ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of Goods within the reg ion by 
ECOWAS member States as well as check illicit cross border trade in particular, smuggling that is 
undermining the growth of Nigeria 's economy.   
  
Regarding the first question raised by the United States, Nigeria wishes to state that its land borders  
will soon be reopened given the positive improvements of the situations and difficulties that 
necessitated its closure.   
  
On the second question, Nigeria wishes to inform that it instituted an Inter -Agency Committee for 
continuous review and assessment o f all issues related to the border closure. The Committee which 
is required to continually harvest stakeholders ' views on this issue is charged with the responsibility 
of advising government on the appropriate time to reopen the border.  
  
Philippines - Market Access Volume (MAV) utilization for corn  
4.1.25.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96016)  
According to the 31  January  2020 Philippines DA Office of the Secretariat Market Access 
Volume  (MAV) Management Committee Summary of 2019 MAV Utilization re port, the percentage of 
the MAV utilized for corn was 56.06%. According to G/AG/N/PHL/56, G/AG/N/PHL/55, 
G/AG/N/PHL/54, and G/AG/N/PHL/47, the fill rates for corn were the following:  
 
Calendar Year  Fill-rate 
2013 6% 
2014 85% 
2015 70% 
2016 10.2%  
2017 78.5%  
2018 87.3%  
  
Please explain the reasons for the low fill -rates for corn for 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 348 - 
 
  Answer by Philippines  
 
The Minimum Access Volume (MAV) for corn were made available and were fully allocated during 
the years 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019, but some license holders did not use their allocations.  
 
Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits  
4.1.26.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96015)  
According to a 14 November 2019 Phil ippine Department of Agriculture (DA) press release entitled 
"Dar: Tighter food safety requirements slow down rice import in October " 
(https://www. da.gov.ph/dar -tighter -food-safety -requirements -slow-down -rice-import -in-october/ ), 
DA Secretary William Dar stated that the Philippines will implement strict measures for the issuance 
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits, particul arly during the Philippine 
rice harvest season to protect domestic producers from further influx of cheaper rice 
imports.  According to the DA Bureau of Plant Industry publication of "SPSIC Issued and Volume 
Applied per month (as of September 4, 2020) " 
(http://bpi.da.gov.ph/bpi/images/WEB%20NEWS%20ARTICLE/2020/SEPT/PQS/SPSIC%20Issued
%20an d%20Volume%20Applied%20per%20%20month%20%28Sept%204%29.pdf ), from 
September to October 2019, no SPSIC permits were issued for rice. The timeframe coincided with 
SPSIC issuance delays for U.S. fresh fruits and vegetables.  Also, in September 2020, the United  
States received reports of SPSIC application rejections for whole chickens. In addition, in October 
2020, it was reported that there were SPSIC application rejections for feed wheat.   
 
In March 2019, the Philippines converted its rice quantitative restriction into tariff measures.  The 
end of the rice quantitative restriction should have created opportunities for WTO Members to export 
rice to the Philippines; however, the SPSIC applications have been rejected.  Under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the 
kind which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties, including quantitative 
import restrictions and discretionary import licensing.   
 
a. Please explain what law, regulation, and/or policy directives govern administration of the 
SPSIC permits.  
b. Are there published criteria for issuing or rejecting SPSIC permit applications?  If so, please 
provide it.   
c. Please explain what regulatory purpose SPSIC permits serve.  
d. What role does domestic production and prices of agricultural products have in the decision 
to issue or deny SPSIC permits for certain commodities?  
e. From September to October 2019, please explain why the Philippines did not issue 
any SPSIC p ermits for rice?  
f. During the same time period, why were SPSIC permit issuances for U.S. fresh fruits and 
vegetables delayed?  
g. Beginning in September 2020, why has the Philippines rejected whole chicken 
SPSIC  permit applications?  
h. Beginning in October 2020, wh y has the Philippines rejected feed wheat and corn 
SPSIC  permit applications?  
Answer by Philippines  
 
The rules governing the approval of applications and issuance of SPSICs are provided in the following 
published administrative orders:a.  Department of Agri culture Administrative Order (DA -AO) No.8, 
series of 2009 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Importation of Agricultural and Fish and 
Fishery/Aquatic Products, Fertilizers, Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals, Veterinary Drugs 
and Biological Prod ucts into the Philippines)b. Department of Agriculture Administrative Order G/AG/W/216  
 
- 349 - 
 
  (DA-AO) No.9, series of 2010 (Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No.8, series of 2009, 
as amended)  
 
The above -cited orders can be accessed at http://spsissuances.da.gov.ph/index.php/laws/10 -sps-
legal-issuances/administrative -order/621 -da-administrative -order -no-9-series -of-2010 
 
SPSICs serve to ensure that the products being imported meet the standards to protect human, 
animal, or plant life or health. Such documents also specify the conditions to be complied with by 
the importer to maintain quality and suitability of the product for the intended purpose.  
 
As an impact of the review of importer registrations considering reports of unfair trade practices and 
food safety requirements, the issuance of the SPSIC was disrupted for rice and other commodities.   
 
Follow -up: Brazil noted concern on the general tendency of the Philippines to resort to SPS measures 
to restrict access for agricultural products. Brazil recalled that it had presented during the 
78th regular meeting of the SPS Committee an STC named "Philippines' Ban on Poultry Imports Due 
to COVID -19 - Concerns Of Brazil ".In Brazil's view, the measure imposed by the Philippines did not 
have a scientific basis and was more restrictive than necessary t o health and life. Brazil hoped that 
the Philippines could lift the measure and trade flows would be normalized.   
 
Russian Federation - Support for exported agricultural products  
4.1.27.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96060)  
Decree 1665 of 12 October 2020 w as adopted, amending Decree No 1816 from 25  December  2019 
"On state support of organizations in order to compensate for part of the costs associated with 
certification of products of the agro -industrial complex in foreign markets". According to this decree , 
agricultural producers who export directly or via intermediaries can receive state support to part of 
the certification costs for exported agricultural products.  
 
a. Can the Russian Federation explain how much money is budgeted for this measure and 
the elig ibility criteria?  
b. How does this measure, which grants support to the export of agricultural products, 
respect Russia's export subsidy commitments?  
c. Point 1 of the Nairobi Ministerial decision (WT/MIN(15), WT/L/980) reads: "Members 
reaffirm their commitment,  pursuant to the 2013 Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition1, to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of 
export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect." How does this export 
subsidy respect this provision?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95037.   
 
Follow -up: The EU called on Members to limit the use of export subsidies to the extent possible. 
Paraguay echoed the EU's comment. Ukrain e registered interest in the matter and recalled 
importance of implementing the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition in a transparent and correct 
manner.  
 
Russian Federation - Proposed elimination of beef TRQ  
4.1.28.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 96081)  
Recent  reports by TASS indicate that the Russian government has approved a decision to end 
Russia's tariff quotas for beef as of 1 January 2022 and that this decision will shortly be submitted 
to a meeting of the Eurasian Union. The Russia n Federation  is Paragua y's main export market for 
meat and the elimination of quotas would imply an 83.3% increase in tariffs paid by Paraguayan 
exporters. We recognize that note 3(a) of the Russian Federation's Schedule of Specific 
Commitments allows it to undertake this elimin ation without needing to initiate procedures under G/AG/W/216  
 
- 350 - 
 
  Article 18 However, given the significant trade impact this would have on Paraguayan exporters, we 
would ask the Russian Federation to provide information on the following points:  
 
a. Please confirm if its in tention is to eliminate tariff quotas for beef.  
b. If yes, please provide details on the current status of this decision and the process 
involved.  
c. Please provide an estimated date for implementing this elimination and indicate when a 
notification can be expec ted in this regard.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Russian Federation – draft resolution on export duties   
4.1.29.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96017)  
The Russian Federation has published a draft resolution of the Ministry of Economic Development 
"On Amending the Rates of Export Customs Duties for Goods Exported from the Russian Federation 
outside of the States Parties to Agreements on the Customs Union". The resolution would raise the 
export duty on Sunflower seeds from 6.5% but no les s than 9.75 EUR per 1000 kg, to 20% but no 
less than 80 EUR per 1000 kg for the period from 1 February to 31 August 2021. This resolution was 
circulated for public comment from 11 -25 August 2020.  The United States reminds the 
Russian  Federation that in its  Working Party Report, (WT/ACC/RUS/70 – WT/MIN(11)/2), Para.  637 
notes that the Russian Federation undertook bilateral tariff negotiations on export duties with some 
Members. These concessions and commitments are contained in Part V of the Schedule, which 
formed Annex 1 to the Protocol of Accession.   
 
a. Please provide an update on whether this resolution is still under consideration.  
b. If so, please explain the purpose of this increase.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
No resolution of the Ministry of Economic Dev elopment of the Russian Federation sets out the 
amendments on the rates of export duties for goods. Such amendments are being introduced by the 
Government Resolutions. The public consultations of the draft of the Government Resolution have 
started. Still, no Government Resolution or any implementing act has been issued for this matter.  
 
Russian Federation's export quota  
4.1.30.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96036)  
India repeats question AG -IMS ID 95012, response to which is awaited from the Russian  Federation:  
"The Russian Federation imposed grain export quotas in response to the COVID -19 pandemic. There 
are reports of such quotas being made permanent. How does the Russian Federation assess the 
effect of such quotas in relation to the world food demand? " 
 
Answer by R ussian Federation  
 
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95067.Japan noted a systemic 
interest in export restriction measures.  
 
Follow -up: Japan indicated its systemic interest in export restrictions measures.   
 
Russian Feder ation 's export restrictions  
4.1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96018)  
The United States notes that the government of the Russian Federation implemented three separate 
unnotified export restrictions between April and August of 2020.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 351 - 
 
   
• 1 April – 30 June 2020: Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) export quota of 7 million ton nes 
for wheat, meslin, barley, rye and corn exports to non -EAEU countries.  
• 12 April – 30 June 2020: EAEU export ban on sunflower seeds, soybeans, rice, buckwheat, 
onions, gar lic, turnips, millet, cereals, crude flour, and cereal pellets.  
• 1–30 August  2020: EAEU requirement of an export permit for the export of sunflower seeds.  
 
The United State is concerned by the Russian Federation 's lack of transparency, having not notified 
these export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture.   
 
a. Please confirm that these export restrictions have expired.  
b. Please explain the purpose of these export restrictions.  
c. When will the Russian Federation notify these measures to the Committee?  
Answer  by Russian Federation  
 
The temporary export quota and export prohibition on certain agricultural products, which was 
referred by the United States, were expired on 1 July 2020. The temporary requirement with respect 
to sunflower seeds was expired on 1 Sep tember 2020. The measures were adopted and applied on 
a temporary basis in light of the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil shared the U.S. concern regarding the distortive effects of export restriction 
measures on trade volume and prices, especially whe n they were adopted by major exporters of the 
products concerned. Brazil reminded Members of the WTO disciplines on export restrictions as 
contained in Article XI.2 (a) of GATT and Article 12.1 (a) of the Agreement on Agriculture and called 
for Members' co mpliance with notification obligations. Brazil recalled the commitment made by 
several Members in the joint submission G/AG/30 where co -sponsors committed to "exercise 
restraint in establishing domestic food stocks of agricultural products that are traditi onally exported 
so as to avoid disruptions or distortions in international trade" and "not to impose agriculture export 
restrictions and refrain from implementing unjustified trade barriers on agriculture and agri -food 
products and key agricultural product ion inputs." Ukraine pointed out that the Russian Federation 
had not notified any export restriction (ER) measures to the Committee on Agriculture this year and 
had not given due consideration to the effect of such measures on the food security of importin g 
Members. Ukraine called on the Russian Federation to respect Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, and Article XI of the GATT while implementing ER measures and looked forward to 
receiving timely response from the Russian Federation to its request made through the 
Geneva -based mission. The EU and Japan echoed the concern on non -compliance with the WTO 
rules on ERs including notification obligations.   
 
Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  
4.1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96019)  
The United States notes reports of the Russian Federation 's plans to implement a permanent grain 
export quota referred to by the European Union in AG -IMS ID 95067, for which the 
Russian  Federation has not provided a response. The United States would be concerned by such a 
permanent export restriction.  
 
a. Please provide an update on the status of this measure and whether it has been 
implemented.  
b. Please provide an explanation of how this measure complies with Article XI of GATT and 
the Agreem ent on Agriculture.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95067.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 352 - 
 
  Follow -up: Ukraine repeated its comments as provided on question AG -IMS ID 96018 and pointed 
out that the Russian Federation had not notified any export restriction (ER) measures to the 
Committee on Agriculture this year and had not given due consideration to the effect of such 
measures on the food security of importing Members. Ukraine called on the Russian Federatio n to 
respect Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Article XI of the GATT while implementing 
ER measures and looked forward to receiving timely response from the Russian. Japan shared 
Ukraine's concern on this matter.   
 
Sri Lanka - Temporary susp ensions and restrictions  on imports of products  
4.1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96020)  
Since March 2020, Sri Lanka has imposed temporary suspensions on imports of products and 
restrictions on terms of payment for imported products, purporte dly due to concerns related to 
COVID -19. We understand that on 16 July 2020, the Department of Import and Export Control of 
Sri Lanka made revisions to these temporary import controls.   
 
a. Please provide the reasons for the temporary suspension of imports an d restricted 
payment terms for the imported products.  
b. Please specify the types of agricultural products currently subject to import controls and 
provide details on how the import controls are administered. Also, please specify the 
expected implementation p eriod for such controls.  
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
a. As informed in SL 's previous detailed responses provided in July 2020, Sri Lanka has taken 
the current trade measures to curb the COVID -19 pandemic in the island, which is now 
experiencing a second waive with e xtensive magnitude creating unprecedented impact on 
the entire economy.  As informed, the measures temporarily suspended the banking 
services, so that it served to limit facilitation of banking services by Sri Lankan banks. In 
effect, the measures imposed r estrictions only on or delay on payments and transfers. 
This enabled GOSL to limit the flow of scarce foreign exchange going out of the country 
during the COVID -19 Pandemic.  By temporarily limiting the provision of banking services 
necessary to pay for imp ortation of goods, the measures essentially seek to temporarily 
stem the outflow of foreign exchange from Sri Lanka.  Accordingly, the responses provided 
by Sri Lanka in its previous submission are still relevant to this question.  
b. In view of the new lockdow n measures imposed by Sri Lanka in most of the cities covering 
the areas, where main GOSL institutions are located, most of the relevant government 
establishments responsible for compiling and providing responses have been either closed 
temporarily or oper ating only in limited capacity. Accordingly, we have not been able to 
secure the responses in time.  However, Sri Lanka will revert to the US delegation with 
responses to the rest of its questions when the environment is conducive  to do so.  In this 
connecti on, Sri Lanka wishes to inform that it is aware of the need to relax the current 
measures. As the present situation indicates certain favourable spillover effects, Sri Lanka 
has been progressively relaxing the measures at regular intervals aiming towards p rice-
based measures, probably using the flexibilities available between its applied and bound 
tariff levels. The recent budget presented by the government in mid -November 2020 has 
introduced changes to relax the measures and we are analyzing their positive  impact on 
trade with the external world. Once this is completed, Sri Lanka is in a better position to 
keep informed the US delegation with facts.  In conclusion Madam Chair, my delegation 
will continue its dialogue with the US Delegation in a more construc tive way with a view 
to addressing its concerns.  
Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  
4.1.34.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96061)  
Japan recognizes that Tajikistan introduced export prohibition on varieties of agricultural products 
on 25 April 2020, and finds that the said measure is still maintained with no date of termination G/AG/W/216  
 
- 353 - 
 
  available. Japan would appreciate if Tajikistan could provide the reason behind. Japan would also 
appreciate if Tajikistan could provide the prospect under what condition  the measure could be 
withdrawn.  
 
Answer by Tajikistan  
 
The Republic of Tajikistan provide the following: In response to the COVID -19 pandemic, like many 
countries the government of Tajikistan adopted a series of preventive measures to ease the impact 
of the COVID -19 outbreak to economy.  
 
As part of these measures on 25 April 2020, the government of Tajikistan introduced a temporary 
export ban on a number of food staples, including vegetables, cereals, meat, flour, eggs, wheat due 
to the COVID -19 pandemic. The ban was meant to ensure adequate domestic supplies and curb 
price increases. This measure is no longer applied as Tajikistan has already started to export these 
products to other countries.  
 
United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
4.1.35.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96062)  
With less than two months now before the end of the UK transition period, we ask the UK to provide 
updated information to WTO Members on how it intends to address the concerns t hat other 
WTO Members have raised regarding the major reduction in quantity and quality of access the UK 
has proposed to apply to its 142 current bound tariff rate quotas, under which all but five of these 
quotas would be substantially cut back and 55 of t hese quotas would disappear entirely?  We also 
ask the UK to provide updated advice on the actions it intends to take to ensure other WTO Members 
will retain full access to its MFN quotas, as intended when these quotas were negotiated, and that 
this access is not 'crowded out ' by EU -UK trade?  Can the UK please advise when and how it proposes 
to engage with other WTO Members on the claim it has indicated it wishes to make to establish a 
new, large, entitlement to trade distorting domestic support?  Can the UK please explain its domestic 
policy reasons for wanting to claim the special agricultural safeguard on 685 agricultural products 
and the ability to apply an 'entry price system ' to agricultural products in its draft WTO schedule, 
when the UK 's applied MFN t ariff schedule published in May indicates that the UK intends to reduce 
its applied tariffs on a number of these products and to do away with 'minimum entry prices '?  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
To answer the first part: In December 2018, the United Kingdom  launched the process for 
negotiations and consultations with WTO Members under Article XXVIII of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade with respect to its obligations concerning tariff rate quotas (TRQs). Throughout 
this process, the United Kingdom h as endeavoured to maintain the existing balance of rights and 
obligations between the United Kingdom and its trading partners.  We have apportioned quotas using 
trade flows in a representative period which should offer continuity of exports without damaging  
trade. But we have always acknowledged that there is a conversation to be had here. The United 
Kingdom has been, and remains open to, discussing movement on TRQ volumes where Members 
have evidenced that they will be left worse off, including in relation t o quotas without a volume in 
the UK 's Schedule. The final quantities of these quotas will be determined in negotiation and 
consultation with the relevant Members. Members have largely understood and accepted this 
approach and discussions on specific TRQ vo lumes have been constructive and increasingly 
positive.  For those Members where a conclusion has not yet been reached, we will continue 
negotiations and consultations to reach a mutually agreeable solution.  In answer to the second 
question:  the UK governme nt intends to achieve a Free Trade Agreement with the European 
Union.  We have put forward our proposals and are working hard to reach a deal with the EU - our 
aim is a zero tariff zero quota FTA. Trade between the UK and the EU would proceed under the term s 
of the FTA, and the EU would not need to access the UK 's erga omnes  TRQs.  On the third point:  We 
intend that the EU's current annual and final bound commitment level specified for domestic 
agricultural support be apportioned between the EU and the UK on the basis of an objective 
methodology.  The United Kingdom was a signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
at the time of the Uruguay Round and therefore has domestic agricultural support commitments, as 
a result of the conclusion of those negotiations. The UK 's bound commitment levels for domestic 
agricultural support were embedded within the commitments in the European Union's Schedule, and 
it is therefore right that a share of those is extracted and set out in the United Kingdom 's indepen dent G/AG/W/216  
 
- 354 - 
 
  WTO Schedule to reflect our withdrawal from the European Union. This approach ensures that there 
is no increase in the combined total of the UK and EU  bound commitment levels for domestic 
agricultural support as the UK leaves the EU.  To calculate the UK's share of the EU-28 bound 
commitment levels for domestic agricultural support reflected in the EU Schedule, we used the 
original methodology from the Uruguay Round which concerned domestic agricultural support from 
1986-88. This resulted in a figure re flecting what the UK 's bound commitment levels would have 
been if we had been an independent Member during the Uruguay Round.  This is not a new 
entitlement and explicitly avoids increasing the overall bound commitment levels as was set out in 
the joint UK -EU letter of 11 October 2017. There is precedent for changing these bound 
commitments where numbers are reflected between Schedules; Members who have joined the EU 
since 1995 have had their bound commitment levels added to that of the EC12.  The United King dom 
first presented its methodology for calculating our share of the EU-28's bound commitment levels 
for domestic agricultural support back in 2017, and ever since has engaged with Members on how 
we calculated this figure. We remain open to further such co nversations.  And finally:  on Special 
Agricultural Safeguards, the United Kingdom 's draft Schedule replicates the concessions and 
commitments applicable to the United Kingdom as expressed in the EU -28 Schedule. The United 
Kingdom 's Schedule XIX represents o ur bound commitments which will apply from the end of the 
transition period. In May of this year the United Kingdom set out its applied policy through the UK 
Global Tariff.  Our applied tariff policy was designed in consultation with a range of individuals,  
businesses, business representatives and public organisations and simplifies tariffs across many 
products from fruit to pastries. This includes the removal of the Entry Price System which should 
make trade easier by cutting red tape.  We will operate any U K special agricultural safeguards in a 
transparent manner in accordance with our obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil reiterated its request made during the last two CTG meetings that the EU and the 
UK to commit that, as part of Article XXVIII negotiations, all their TRQs contain the observation 
"except for the UK "and" except for the EU", respectively, if after the end of the transition period, 
an agreement would not be signed between the parties. Brazil noted that as the EU a nd the UK had 
not concluded their negotiations, there would be risk that the limited and essential TRQs that were 
comprised in the EU and UK's schedules would be flooded with products from the bilateral trade, 
displacing other WTO Members' exports. In addi tion, Brazil voiced concern on the various challenges 
posed by the condition of the United Kingdom becoming a new independent WTO Member, for 
example, the currency conversion rate from EUR to GBP used in its draft schedule, as well as the 
proposal for cons olidation of non -economically viable TRQs, since their quantities would be lesser 
than the minimum level of 5% of the internal consumption negotiated during the Uruguay Round. 
Brazil noted that the UK, when invoking its right to a final bound total AMS bas ed on being an original 
WTO Member as part of the EC -15, should also be subject to the full range of obligations that were 
negotiated for agricultural goods during the Uruguay Round. Brazil noted that a delicate balance was 
resulted from the Uruguay round and one such example was the outcome on market access which 
involved  consolidation and reduction of customs rights, the elimination of quantitative restrictions, 
the creation of agricultural TRQs and the consolidation of the rights to impose SSGs. Brazil a lso drew 
attention to the need for the UK to comply with basic WTO obligations, such as the MFN clause. 
Brazil noted that despite not having concluded yet its negotiations with the EU, the British 
government had already announced that it would carry out si mplified border controls on food and 
animal goods from the EU, in relation to the control to be carried out on similar products of third 
Members. Finally, Brazil recalled that there was still uncertainty in the way whereby the essential 
efforts to preserve  the "Good Friday Agreement" with respect to the transit of goods inside the Irish 
island would be compatible with WTO rules and other Members' rights.  Canada reiterated concern 
with the WTO market access commitments proposed by the UK. Canada asked the UK  to ensure the 
quality of other Members' access to its TRQs noting the importance of the issue of non -application 
of MFN TRQs in the bilateral trade between the EU and the UK. Concerning domestic support, Canada 
would like to follow up with the UK regardin g the exchange rate used in calculating the commitments. 
Canada noted that the UK derived its commitments by extracting what they had contributed to the 
European Community during the establishment of the Agreement on Agriculture using the 1986 -
1988 base pe riod whereas the exchange used by the UK differed from the 1986 -1988 base period. 
Canada noted that based on its calculation, using new exchange proposed would increase the final 
bound total AMS by 20%. Australia referred to its statements made at the rece nt Market Access and 
CTG Committee and reiterated its position that the UK should not have automatic rights in the AMS 
without scrutiny from Members. Australia expressed concern with the UK's inclusion of an AMS 
entitlement of 4.95 billion pounds and that the EU had not proposed corresponding reduction of its 
AMS entitlements. Australia requested the UK to demonstrate to Members that the UK's 
DS programmes would not distort global agricultural trade and to reassure Members that the UK G/AG/W/216  
 
- 355 - 
 
  was a strong advocate for domestic support reform. Switzerland reiterated its call for a solution 
between the EU and the UK and asked them to ensure that access to their MFN quotas would not be 
crowded out by the EU -UK bilateral trade. Ukraine and the US supported the question.  The US sought 
the UK's rationale to retain SSG rights for products that were not sensitive and not even produced 
in the UK and how the UK would ensure trade would not be disrupted when the SSG was triggered 
for non -sensitive products.   
 
U.S. domestic supp ort programmes  
4.1.36.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96080)  
The United States Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report on 21  October  2020 
(https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46577 ) which examined the ad hoc payments 
under the Market Facilitation Program of 2018 and 2019, as well as the two Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Programs from 2020, against the United States' annual WTO domest ic support 
commitment.  
 
The report concluded that the United States is likely to be in compliance with WTO spending limits 
for 2018 but could exceed the annual U.S. spending limit of $19.1 billion in both 2019 and 2020.  
 
a. Could the United States provide a ny confirmation that it would meet its domestic support 
annual limit for the year 2018, as claimed by the CRS report?  
b. Could the United States confirm the CRS report claims that it could exceed its domestic 
support commitment for both 2019 and 2020?  
c. Does th e United States still intend to meet its domestic support commitments for 
years  2019 and 2020?  
d. Could the United States inform the Committee on how it intends to classify the 2018 
and 2019 spending under the Market Facilitation program?  
e. Could the United Sta tes inform the Committee on how it intends to classify the two 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Programs?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. As noted in the report's disclaimer, "information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon 
for purposes other than pub lic understanding of information that has been provided by 
CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS's institutional role". The measures 
will be notified consistent with WTO rules in the relevant years.   
b. See response to a.  
c. The measures will be notified consistent with WTO rules beginning with the notification for 
the year 2019/20.   
d. The measures will be notified consistent with WTO rules beginning with the notification for 
the year 2018/19.  
e. See response to c.  
4.1.36.2   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 96031)  
According to the report —"Outlook for Compliance with WTO Commitments, 2018 to 2020 " —issued 
by the Congressional Research Service of the United States 
(https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod uct/pdf/R/R46577 ), the United States has made a combined 
23.1 billion dollars of subsidies to farmers through the 2018 and 2019 Market Facilitation Programs. 
In addition to that, the 2020 Coronavirus Food Assistance Program directly targets the market pric es 
of the agricultural products that have already benefitted from the MFP, making up the losses of 
farmers with payments at carefully designed rates. These programmes, although said to be ad -hoc G/AG/W/216  
 
- 356 - 
 
  payments, obviously constitute constant supports for farmers,  which provide them with the 
expectation for secured farm income and thus has influenced and will continue to influence their 
decisions. The report estimates that the Unites States is very likely to exceed its Final Bound AMS 
commitment in 2019 and 2020 by  providing Current Total AMS of 30.2 and 27.4 billion dollars 
respectively.  
 
a. Could the United States verify the results of these estimations?  
b. The CRS report estimates that in 2019 the value of output for all agricultural production 
activities was 370.6 b illion and 5% of which would be 18.5 billion. Could the United States 
confirm the accuracy of such estimates? If not, please provide the value of production 
for 2019.  
c. How does the United States plan to provide Amber Box support to farmers for 2021 and 
beyond, in order to handle any unexpected circumstance?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The report in question was produced by the Congressional Research Service, a legislative 
branch agency organized under the Library of Congress that provides research and 
analysis to committees and members of the U.S. Congress.  As noted in the report 's 
disclaimer, "information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than 
public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of 
Congress in connection with CRS 's institutional role. " The measures will be notified 
consistent with WTO rules in the relevant years.   
b. See response to question a. Data on the value of 2019 production are not yet final.  
c. We are not able to project whether new programs will be enacted in the future nor, if new 
programs were enacted, how any such programs would be notified under WTO rules.  
4.1.36.3   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96063)  
The United States has implemented a range of support programmes for the agricultural sector 
during  2018, 2019 and 2020, such as the 2018 MFP, 2019 MFP, 2020 CFAP -1 and CFAP -2 and 2020 
PPP (Payment Protection Program). For all of these programmes payments have begun and, for 
many, the execution of payments has ended.  Accord ing to G/AG/2, a DS:2 notification must be 
submitted within 30 days of adoption of new or modified Blue and Green Box measures. No DS:2 
notifications have been submitted by the US for any of these programmes referred to above. May 
the Membership thus assum e that none of these programmes will be notified as Green or Blue Box, 
and that all expenditure under them will be notified as Amber Box?   
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States continues to review all ad hoc  domestic support programs and w ill notify them, 
consistent with WTO rules, at the appropriate time.   
 
4.1.36.4   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96064)  
On 21 October, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a report on "US Farm Support: 
Outlook for compliance with WTO commitments 2018 to 2020 ". 
 
The CRS report states that US may not respect its WTO commitments on domestic support in 2020.  
 
a. Table 1 of the CRS reports include a categorisation of the different support programmes 
during 2018 to 2020. Can the US confirm that the categorisation between Product 
Specific  (PS) and Non -Product Specific (NPS) support is correct and will be reflect in the 
future DS:1 notifications by the US?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 357 - 
 
  b. If the answer to the previous question is no, can the US indicate which programmes are 
wrongly c ategorised by the CRS, why, and in which category they will be notified in future 
DS:1 notification from the US?  
c. What measures has the US taken to ensure that it will respect its WTO commitments 
concerning domestic support in 2020?   
Answer by United States  of America  
 
a. The report in question was produced by the Congressional Research Service, a legislative 
branch agency organized under the Library of Congress that provides research and 
analysis to committees and members of the U.S. Congress.  As noted in the report 's 
disclaimer, "information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than 
public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of 
Congress in connection with CRS 's institutional role. " The measures will be notified 
consistent with WTO rules in the relevant years.   
b. The measures will be notified consistent with WTO rules in the relevant years.  
c. See response to b.  
4.1.36.5   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96025)  
India looks forward to receiving the US' domestic support notif ications for the marketing years  2018 
onwards. In light of the recently released Coronavirus Food Assistance Programme (CFAP), and 
previous rounds of Market Facilitation Programme (MFP) payments, can the US please outline how 
it plans to notify these domes tic support outlays, and whether it expects these notifications to exceed 
its agricultural AMS entitlements?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The measures will be notified consistent with WTO rules beginning with the notification for the 
year 2018/19.  
 
4.1.36.6   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96065)  
New Zealand refers the US to the statement on " Responding to the COVID -19 Pandemic with Open 
and Predictable Trade in Agricultural and Food Products" , which Canada circulated previously at the 
Committee on Agricul ture, and which both New Zealand and the US have cosponsored. New Zealand 
would like to remind the US that the statement commits parties to ensuring that "emergency 
measures related to agriculture and agri -food products designed to tackle COVID -19 must be 
targeted, proportionate, transparent, [and] temporary".  
 
a. Can the US outline how it is ensuring that sectors eligible for CFAP payments are still 
experiencing material harm resulting from COVID -19 that is proportionate to the outlays 
the USDA is providing?  
b. Can the US confirm that CFAP payments will remain ' ad hoc ' support measures, that 
appropriate steps are being taken to ensure that expenditure is only taking place in 
instances where material harm to US sectors attributable to COVID -19 can be pr oved, and 
in accordance with the principles set out in G/AG/30/Rev.2.?  
c. Can the US outline whether it intends to alter its Farm Bill to account for the more regular 
use of ad hoc payment programmes like MFP and CFAP and the ongoing need for the US 
to abide by its WTO obligations for domestic support expenditure?  
d. Can the US explain how ad hoc payments, including the MFP and CFAP, will be provided 
in a manner consistent with its WTO AMS cap?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 358 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The impacts of COVID -19 on U.S. agriculture are documented in the rulemaking for CFAP. 
See 85 FR 30825 and 85 FR 59380 in the Federal Register 
(https://www.federalregister.gov/ ). 
b. CFAP is an ad hoc  measure. Eligibility rules are descri bed in the rulemaking documents 
(referenced in the response to question a) and implementation is in accordance with the 
principles of G/AG/30/Rev.2.  
c. The current Farm Bill authorizes programs through 2023. The U.S. Congress will develop 
the next Farm Bill i n accordance with established legislative and budgetary guidelines and 
procedures. We are not able to project what policies the U.S. Congress will choose to 
authorize in the future.  
d. The measures will be notified consistent with WTO rules in the relevant ye ars.  
4.1.36.7   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96066)  
New Zealand thanks the United States for its response to our previous question on CFAP at the 
95th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 95075), where the US assured Members that MFP and 
CFAP measures "will be notified consistent with WTO rules". New Zealand notes that as of 
8 November the US had approved more than USD 9.5 billion in payments to producers in the second 
round of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), of an allocated USD 14 billion. This is in 
addition to a first round of CFAP which delivered almost USD 10.4 billion to producers and Market 
Facilitation Payments of USD 14 billion through 2019 and 2020.   
 
New Zealand awaits the U.S. formal notification of these programmes to this Committee b ut notes 
the strong likelihood that when added to existing programmes under the US Farm Bill these 
payments are likely to see the US exceed their AMS limits of USD 19.1 billion. To aid transparency:   
 
a. Can the US please outline how the remainder of the amou nt available under round two of 
CFAP (if any) will be allocated once applications close on 11 December 2020?  
b. Can the US please outline whether the MFP and CFAP payments will be notified as product 
specific or non -product specific support?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. There are no plans to allocate any remaining funds available under round two of CFAP 
after the application period ends on 11 December 2020.  
b. The measures will be notified consistent with WTO rules in the relevant years.  
Follow -up: Canada referred to reports in 2020 forecasting that about 36% of farm income in the US 
came from direct payment programmes such as those mentioned in the questions. Canada flagged 
concern regarding the trend of insulating producers from market signals and the res ulting effect on 
the global agricultural trade. Canada sought U.S. clarification regarding whether its spending on 
farm support in 2020 would be consistent with the WTO rules under the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The EU was disappointed that the US did not p rovide substantive responses to the questions and 
that the US was not in a position to indicate where in the domestic support notifications the 
programmes implemented in 2018 -2019 for which payments had already been stopped would be 
notified. Considering t he effect of these massive support programmes to U.S. farmers may have on 
production and prices for agricultural products in the US and especially on the world market, the EU 
asked the US to be more transparent. Following up on question AGIMS ID 96080, Par aguay sought 
U.S. plans to limit spending on domestic support programmes and an estimate regarding when the 
US could present the relevant notifications. China encouraged the US, as the largest exporter of 
agricultural products in the world, to enhance its presence in the multilateral trading system by 
setting a good example in adhering to the WTO rules. Australia and New Zealand expressed concern 
with the magnitude of the U.S. subsidy, particularly its potential to exceed AMS limit and the 
precedence it cou ld set. Australia called on Members to consider shifting away from trade -distorting G/AG/W/216  
 
- 359 - 
 
  support and to achieve the desired policy outcome through alternative measures that did not distort 
trade and were decoupled from production. New Zealand reminded Members t hat policy responses 
to COVID -19 should be temporary, transparent and consistent with the WTO rules. Brazil, India and 
Uruguay registered interests in the questions. Uruguay looked forward to further information from 
the US regarding the CRS report and its compliance with the WTO commitments. The US underlined 
its commitment to responding to Members' questions and notifying in a manner consistent with the 
WTO rules. The US noted that the measures in question were designed to address the specific 
circumst ances farmers faced and, in some responses, they had provided specific web links containing 
further details on the operation of the programmes to help Members better understand them. Noting 
its own efforts to improve notifications, the US underlined the im portance of notification submission 
and the review process to this Committee and encouraged Members to provide timely and accurate 
notifications.   
 
U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
4.1.37.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96026)  
The United States in September 2020 announced the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  2 
(CFAP  2) under which up to USD 14 billion in additional support would be provided to agricultural 
producers who continue to face market disruptions and associated costs because of COVID -19. As 
on 26 October 2020 more than USD 7 billion has been paid under CFAP 2. India understands that 
the CFAP 2 supports eligible producers of several commodities, including many that were ineligible 
under the previous Coronavirus Food Assistance Programme (CFAP 1).   
 
a. In this regard, India requests the United States to provide the list of additional crops that 
have been made eligible for payments under the CFAP 2.   
b. Given the significant outlays involved in CFAP 2, it is important to consider the distorting 
impact these programmes may have on the global agricultural system and markets. The 
United States is requested to share any evaluation of the impact of the CFAP programmes 
on the international markets.   
c. Could the United States elaborate on its plans to reduce the depen dency of its farmers on 
government payments and provide details on how this support will respect its 
WTO domestic support commitments?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. For a list of commodities eligible for the second round of CFAP, please see 
https://www.farmers.gov/cfap/commodities . 
b. This short -term program has been designed to minimize market impacts and is targeted 
to help mitigate the negative impacts of COVID -19 on U.S. agriculture  and 
U.S. consumers.  
c. Ad hoc measures in recent years have been implemented to address negative impacts of 
specific events on the U.S. agricultural and food system. The measures will be notified 
consistent with WTO rules beginning with the notification for the year 2019/20.  
4.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
Imports under tariff  and other quota commitments  (Table MA:2)  
4.2.1.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/138)  
AG-IMS ID 96067: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Canada for its MA: 2 notification during the marketing year 2018/2019, calendar 
year 2019 and quota year 2018/2019.Canada has reported nil or close to nil fill rates for a number 
of dairy products, including fluid milk (0%), Concentrated/Condensed Milk/Cream (0%), powdered 
buttermilk (0%) and dry whey (8.7%).  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 360 - 
 
   
a. Can Canada provide data on market circumstances that has led to the significant under fill 
for these quotas. As part of this data, can Canada provide an indication of the difference 
between domestic and world prices for these dairy products?  
b. Will the TRQ review currently be undertaken address this chronic underfill?  
i. Can Canada please provide an update on the status of this review?  
Canada has reported a 22.6% fill rate for Barley.  
 
c. Could Canada break down the co untry of origin of its barley imports?  
d. Can Canada explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, the existence 
of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada notes that its TRQ for fluid milk is deemed filled. By virtue of General Import Permit #1, 
which regulates the importation of dairy products for personal use, any resident of Canada may 
import fluid milk. The General Import Permit may be invoked an unlimited number of times.  Canada 
also notes  that this practice is in Canada 's schedule of commitments.  Canada will submit a revised 
notification regarding the fill rate for fluid milk to correct the "0%" to " [blank] " as in previous 
notifications.   
 
In response to Australia 's specific questions:  
 
a. A variety of market circumstances can influence fill rates. Depending on the TRQ, this can 
include: competitive domestic prices, low domestic demand, quality considerations, 
product availability and prices in export markets, market proximity, and transporta tion 
and insurance costs.  
i. Generally, commodities that are by -products, such as whey and buttermilk, have 
prices in Canada that are similar to those in world markets.  
b. The Comprehensive Review will consider all policy questions and considerations related to 
TRQ administration. It is important to note that TRQ allocation policies themselves cannot 
establish market demand for goods where no demand exists.  
i. On 1 May 2020, Canada 's Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and 
International Trade temporarily su spended the Review. This temporary suspension 
recognizes the impact the COVID -19 situation is having on stakeholders and allows 
them to focus on other pressing issues and operational requirements.  
The Review, including stakeholder consultations, will resum e in the future at an appropriate time 
when conditions allow. Canada will notify its stakeholders, and international trading partners, upon 
resumption of the Review. While the exact timing for the resumption is currently unknown, the aim 
is to have final T RQ policies in place for January 2022.  
 
c. Canada closely monitors its TRQ fill rates, including the barley TRQ, which is allocated on 
a first -come, first -served basis. Canada does not monitor the fill rate utilization by country 
of origin for its WTO TRQ for  barley.  
d. Canada is a large barley producing country with excess supplies that are sold to 
international buyers at market prices. As such imports are based on market circumstances 
as there is not a large domestic need to import barley into Canada.  
Follow -up: Australia appreciated the discussions on transparency held in the informal and formal 
meetings of the Committee which in its view could be helpful in understanding Members' 
TRQ management.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 361 - 
 
  4.2.1.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  
AG-IMS ID 96032: Question by China - Tariff quota fill  
China thanks Japan for its reply to the question AG -IMS 95078.  It is noted from the reply that in 
recent years there is a gap between the domestic demand of peanut/groundnut (around 96 thousand 
tonnes) and the total supply (including dome stic production and import, although calculated on 
calendar year and fiscal year basis respectively). Could Japan provide the reason for such gap?   
 
Answer by Japan  
 
As stated in the previous reply, the difference between the domestic demand and the total supply is 
the volume of imported processed products such as roasted peanuts. (Domestic demand is calculated 
by adding the import volume of imported processed products to the domestic production and the 
import of peanut).  
 
4.2.1.3   Korea, Republic  of (G/AG/N/KOR/77)  
AG-IMS ID 96068 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Korea's notification (G/AG/N/KOR/77) concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2019.  
 
a. Can the Republic of Korea explain the reasons for the significant under -fill for other milk 
and cream (KORQ009), natural honey (KORQ013) and onions (KORQ020)?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can the Republic of Korea explain whether the under -fill 
was due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for  the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For those  tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has the Republic of Korea 
considered moving to a tariff -only regime for those products?  
c. Can the Republic of Korea explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled 
tariff quotas, as per the objective of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. other milk and cream  (KORQ009): the Republic of Korea imports other milk and cream 
duty-free from FTA partner countries and the domestic supply is enough to meet the 
demand in the country.  - natural honey(KORQ013): Natural honey is being imported 
duty-free under the FTAs.  – onions  (KORQ020): The underfilled quota is mainly attributed 
to market circumstance s. There is no demand for onion imports due to the production 
spikes of onions in 2019, enough to satisfy the domestic demand.   
b. The under -fill for the concerned items is not due to TRQ administration regime but to 
market situations . Therefore, the Republic  of Korea is not considering to change its 
TRQ administration regime.   
c. The Korean government has introduced and implemented a range of systems to increase 
imports. The Republic of Korea conducts a number of bids for items with low -fill rates, 
urges success ful bidders to complete the implementation of TRQ and provides accurate 
information related to TRQ online in a transparent manner.  
AG-IMS ID 96006 : Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We would like to thank the Republic of Korea for the submission of this MA:2 notification and would 
kindly request the Republic of Korea to explain:  
 
a. the reasons behind the low fill rate of KOR042 (13.6%)  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 362 - 
 
  b. if there is any consideration of implementing the Bali Decision to ensure that this TRQ can 
enjoy a higher fill rate.  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. The demand for purebred sorghum seeds is low due to the development of hybrid seeds 
including sorghum and sudangrass hybrids.   
b. The Republic  of Korea is not considering the implementation of the TRQ underfill 
mechanism under th e Bali Decision as special and differential treatment (S&DT) for 
developing countries already granted under previous negotiations will remain effective 
without any change until future negotiations are completed.   
4.2.1.4   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/103)  
AG-IMS ID 9606 9: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Switzerland's notification (G/AG/N/CHE/103) concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2019.  
 
a. Can Switzerland explain the reasons for the under -fill for: CHEQ003; CHEQ017; CHEQ020; 
CHEQ022; CHEQ027; and CHEQ028, all of which recorded less than 65% fill rate?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can Switzerland explain whether the under -fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the produ ct, or restrictive 
tariff quota administration?  
b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has Switzerland considered 
moving to a tariff -only regime for those products?  
c. Can Switzerland explain if it is doing anything to increase utilisation  of its under -filled tariff 
quotas?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
a. Reasons for the under -fill: 
i. For each underfilled quota, can Switzerland explain whether the under -fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive  
tariff quota administration?   
CHEQ003: The tariff quota 3 for "live swine " is allocated on a first -come -first-served basis at the 
licensing office (FOAG). While there exist veterinary requirements implemented by the cantons, the 
under -fill is due to marke t circumstances, as breeders prefer to import pig semen instead of living 
pigs.  
 
CHEQ017: The fill  rate of tariff quota 17 for "fresh apples, pears and quinces " is closely linked to 
market circumstances. In years with normal harvest yields, the domestic s upply largely covers 
demand and there is no interest in importing. This market circumstance explains the low fillrate 
for 2019.  
 
CHEQ020: The tariff quota 20 for "fruit for cider " is auctioned. Shares of the tariff quota were put 
up for auction twice in 20 19, but no interested party came forward.  
 
CHEQ022: The tariff quota 22 for "grapes for pressing and grape juice " is not administrated, which 
means that imports can be made throughout the year for unlimited quantities at the quota rate. The 
low imports result from a lack of demand.  
 
CHEQ027: The tariff quota 27 for "bread grains, other cereals and cereal products sui table for use 
for consumption " is allocated on a first -come -first-served basis at the customs office. The low 
imports result from a lack of demand.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 363 - 
 
  CHEQ028: The tariff quota 28 for "coarse grains for human consumption " is not administrated, which 
means th at imports can be made throughout the year for unlimited quantities at the quota rate. The 
low imports result from market circumstances including changing consumption habits towards 
processed products.  
 
b. Low import quantities are not per se due to the exist ence of tariff quotas. There is no 
concrete project for the introduction of a tariff -only regime at the moment.  
c. Switzerland regularly reviews the fill rates of its tariff rate quotas. Changes in fill rates 
result from market circumstances such as shifting consumer preferences.  
4.2.1.5   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/112)  
AG-IMS ID 96070: Question  by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand indicated in its MA:2 notification for 2019 that the maize and tobacco TRQs have not been 
used at all in 2019. Could Thailand explain the reasons for which both the maize (THAQ011) and the 
unmanufactured tobacco (THAQ022) TRQs have not been used at all?   
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand mainly imported maize and unmanufactured tobacco from ASEAN countries under 
the ASEAN Trade in Go ods Agreement. The imported quantities of maize and  unmanufactured 
tobacco in 2019 are 681,459 metric tonnes and 2,553 metric tonnes respectively.  
 
Domestic  support commitments  (Table DS:1)  
4.2.2.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52, G/AG/N/BRA/58)  
AG-IMS ID 96029: Question by  India - Non-product -specific AMS  
 
In its DS:1 notification for 2017, Brazil has notified support amounting to USD 650,476.2 thousand 
as non -product specific Production and Marketing Credit. The footnote to Supporting table DS:9 
explains this as implicit subsidies based on the difference be tween interest rate of each of the 
following programmes and SELIC (Special System for Liquidation and Custody) interest rate (interest 
rate for the overnight inter -bank loans collateralized by Government bonds): Constitutional Funds 
(FNO, FNE and FCO), Pro namp (Medium -Scale Agricultural Producer Support Program), and Rural 
Savings and Mandatory Resources at controlled interest rates.  Source: G/AG/N/BRA/52 
and G/AG/N/BRA/58.  In contrast, in its notification of 2018, Brazil has not notified any such support.   
 
a. Why has Brazil not notified the Production and Marketing Credit support for 2018?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria of receiving the production and marketing credit?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. During the agricultural year 2018 (from 1 July 2017 to 30  June 2018), Brazil has not 
granted domestic support that  could be classified as "non -product -specific production 
and marketing credit". Therefore, no notification of  expenditures of such nature was 
necessary.  
b. Measures classified as "non -product -specific production  and marketing credit" are 
available to agricultural  producers in general, hence the eligibility criteria are the  same as 
those of rural credit in general, as follows:  
The rural producer (individual or legal entity) and the  rural producer cooperative may be 
beneficiaries of rural  credit when there is no specific requirement.  
 
The private individual or the legal entity, even if not  considered a rural producer, may be 
beneficiaries of rural  credit if it engages in the following activities related to  the sector:  
 
- research or production of seedlings or seeds inspected or  certified;  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 364 - 
 
  - research or production of semen for artificial  insemination;  
- provision of mechanized services, of an agricultural  nature, in rural properties, including for 
soil protection;  
- provision of artificial insemination services in rural  properties;  
- fishing for commercial purposes;  
- crop measurement.  
 
Indigenous producers may be beneficiaries of rural credit,  provided that, if not emancipated, they 
are assisted by  Fundação Nacional do Índio  (FUNAI), which shall also sign  the credit instrument.  
 
The following are not eligible for rural credit:  
 
- non-resident foreigners;  
- the purchaser of agricultural products and their  intermediaries;  
- associations of rural producers, except for their direct  production;  
- rural unions;  
- commercial partners, if the partnership contract restricts  either party's access to financing  
 
The beneficiary of rural credit, except for the purposes of  poultry, olive and pig farming, is classified 
as: 
 
- mini-producer - when the gl obal value of its annual  agricultural production does not exceed 
the equivalent of  200 MVR (highest reference value) ; 
- small producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the  preceding item, the global value 
of its annual agricultural  production does not  exceed the equivalent of 600 MVR;  
- medium producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in  the preceding item, the global 
value of its annual  agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of  3,000 MVR;  
- large producer - when the global value of its  annual  agricultural production exceeds the 
equivalent of 3 ,000 MVR.  
 
For the purposes of poultry and olive farming,  the beneficiary is classified as:  
 
- mini-producer  - when the global value of its annual  agricultural production does not exceed 
the equivalent of  400 MVR;  
- small producer  - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the  preceding item, the global value 
of its annual agricultural  production does not exceed the equivalent of 1 ,200 MVR;  
- medium producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in  the preceding item, the global 
value of its annual  agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of  6,000 MVR;  
- large producer - - when the global value of its annual  agricultural production exceeds the 
equivalent of 6000 MVR.  
 
For the purposes of pi g farming, the beneficiary is  classified as:  
 
- mini-producer - when the global value of its annual  agricultural production does not exceed 
the equivalent of  500 MVR;  
- small producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the  preceding item, the global value  
of its annual agricultural  production does not exceed the equivalent of 1 ,500 MVR;  
- medium producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in  the preceding item, the global 
value of its annual  agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of  7,500 M VR; 
- large producer - when the global value of its annual  agricultural production exceeds the 
equivalent of 7 ,500 MVR.  
 
4.2.2.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/37  - G/AG/N/DOM/43)  
AG-IMS ID 96034: Question by United States of America - General services: other  
In reporting years 2013 -2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/37 - G/AG/N/DOM/43), the Dominican Republic has 
notified domestic support for the promotion of rice production. Expenditures between reporting 
years  2018 and 2019 more than doubled.   
 
What was the reason for the signifi cant increase in expenditures?  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 365 - 
 
  Answer by Dominican Republic  
 
The expenditure reported for 2019 shows a significant increase primarily due to the measures taken 
to mitigate the effects of the extreme drought that affected the Dominican Republic from mid -2018 
into 2019. Rice was among the crops most affected by the drought. The situation required increased 
spending on activities such as water distribution, purchase of machinery, technology transfer, 
technical assistance for small and medium sized producers, etc. 
AG-IMS ID 96037: Question  by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
In AG -IMS ID 67021, the Dominican Republic stated the "pignoración" programme was notified with 
the title "Promotion of rice production" and confirmed this measure included insurance and storage 
costs for producers, among other aspects with regards to reporting years 2009 -2011 
(G/AG/N/DOM/20). Beginning with reporting years 2013 -2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/37  G/AG/N/DOM/43), 
the Dominican Republic notified domestic support unde r ST/DS:9 for the first time, including a 
measure for "Storage, insurance and financial costs subsidy" relating to the "pignoración" 
programme in ST/DS:9.   
 
a. Please confirm if the line for "Storage, insurance and financial costs subsidy" in ST/DS:9 
is inclu sive of the components of the "pignoración" program mentioned in 
AG-IMS ID 67021.  
b. If so, it is also noted that the expenditures between 2012 and 2013 increased under 
"Promotion of rice production." Please explain what contributed to this increase in 
expend itures.  
c. For the support notified under "Storage, insurance, and financial costs subsidy" 
in ST/DS:9, what products are eligible to benefit from this measure?   
Answer by Dominican Republic  
 
a. Yes, the measure notified in ST/DS:9 as "Storage, insurance and fin ancial costs subsidy" 
relates to the Pledge (Pignoración) Programme. For the sake of clarity, understanding and 
transparency, we would like to point out that the classification of this programme for 
notifications prior to 2013 was marked by confusion regar ding the preparation of 
agriculture notifications, a situation that was gradually rectified thanks to the technical 
assistance that the Dominican Republic received from the WTO. In this regard, the Pledge 
Programme used to be notified under the "Promotion of rice production" programme, a 
classification that we corrected as of 2013 (G/AG/N/DOM/37), since the promotion of 
production includes activities and actions specific to the outreach services of the Ministry 
of Agriculture.  
b. During the second half of 2012  and throughout 2013, new policies and actions aimed at 
the social and economic revival of national agricultural production were adopted as a result 
of the new authorities' government plan. Programmes to promote production (outreach 
activities) were review ed and strengthened, particularly with regard to rice, as one of the 
main crops in the Dominican basic basket. In this regard, for the "Promotion of rice 
production" programme, expenditures increased in the following components and 
activities: road infrast ructure, agricultural mechanization, drainage, technical assistance, 
plant breeding and research.  
c. Any product deemed necessary, in accordance with the resolution establishing the 
programme, under Article 10 of Resolution No. 31 05 of the Ministry of Agricu lture. The 
products that have been pledged thus far have been from the basic basket.  
AG-IMS ID 96038: Question by United States  of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In reporting years 2014 and 2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/38 and G/AG/N/DOM/43), the Dominican Republic 
notified domestic support for production and marketing of fruit plants, including strengthening 
producers' associations, cooperatives and clusters that produce and export fruit.   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 366 - 
 
  a. Was this programme available during 2015 -2018? If so, ple ase explain why it was not 
notified in those years. If not, did the measure implement a new programme or modify 
the 2015 measure?  
b. Please explain the eligibility criteria for producers' associations, cooperatives, and/or 
clusters to receive support under th is mechanism.  
c. Please explain if the support is contingent on export.  
Answer by Dominican Republic  
 
a. The programme was notified for 2015 as "Promotion of fruit production" 
(see G/AG/N/DOM/39). For 2016 2018, the programme was not notified as such, due to 
budgetary restructuring requested by the Directorate General of the Budget of the 
Dominican Republic (DIGEPRES). During this period, the "Promotion of fruit production" 
programme was limited to activities that were implemented under the umbrella of other 
crop promotion programmes (e.g. outreach activities).  
b. The eligibility criterion is to be a small or medium sized producer. Applications for support 
must be submitted, in person, at the Department of Fruit Trees (DEFRUT), by filling out a 
form specifying the  variety of fruit plant requested, as well as the location of where it is 
to be planted and subsequently visited by a specialist from DEFRUT in order to check the 
land and select the appropriate crop(s) for the area.  
c. No, the service is provided regardless of the product's destination, as it primarily involves 
outreach activities.  
4.2.2.3   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 96009: Question by Paraguay - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
This question is a follow up to India's answer to AG -IMS ID 95100, that we considered was not 
answered. As such we would kindly request again India to please confirm:  
 
a. whether Article 6.2 subsidies are also provided to medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers;   
b. the number of medium ‑ and large ‑scale pro ducers in India and how many hectares these 
farms cover;   
c. the main branches of production in which these medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers are 
engaged, even if these subsidies are not commodity specific.   
Answer by India  
 
India thanks Paraguay for the ques tion, and our response is as under:   
 
This question was answered in the 95th CoA meeting, which is as follows: - "Input subsidies under 
Article 6.2 are generally available to low -income resource -poor farmers and are not commodity 
specific".  
AG-IMS ID 96008 : Question  by Paraguay - Market price support  
This question is being submitted as follow ‑up to India's answer to question AG ‑IMS ID 95101. In the 
document "Guidelines for empanelment and registration under OMSS(D)" provided by India through 
a weblink in its written reply, we note the following requirement: " an undertaking on a stamp paper 
of Rs 100/ ‑ that wheat/rice will be used domestically and not exported by the bidder". Could India 
please explain:  
 
a. What this procedure specifically involves;  
b. If this is the only requirement laid down to prevent re ‑exportation;  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 367 - 
 
  c. If a follow ‑up and monitoring mechanism is in place and whether it is possible to provide 
details on how it functions;  
d. If penalties are provided for should it be discovered that stocks h ave been re ‑exported.  
Answer by India  
 
India thanks Paraguay for the question, and our response is as under:  
 
a. b. c. and d. The e -auction Service Provider empanels the bulk consumers/traders based on the 
following documents, viz.,  GST registration,  Trade  Tax registration,  PAN number,  Balance sheets,  
Profit and loss statement after due verification.  Further, an undertaking is taken on a stamp paper 
of Rs 100/ - that the wheat/rice so purchased from FCI under OMSS (D) will be utilized domestically 
and will not be exported by the bidder.  In addition to this, the buyer has to sign a form which 
stipulates that the products purchased under OMSS through e -auction will be utilized domestically 
and shall not be exported by the Bidder. If the B idder violates any of the terms and conditions of 
the empanelment or found to be furnishing any wrong/false information at any stage, then in 
addition to forfeiture of earnest money deposit (EMD), bidder is debarred from participating in future 
tenders flo ated by FCI for disposal of food grains and coarse grains for a period of one year.   
 
Follow -up: The EU was disappointed with India's response to question AG -IMS ID 96009 and urged 
India to provide a clear answer. The EU noted that the question was not cha llenging the possibility 
to use Article 6.2 to support farmers but rather seeking confirmation regarding whether medium or 
large farmers were also eligible to the subsidy as well as information on the share of production of 
those farmers. Australia, Canada , Paraguay and the US echoed the EU's comments.  
 
4.2.2.4   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/80)  
AG-IMS ID 96039: Question  by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
The United States notes Israel has exceeded its Total AMS commitment level again in its 2019 
Table  DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/ISR/80). The United States remains concerned with the multi -year 
notification of support exceeding its commitment.  Please provide an update on the reform process; 
does Israel expect negotiations on the reform process of the dairy sector to resume at a certain 
point in time?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
Talks held between the Ministries of Agriculture and Finance regarding the reform are now 
temporarily postponed due to COVID -19 and related issues. Currently, we do not have more 
informa tion regarding the resuming of the talks.  
 
Follow -up: The EU shared the U.S. concern regarding Israel's violation of the DS commitments in 
several years. The EU encouraged Israel to reform its policy and respect the limit. Brazil also shared 
the concern, r ecalling it had posed a question on this subject at the 93rd CoA (AG -IMS ID 93121).  
 
4.2.2.5   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  
AG-IMS ID 96033: Question  by China - Payments based on 85 % or less of the base level 
of production  
Referring to the question AG -IMS ID 95093, China would like to thank Japan for the reply to the 
question by Brazil during the Trade Policy Review of Japan regarding the implementation of its 
production -limiting programmes for rice (Question No. 21). From t he statistics on Japan 's rice 
production, it seems that the planting area and the production of rice have been declining for the 
last 20 years.  
 
a. Could Japan elaborate on the impact of such decline on the income of farmers?  
b. If the income was negatively affe cted by the policy change, how did the Japanese 
government respond in order to stabilize the farmers ' income?  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 368 - 
 
  c. Is the direct payment made by MAFF to farmers who produce crops other than table rice 
in the paddy field part of the scheme for stabilizing the fa rmers ' income? If that is the 
case, could Japan provide the payment rate(s) of the direct payment as well as the 
relationship between the payment rate(s) and the change of famers ' income?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. As pointed out, the area of rice production is in d ecrease. From 2000 to 2019, the area 
decreased from 1,763 thousand ha to 1,470 thousand ha, and the production decreased 
from 9,472 thousand tonnes to 7,762 thousand tons. On the other hand, in the most 
recent 15  years, the farmer's income in general (per management entities) increased from 
1,262  thousand yen in 2004 to 1,741 thousand yen in 2018. Looking at the income of 
paddy field farming, it also increased from 392 thousand yen in 2004 to 556 thousand yen 
in 2018. Although various factors seem to have c ontributed to these figures in farmer's 
income in paddy field management, one of the contributing factors is that the scale of 
business has expanded and the rice prices has been stabilized in recent years  
b. Since the policy direction from price oriented to i ncome oriented as demonstrated in the 
Basic Law on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas enacted in July 1999, Japan has gradually 
shifted its policy to non -product specific supporting measures for the management 
stabilization. Rice farmers are eligible for th ese non -product specific management 
stabilization programs, including income insurance to alleviate the impact of income 
decline.  
c. As the demand for rice for staple food declines, the need for proper paddy field 
maintenance is increasing. Direct payments to  farmers who produce such crops as  wheat, 
soybeans, and rice in paddy fields, namely, "Direct payments for the use of paddy fields," 
is not a part of the schemes to stabilize farmer 's incomes, but aims at maintaining paddy 
fields environment, preventing fl ooding and soil erosion, cultivating water sources and 
conserving the natural environment.  
4.2.2.6   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/15)  
AG-IMS ID 96072: Question  by Australia - Classification of measures  
Australia thanks Mauritius for the submission of its DS:1 for the financial year  2019.With respect to 
Supporting Table DS:1, Mauritius notified MUR 22,500,000 for 'slaughtering of animals' under 2(b). 
Pest and disease control.  Can Mauritius confirm that the expenditure was for the slaughter of animals 
subject to pests an d or diseases, including providing details of the specific pests and diseases, and 
not for the production of commercial agricultural goods?  
 
Answer by Mauritius  
 
Mauritius thanks Australia for its questions  with respect to Supporting Table DS:1 and would l ike to 
inform that this item  relates to fees that are being paid to the Mauritius Meat Authority (MMA) for  
slaughtering of animals at the central slaughter House. Animal slaughtering is  carried out at the 
MMA in a proper way in order to prevent illegal sla ughtering  as well as the proliferation of pest and 
disease. Under the Meat Act 1974, the  MMA is responsible for slaughter, dressing and transportation 
of cattle, goats,  pigs, sheep and deer meat to markets.  
  
4.2.2.7   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/37, G/AG/N/TUR/38)  
AG-IMS ID 96010 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The following questions are being submitted in follow ‑up to the answers provided by the delegation 
of Turkey to the questions contained in AG ‑IMS ID 95104.a. How does Turkey describe its 
environmental subsidies relating to "biological combat support: payment to reduce the use of 
pesticides"? Which products does this subsidy cover?  b. Turkey claims that it does not export soya 
beans because the category containe d in document G/AG/W/32/Rev.18 is for "oilseeds", which 
covers more than soya beans. Could Turkey please indicate which oilseeds it exports?  c. We reiterate 
the question on the provision of specific information relating to the policy changes or measures to  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 369 - 
 
  be implemented so as to ensure that Turkey does not exceed its de minimis  levels in soya bean 
production subsidies.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey wants to thank Paraguay for its attentive questions.  
 
a. Biological combat support aims to spread environmentally fr iendly combat techniques in 
production, to prevent residue formation by reducing use of chemical pesticides, and thus 
to protect flora and fauna, human health, and natural balance. This support is granted per 
decare providing that the producer submits the documents of the expenses for biological 
and/or biotechnical control. This support was granted for the first time in the 2010 -2011 
season for greenhouse growing. In the years 2011 and 2012, its scope was broadened 
and this support started to be given for g reenhouse production (tomato, pepper, eggplant, 
cucumber, and zucchini), production in the open field for tomatoes, citrus fruits, apples, 
and vineyards. In 2013, the range of products was widened. In addition to previous 
products, olives, pomegranates, an d apricots were involved in the support scheme.  
b. When the document with the symbol G /AG/W/32/Rev.18 is examined carefully, there is a 
table of oilseed exporters on page 12 of the report. On the last page of the report, product 
definitions of data sources ar e given. The products defined as oilseeds are HS Code 1201, 
1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207 coded soya beans, groundnuts, copra, linseeds, rape 
or colza seeds, sunflower seeds, other oilseeds, and oleaginous fruits. Among these 
products, Turkey does not  import or export copra. Turkey is a net -importer of oilseeds in 
all the rest.  
c. In particular to soya beans, Turkey 's self-sufficiency rates for 2010 -2016 are listed in the 
table below:  
Year  Self-Sufficiency Rate  
(%) 
2010 6 
2011 5.4 
2012 9.3 
2013 9.9 
2014 6.5 
2015 6.9 
2016 7.1 
(Source: https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ ). 
 
As can be seen on the table, the soya bean self -sufficiency in Turkey is very low. Therefore, Turkey 's 
support exceeding de minimis  level in soya been does not have any trade distorting effect.   
  
Follow -up: Paraguay, in response to Turkey's reply to question c, underlined the importance of 
respecting the de minimis level despite the subsidies' non -significant impact on trade. Paragua y 
registered systemic concern regarding various Members' failure to respect the de minimis level. 
Australia registered interested in the question.   
 
4.2.2.8   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/ 48 - G/AG/N/TUR/ 50) 
AG-IMS ID 96079 : Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that Turkey has done considerable work to submit recent annual domestic support 
notifications.  
 
In the most recent notifications submitted for years 2014, 2015 and 2016, Canada notes that Turkey 
has exceeded its annual domestic support limit due to market price support provided for a small 
number of products including cotton, soybeans, rapeseed and safflower.  
 
Could Turkey indicate how it will bring its domestic support back into compliance with its 
WTO commitment?   
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 370 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey wants to thank Canada for its question.  
 
First of all, Turkey wants to draw attention to the fact that the type of support provided is not 
"market price support ", but "premium payment ".  
 
On the other hand, Turkey is a net importer of said products and intends to maintain its production 
habit in oilseeds, which are imported intensively, but at the same time needed for food security and 
strategic reasons. Production of oilseeds is insufficient in Turkey and the support provided over 
"de minimis " ratio in some years is closely related to the sustainability of production.  
 
Nevertheless, Turkey is well aware of its " de minimis " commitment, and doing its utmost to fulfill its 
obligations.  
 
Follow -up: Canada encouraged Turkey, while meeting its food security ne eds, to take steps to ensure 
their domestic support levels are within the WTO limits, including the product -specific limits for soya 
beans. Canada echoed Paraguay's comments on AG -IMS ID 96010 that the issue was not only 
related to trade -distorting concern  but also raised systemic concern on Members' compliance with 
the Agreement on Agriculture. Brazil and the EU shared Canada's concern on Turkey's failure to 
respect its commitments and encouraged Turkey to implement the necessary reforms to correct this 
situation. Noting that Turkey's support had increased significantly from 2011 to 2016, particularly 
for cotton, Paraguay also expressed concern on Turkey's constant breaching of the 
WTO commitments. Paraguay sought Turkey's plan regarding how it would reduce  the support to 
respect the de minims limit. The US echoed Paraguay's comments and suggested Turkey to include 
in the notifications the support for major commodities that TMO carried out on behalf of the 
government.   
 
New or modified domestic support measu res (Table DS:2)  
4.2.3.1   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/122)  
AG-IMS ID 96030: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 
In New Zealand's recent DS:2 notification in document G/AG/N/NZL/122, which concerns new or 
modified domestic support measures ex empt from reduction, New Zealand notified a measure 
named "COVID -19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) Foundational Package". New Zealand is 
requested to elaborate on the following:  
 
a. Who will be the beneficiaries under the package?  
b. What is the criteria for the beneficiaries to apply for funds under the programme?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
New Zealand thanks India for its interest in our COVID -19 Response and Recovery Fund Foundational 
Package. In response to the two questions raised:  
 
a. The CRRF Foundational Package is equally available to all sectors, not just agriculture.  New 
Zealand submitted a DS:2 notification in the interest of enhanced transparency for the 
elements of the Package that relate to agriculture.  The beneficiaries vary depending on 
the specific initiative, for example funding for 'addressing primary sector workforce 
shortfall with job transition support ' will be used to provide training and support for New 
Zealanders to fill job vacancies in the primary sector.   
b. The CRRF  Foundatio nal Package is not a direct payment program.  Funding was not 
transferred directly to agricultural producers.  Funding was supplied to providers of specific 
initiatives, for example a company that will provide the training to upskill New Zealanders 
looking t o fill vacancies in the primary sector, and the criteria will vary between providers 
in line with each business 's operating policy.  There is no criteria for the programme overall.  G/AG/W/216  
 
- 371 - 
 
  Further detail on each of the initiatives is available in the Summary of Ini tiatives document published 
by The Treasury:  https://www.treasury.govt.nz/public ations/summary -intiatives/summary -
initiatives -covid-19-response -and-recovery -fund-crrf-foundational -package -html  
 
Export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
4.2.4.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/60)  
AG-IMS ID 96071: Question by European Union - Product coverage /scheduled 
commitments  
 
The EU notes that Brazil's ES:1 notification for 2019 continues to include export subsidy 
commitments both for amounts and quantities.  According to paragraph 7 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision WT/MIN(15)/45 - WT/L/980, developing  countries should have eliminated their export 
subsidy commitments by the end of 2018. Brazil was one of the co -sponsors of the proposal which 
led to that decision.  
 
a. Will Brazil submit a correction to the ES:1 to reflect the Nairobi Ministerial decision?  
b. Will Brazil submit a modification to its schedule to eliminate its export subsidy 
commitments?   
Answer by Brazil  
 
Although Brazil has not yet circulated an updated version of Part IV, Section II of its Schedule of 
Concessions, Brazil has never used its righ ts to provide export subsidies for agricultural products, 
hence Brazil is in fulfillment of its obligations pursuant to the 2015 Ministerial Conference.  
 
The evaluation of the Nairobi Decision by the National Congress, a constitutional requirement, was 
hampered by the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic, but the issue remains a priority for the 
Brazilian government. We aim at providing an updated version of Brazil 's schedule of concession in 
the near future.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and the EU, given Brazil was one of the main proponents of the Nairobi Decision 
to eliminate export subsidies, expressed concern regarding Brazil's delay in modifying its schedule 
and the inclusion of export subsidy commitments in its ES notifications. The EU underlin ed the 
importance of Members' utmost efforts in implementing the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. 
Canada pointed to the joint proposal it tabled together with Norway and Switzerland in the CoA SS 
which included setting a date for the concerned Member s to amend the schedule.   
 
4.3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  
Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
4.3.1.1   Russian  Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  
AG-IMS ID 96073: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow -up with the Russian Federation with respect to question AG-IMS 
ID 95095 from the 95th Committee on Agriculture, which does not have a written response in the 
AGIMS:  
 
Australia thanks the Russian Federation for the submission of its DS:1 for calendar year 2018. With 
respect to its Support Table DS:4 and DS:6, Australia notes that the Russian Federation has notified 
product -specific Amber Box support to its grape industry totalling USD27.4 million, approximately 
7.38% of the val ue of production of grapes. While this exceeds Russia's de minimis , Australia 
acknowledges this is within Russia's final bound total AMS.   
 
Australia notes the Russian Federation recently implemented Federal Law No 468 -FZ - "On Viticulture 
and Winemaking in the Russian Federation". The Russian Federation informed Members at the 
Council for Trade in Goods that this measure was aimed at developi ng winemaking in the Russian 
Federation and would be applicable to both domestically produced and imported wines. With this in G/AG/W/216  
 
- 372 - 
 
  mind, Australia would like to know if the Russian Federation expects to continue to provide support 
– in excess of de minimis  limits– for grapes (and therefore indirectly for wine) in future years? If 
such support continues in conjunction with the requirements of the new Federal Law, Australia is 
concerned wine makers in other countries would be disadvantaged and displaced in the Ru ssian 
market.   
 
With this in mind, can the Russian Federation provide further detail on the production subsidies 
provided to grape producers at both the federal and sub -federal level, including:   
a. Full names of the programmes;  
b. Their objectives;  
c. Details on t he funding provided; and  
d. Eligibility criteria?  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95095.  
AG-IMS ID 96074: Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
Australia would like to follow -up with the Russian Federation with respect to question AG -IMS 
ID 95096 from 95th CoA, which does not yet have a written response in the AG -IMS: With respect to 
its Supporting Table DS:9, Australia notes the budgetary outlay for the 'Federal Subsidies of Inter est 
Rate on Short Term Credits and Investment' has decreased by over USD 450 million compared 
to 2017.  
 
a. Can the Russian Federation provide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy program(s) are counted in this measure? And   
ii. why funding decreased by more than 40% between 2017 and 2018?  Australia also 
notes the value of support under the 'Federal Other Credit Support Interest Rate 
Subsidies Program' has increased by over USD 300 million year -on-year. 
b. Can the Russian Federation prov ide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy program(s) are counted in this measure?  
ii. what interest rates and terms are attached to this programme, and what eligibility 
criteria are involved? and  
iii. why has the value of support of this measure increased by more than 260% 
between  2017 and 2018?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS ID 95096.  
 
4.4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
Australia  
AG-IMS ID 96024: Question by India  
 
With reference to the response provided by Australia for question AG -IMS ID 95017, we request 
Australia to provide an update on its Domestic support DS:1 notification for the year 2018 -19. 
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australi a appreciates India, and other Members ' concern with Australia 's overdue DS:1 for 2018 -19. 
Australia is cognisant of the need to meet, as best as possible, notification timelines and is working 
judiciously to finalise and submit that DS:1 as soon as possib le.  
 G/AG/W/216  
 
- 373 - 
 
  The current delay is due to Australia 's strong commitment to ensure all measures, at both federal 
and state level and that are subject to AoA rules, are captured in the DS:1. These notifications should 
not only meet timelines/deadlines. They must als o be qualitative and provide fulsome information 
that provides other Members the required information to review the reported domestic support 
measures and assess their WTO compliance. Australia hopes to have finalised the notification shortly 
and will advi se the Indian delegation as soon as this has been done. We look forward to India 's 
review and comments on that notification in due course.  
 
European Union  
AG-IMS ID 96028: Question by India  
The EU is yet to submit its DS:1 notification for the marketing year 2018 -19, well past the deadline 
of 30 September 2019 by when they should have notified this information according to the deadlines 
mandated in document G/AG/2. India requests the EU to in form Members on when they intend to 
submit their DS:1 notification for the marketing year 2018 -19. 
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU has explained repeatedly over the few years the reasons for the timing of the submission of 
the EU 's DS:1 notifications com pared to the unrealistic deadline set out in G/AG/2. The EU has on 
several occasions, including in this Committee, stated that the EU aims at submitting its 
DS:1 notifications within 15 months of the end of the EU budget year (which is 31 December). This 
was already mentioned in the reply to question AG -IMS ID 93180 by India (uploaded 
on 24 March  2020).  
 
As mentioned in previous meetings and replies given in the Committee, the EU would again refer to 
document RD/AG/71 submitted by Norway. This document show s that no WTO Member – except 
two Members without AMS – is able to respect the unrealistic DS:1 deadline set out in G/AG/2. The 
document nevertheless shows that the EU is one of the best performers in terms of submission of 
DS:1 notifications. Despite that , one element of the ongoing work on the reform of the EU 's Common 
Agricultural Policy, is further improving the EU 's internal systems for accounting and reporting by 
the EU and its member States. Such a system could potentially allow the EU to submit 
DS:1 notifications covering the 2022 and subsequent budget years at least six months earlier than 
is currently the case.  
 
The EU would underline that notifications must be of sufficient quality and accuracy for them to fulfil 
transparency obligations and timel ines must be realistic to that end.  
 
Indeed, the EU has already spoken in the COA/SS about transparency being a key deliverable 
for MC12. The EU is considering a submission on transparency in 2021 to the COA/SS which could 
include a reflection on timelines for notifications.   
 
Follow -up: Paraguay, in light of the EU's high level of subsidies and announcements to provide 
additional subsidies, registered concern regarding the EU's ongoing delays in presenting 
notifications. Paraguay invited the EU to  lead by example and follow the existing rule of notifying 
domestic support measures within the 90 -day deadline. Stressing that completeness of notifications 
was equally important as timeliness, the EU underlined its efforts in ensuring complete notificati ons 
which included all support granted to farmers by its member States.   
 
4.5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
India  
AG-IMS ID 96002: Question by European Union  
 
Follow up question AG -IMS ID 95132 - India Sugar subsidies and ES:1 notification.  In its reply to 
question AG -IMS ID 95132, India indicated that subsidy paid "will be submitted in India 's ES:1 
notification ". The EU notes that the latest Indian ES:1 notification G/AG/N/IND/9 dates back to 
30 July 2012 covering the years 2004 -2005 to 2009 -2010. 
 
a. When does India intend  to submit the notifications for years later than 2009 -10? G/AG/W/216  
 
- 374 - 
 
  b. When can Members expect the notification referred to in the reply AG -IMS ID 95132, to 
be submitted?  
Answer by India  
 
India likes to thank the EU for its continued interest in the issue. In reply to the question:  India will 
submit its ES:1 notification in due course.  
 
New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 96003: Question  by Chile  
Chile notes that exports by Zespri in terms of quantity have increased considerably during the years 
2018-2019 (G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/ Add.4), reaching a maximum compared with the data on previous 
notifications. We also note that, at the same time, export destinations reported in the last three 
years have decreased since Zespri's last notification (G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.4). In this contex t, 
we appreciate if New Zealand could provide an explanation as to why there is an increase of exports, 
but fewer destinations for it? Could these other destinations be supplied by Zespri, but the origin of 
these exports be other than New Zealand?  
 
Answer by New Zealand  
 
New Zealand thanks Chile for its question as it has highlighted an error in the data extract used in 
our response to the 2020 Export Competition Questionnaire.  New Zealand has provided an  updated 
response regarding the STE section of the  2020 Export Competition Questionnaire to the Secretariat, 
and has requested a revision of G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.4. This includes a correction to the export 
destinations for kiwifruit for the three years 2017 -2019 (as outlined in the table below). The revised  
dataset shows that New Zealand continues to export kiwifruit to a similar range of destinations as 
during previous notified periods. The increased export quantity and value in the 2018 -2019 
production year was the result of an excellent harvest and good p rices on the major markets.  
  
The export destinations  for kiwifruit in the three years (2017 -2019) were as follows:  
 
American Samoa  
Argentina  
Australia  
Bahrain, Kingdom of  
Brazil  
Cambodia  
Canada  
China  
Cook Islands  
Costa Rica  
El Salvador  
European Union  
Fiji 
French Polynesia  
Guatemala  
Hong Kong, China  
India 
Indonesia  Israel  
Japan  
Korea, Republic of  
Kuwait , the State o f  
Lebanon  
Malaysia  
Maldives  
Mauritius  
Mexico  
Micronesia  
Myanmar  
Nauru, Republic of  
New Caledonia  
Niue 
Palau, Republic of  
Papua New Guinea  
Philippines  
Qatar  Réunion  
Russian Federation  
Samoa  
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
Singapore  
Solomon Islands  
South Africa  
Chinese Taipei  
Thailand  
Tonga  
United Arab Emirates  
United States  of America  
Vanuatu  
Viet Nam 
Wallis and Futuna  
 
Follow -up: The EU shared Chile's concern on the operation of Zespri.  
 
United States  of America  
AG-IMS ID 96035: Question  by China  
China thanks the United States for the detailed reply to Question AG -IMS ID 95141.  Referring to the 
reply mentioned above, it would be appreciat ed if the United States could provide a needs 
assessment report on the products (such as sorghum) provided through non -emergency food aid, G/AG/W/216  
 
- 375 - 
 
  including the reason(s) for providing the type of food product(s) concerned, as well as the 
methodology for determini ng the volume of the aid that is necessary for achieving the objectives.   
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States has provided full transparency regarding its food aid activities. The Nairobi 
Decision requires Members to provide a  "description of relevant needs assessment (and by whom) 
and whether food aid is responding to a declaration of emergency or an emergency appeal (and by 
whom)," and the United States has provided responses consistent with the structure enumerated in 
the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial in its Export Competition Questionnaire.  The United States also 
provides additional informa tion regarding its food aid activities in its WTO NF:1 notifications and as 
directed by the Food Aid Convention Narrative Report (which can be found at 
https://www.foodassistanceconve ntion.org/en/reports.aspx ).  
 
Follow -up: China highlighted that certain food aid activities did not meet the purpose and had 
negative impact on normal commercial trade and local production. China sought better 
understanding of how Members carried out food aid activities and noted the relevance of the Review 
Process in this regard . 
 
 
__________  