WTO & Agriculture – Foundations and Core Rules (Block 1)
GS III • Indian Economy • WTO • Agriculture • Food Security
1. Agriculture in Global Trade – Why It Is “Special” in WTO
Agriculture is not just another sector; it is linked with food security, rural livelihoods, employment, culture and political stability. This makes it far more sensitive than trade in manufactures or services.
Before WTO, under the GATT era, agriculture enjoyed wide exemptions: developed countries maintained high protection, heavy subsidies and export support. Developing countries, meanwhile, faced price crashes and import surges without comparable support systems.
UPSC Angle:
WTO’s agricultural negotiations are essentially about reconciling food security and farmer livelihood
concerns of developing countries with the subsidy-heavy farm politics of developed countries.
| Aspect | Developed Countries | Developing Countries (e.g., India) |
|---|---|---|
| Role of agriculture | Small share in GDP & jobs, but politically powerful farm lobbies | Large share in employment, major source of livelihoods |
| Policy focus | Income support, stabilising farm incomes | Food security, poverty reduction, price stability |
| Instruments | High subsidies, insurance, export promotion | MSP, input subsidies, PDS, public procurement |
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Agriculture in WTO"]:::root --> B["Developed Countries"]:::node A --> C["Developing Countries"]:::node B --> B1["High subsidies and protection"]:::note B --> B2["Small share in jobs, big political power"]:::note C --> C1["Large rural workforce"]:::note C --> C2["Food security and poverty concerns"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
2. Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) – Structure and Logic
The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which entered into force with the WTO in 1995, was the first comprehensive attempt to bring agriculture under disciplined trade rules. It is built on three pillars:
- Market Access (MA) – how easily agricultural imports enter a country
- Domestic Support (DS) – how internal subsidies to farmers are regulated
- Export Competition (EC) – how export subsidies and related measures are controlled
For UPSC, any mains answer on WTO & agriculture should be structured around these three pillars, and then read against India’s concerns on MSP, subsidies and food security.
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)"]:::root --> B["Market Access"]:::node A --> C["Domestic Support"]:::node A --> D["Export Competition"]:::node B --> B1["Tariffs, quotas, bindings"]:::note C --> C1["Subsidy rules and 'boxes'"]:::note D --> D1["Export subsidies and credits"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
3. Domestic Support – Green, Blue and Amber Boxes (Full Detail)
Domestic support is the most contested part of AoA because it deals with subsidies to farmers. AoA classifies support into “boxes” depending on how much they distort production and trade.
3.1 The Three Boxes Concept
| Box | Nature | WTO Treatment | Typical Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Green Box | Minimal or no trade-distorting effect | Unlimited (no cap) | R&D, extension, infrastructure, environmental schemes, decoupled income support |
| Blue Box | Linked to production but with limits on output/area | Permitted; rarely used by India | EU set-aside schemes, payments if farmers keep land fallow |
| Amber Box | Clearly trade-distorting support | Subject to caps and reduction commitments | MSP-type price support, input subsidies if not Green Box–eligible |
UPSC Key Line:
The Amber Box is at the heart of disputes on MSP and farm subsidies. Green Box is
mostly non-controversial; Blue Box is a compromise for developed countries.
flowchart LR WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Domestic Support (Subsidies)"]:::root --> B["Green Box"]:::node A --> C["Blue Box"]:::node A --> D["Amber Box"]:::node2 B --> B1["Non or minimally trade-distorting"]:::note C --> C1["Payments with output limits"]:::note D --> D1["Price support and production-linked aid"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#FDEDEC,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
4. Market Access – Tariff Bindings & Tariff-Rate Quotas
The Market Access pillar governs how agricultural imports are controlled. Before AoA, countries used opaque instruments like quantitative restrictions and variable levies. AoA forced countries to convert these into tariffs – a process known as tariffication.
4.1 Key Elements of Market Access
- Tariffication – Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) converted into tariff equivalents.
- Tariff Bindings – Countries commit to a maximum tariff (“bound rate”).
- Tariff-Rate Quotas (TRQs) – Lower tariff for a limited quantity, higher tariff beyond that.
- Special Safeguards (SSG) – Extra duties allowed in case of import surges (India does not have SSG rights).
| Instrument | Purpose | Indian Context |
|---|---|---|
| Tariff bindings | Provide predictability to traders | India bound many agri tariffs at high levels; applied tariffs often below bound rates |
| TRQs | Allow controlled imports at low duty | Used selectively (e.g. for certain pulses, edible oils when needed) |
| SSG | Quick safeguard against price/import shocks | India cannot use SSG as it did not schedule these rights under AoA |
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Market Access under AoA"]:::root --> B["Tariffication"]:::node A --> C["Tariff Bindings"]:::node A --> D["Tariff Rate Quotas"]:::node A --> E["Special Safeguard (SSG)"]:::node B --> B1["Quotas and levies → tariffs"]:::note C --> C1["Commit not to exceed bound rates"]:::note D --> D1["Low duty within quota, higher after"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
5. Export Competition – Export Subsidies and Their Discipline
The Export Competition pillar seeks to curb use of export subsidies that allow rich countries to dump surplus food abroad at artificially low prices, hurting farmers in developing nations.
Key Components
- Export Subsidies – Direct payments to make exports cheaper; now largely prohibited for most products.
- Export Credits & Guarantees – Low-interest or long-term credit to foreign buyers, monitored to avoid disguised subsidies.
- Food Aid – Should be genuine aid, given preferably in grant form, not a way to dispose surplus stock.
- State Trading Enterprises – Disciplines on monopoly exporters/importers.
India’s Stand:
Rich countries must reduce export subsidies faster; otherwise developing country farmers
face unfair competition from heavily subsidised exports.
flowchart LR WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Export Competition Pillar"]:::root --> B["Export Subsidies"]:::node2 A --> C["Export Credits"]:::node A --> D["Food Aid Rules"]:::node A --> E["State Trading Enterprises"]:::node B --> B1["Historically used by US, EU"]:::note D --> D1["Should not be a channel for dumping"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#FDEDEC,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
6. De-minimis Limits & AMS – How WTO Measures Subsidies
To quantify trade-distorting support, AoA uses the concept of Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS). It aggregates all Amber Box support.
- Product-specific support – linked to a particular crop.
- Non-product-specific support – general subsidies like electricity, fertiliser, credit etc.
For developing countries, AoA allows:
- Product-specific support up to 10% of the value of production of that product.
- Non-product-specific support up to 10% of total agricultural output value.
If support stays within these “de-minimis” thresholds, it is exempt from reduction commitments. If it exceeds them, it counts towards AMS and may breach WTO limits.
Formula (simplified UPSC form):
Product-specific support (%) ≈ (Total support for that crop ÷ Value of production of that crop) × 100
Product-specific support (%) ≈ (Total support for that crop ÷ Value of production of that crop) × 100
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS)"]:::root --> B["Product-Specific Support"]:::node A --> C["Non-Product-Specific Support"]:::node A --> D["De-minimis Thresholds"]:::node2 B --> B1["Crop-wise subsidy as % of value"]:::note C --> C1["General subsidies as % of total agri output"]:::note D --> D1["10% limit for developing countries"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#FDEDEC,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
7. India’s Subsidy Structure – How It Maps onto WTO Boxes
India provides a mix of price support, input subsidies and income transfers. For WTO classification, the key question is: does the measure directly distort prices/production? If yes → Amber Box; if no or minimal link → Green Box–like.
| Indian Support Instrument | Likely WTO Category | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural R&D, extension services | Green Box | Non-trade-distorting “general services” |
| PM-KISAN (income support per farmer) | Argued as Green Box if decoupled | Not linked to specific crop or price |
| Fertiliser, electricity subsidies | Amber Box / development support | Influence cropping decisions and input use |
| MSP + procurement for cereals | Amber Box – Market Price Support | Central focus of WTO debate |
| Public stockholding for NFSA | Counted in Amber Box (with special debates) | Connected to MSP; falls under AoA disciplines |
flowchart LR WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Indian Farm Support"]:::root --> B["Green Box–type"]:::node A --> C["Amber Box–type"]:::node2 B --> B1["R&D, extension, some income support"]:::note C --> C1["MSP, fertiliser, power subsidies"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#FDEDEC,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
8. MSP and WTO – How “Market Price Support” Is Calculated
Under AoA, Market Price Support (MPS) is calculated in a specific way that often overestimates support for developing countries:
- Take the difference between administered price (MSP) and a fixed External Reference Price (ERP) based on 1986–88 averages.
- Multiply this difference by the quantity eligible for support (usually procurement quantity).
- Divide by the value of production to check against the 10% de-minimis limit.
Because the ERP is an old, low base, the difference between MSP and ERP appears artificially large, making India look as if it is heavily subsidising even when real support is modest.
MSP Support (simplified):
MPS ≈ (MSP − ERP) × Quantity procured
Then expressed as a % of value of production to compare with the 10% cap.
MPS ≈ (MSP − ERP) × Quantity procured
Then expressed as a % of value of production to compare with the 10% cap.
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["WTO Market Price Support"]:::root --> B["MSP (Administered Price)"]:::node A --> C["External Reference Price (1986–88)"]:::node A --> D["Eligible Quantity (Procurement)"]:::node B --> E["Difference = MSP − ERP"]:::note C --> E D --> F["MPS = Difference × Quantity"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
WTO & Agriculture – Food Security, Peace Clause & Negotiations (Block 2)
GS III • Indian Economy • WTO • Food Security • Global Negotiations
9. Food Security & Public Stockholding (PSH) – India’s Core Concern
For India, agriculture is inseparable from food security. The State uses MSP + public procurement + buffer stocks + PDS/NFSA to ensure that:
- Farmers get a minimum remunerative price
- Poor households access subsidised food grains
- The country has strategic reserves for droughts, pandemics, wars
This system is called Public Stockholding (PSH) for food security purposes. At WTO, the problem is that PSH is legally treated as a form of market price support under the AoA, and is thus counted within Amber Box support.
Key UPSC line:
India argues that food security should not be constrained by outdated subsidy formulas,
especially when rich countries retain large Green Box–style supports.
| PSH Component | Domestic Role | WTO Concern |
|---|---|---|
| MSP for rice, wheat, etc. | Price guarantee to farmers | Counted as Market Price Support (Amber Box) |
| Public procurement | Builds buffer stocks | Used as “eligible production” in AMS calculation |
| NFSA/PDS distribution | Food security for poor households | Linked back to MSP–PSH design in WTO debates |
flowchart LR WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Farmer"]:::node --> B["Government Procurement at MSP"]:::node2 B --> C["Buffer Stocks (FCI etc.)"]:::node C --> D["PDS / NFSA to Poor"]:::node B --> E["Counted as Market Price Support under AoA"]:::note classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef note fill:#FDF2F2,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
10. Bali “Peace Clause” (2013) – What It Is and Its Limitations
At the Bali Ministerial Conference (2013), developing countries led by India demanded protection for their PSH programmes. The outcome was the so-called “Peace Clause”.
10.1 What the Peace Clause Provides
- If a developing country breaches the 10% de-minimis limit due to PSH for food security, other countries will not challenge it under the WTO disputes mechanism.
- The protection is conditional on transparency, notification, data-sharing, and safeguards to avoid trade distortion.
10.2 Limitations
- Originally negotiated as a temporary measure, not a permanent solution.
- Applies only to programmes existing at the time of Bali (no large new PSH schemes).
- Complex reporting requirements; ambiguity about interpretation persists.
UPSC Point:
Peace Clause is a legal shield, not a policy reform. It does not fix the basic problem
of outdated reference prices or unfair AMS calculation.
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["PSH Subsidies exceed 10% limit"]:::node2 --> B["Peace Clause (Bali 2013)"]:::root B --> C["No legal challenge at WTO disputes mechanism"]:::node B --> D["Subject to transparency and safeguards"]:::note B --> E["Temporary and programme-linked"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#FDEDEC,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
11. Ministerial Outcomes – Bali, Nairobi, Buenos Aires
The story of WTO & agriculture in recent years is largely a story of Ministerial Conferences and stalled negotiations.
| Ministerial | Year & Place | Key Outcomes on Agriculture |
|---|---|---|
| Bali | 2013, Indonesia | Peace Clause on PSH; Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) |
| Nairobi | 2015, Kenya | Decision to eliminate export subsidies; no final solution on PSH |
| Buenos Aires | 2017, Argentina | Talks on PSH & food security collapsed; no ministerial declaration |
flowchart LR WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Bali 2013"]:::node --> B["Nairobi 2015"]:::node B --> C["Buenos Aires 2017"]:::node2 A --> A1["Peace Clause + Trade Facilitation"]:::note B --> B1["End to export subsidies commitment"]:::note C --> C1["No consensus on PSH & food security"]:::note classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
12. India–US Conflict and the G-33 Coalition
India has often led a group of developing countries called the G-33, which includes Indonesia, China and several low-income nations. The coalition demands permanent solution for PSH and greater flexibilities for food security.
12.1 India’s Position
- Food security programmes like NFSA are non-negotiable.
- Outdated 1986–88 reference prices must be updated.
- PSH for staples should be treated more like Green Box support.
12.2 US / Some Developed Countries’ Position
- Permanent exemption for PSH could distort trade if stocks are later exported.
- India and others might gain unfair advantage in global grain markets.
- They insist on strong disciplines and transparency.
UPSC Mains Link:
India frames WTO agriculture as a development and food security debate, whereas
many developed members frame it as a trade distortion and level-playing-field problem.
flowchart LR WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["G-33 (India-led)"]:::node --> B["Demand: Permanent PSH solution"]:::note A --> C["Update 1986–88 reference prices"]:::note D["US & some developed members"]:::node2 --> E["Fear trade distortion & cheap grain exports"]:::note D --> F["Insist on strong disciplines & data"]:::note classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#FDEDEC,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
13. Controversies in Subsidy Calculation – Why India Says Rules Are Unfair
India and many developing countries argue that the AoA rules are structurally biased. Key issues:
- Outdated ERP (1986–88) – does not reflect inflation and structural change.
- Asymmetry: rich countries have shifted support into Green Box, keeping high effective subsidies while appearing compliant.
- Aggregation bias: AMS is calculated differently for high-income, high-subsidy countries.
| Issue | Effect on India / Developing Countries | Why It Is Controversial |
|---|---|---|
| Use of 1986–88 prices | Inflates measured subsidy since MSP grew with inflation | Does not capture real support, only inflation gap |
| Green Box flexibility | Developed members move support into “non-distorting” labels | Substantive support continues, but appears WTO-compliant |
| Uniform de-minimis % | 10% cap applied equally despite different needs | Does not recognise food security imperative of poorer countries |
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Subsidy Rules Criticised by India"]:::root --> B["Old Reference Prices (1986–88)"]:::node A --> C["Green Box Flexibility for Rich"]:::node A --> D["Uniform De-minimis Limits"]:::node B --> B1["Inflated gap between MSP and ERP"]:::note C --> C1["High support appears WTO-legal"]:::note D --> D1["Ignores food security needs of poor countries"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
14. Amber Box Stress & “Subsidy Hypocrisy” of Developed Countries
India often points out that while developing countries are capped at 10% de-minimis, many developed members have historically enjoyed high bound AMS entitlements and have provided support far beyond what developing countries can afford.
Even after reductions, the absolute level of per farmer support in the US/EU remains much higher than in India. This fuels charges of “subsidy hypocrisy”: rules that appear neutral but lock in old advantages.
Answer framing tip:
Use the phrase “asymmetric disciplines and historical entitlements” when
explaining why India calls for reform of AoA.
flowchart LR WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Developed Members"]:::node2 --> B["High historical AMS entitlements"]:::note A --> C["Shift support into Green Box schemes"]:::note D["Developing Members"]:::node --> E["Tight 10% de-minimis caps"]:::note D --> F["Limited fiscal space for subsidies"]:::note classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef node2 fill:#FDEDEC,stroke:#C0392B,color:#7B241C; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
15. Way Forward & UPSC Mains Conclusion – Reforming WTO Agriculture
A balanced reform agenda must protect food security and farmer welfare while reducing trade-distorting subsidies globally. India’s stance broadly includes:
- Updating the reference period and allowing inflation indexation.
- Providing a permanent solution for PSH under WTO rules.
- Tightening disciplines on Green Box support in developed countries.
- Expanding Special & Differential Treatment (S&DT) for developing nations.
- Recognising Right to Food and Food Security as core development concerns.
| Reform Area | India / Developing Country Demand | Expected Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Reference Prices | Update ERP or index to inflation | More realistic subsidy calculation |
| PSH Rules | Permanent solution, not temporary Peace Clause | Legal certainty for NFSA-type schemes |
| Green Box | Stricter tests for “non-distorting” support | Reduces hidden advantage of rich countries |
| S&DT | More policy space for food security | Aligns trade rules with SDGs and poverty reduction |
flowchart TB WM[IASNOVA.COM]:::wm A["Way Forward for WTO Agriculture"]:::root --> B["Update reference prices"]:::node A --> C["Permanent PSH solution"]:::node A --> D["Stricter Green Box disciplines"]:::node A --> E["Stronger S&DT for developing countries"]:::node B --> B1["Reflect inflation and structural change"]:::note C --> C1["Legal certainty for NFSA-like schemes"]:::note D --> D1["Limit hidden subsidy space"]:::note E --> E1["Align trade with food security & SDGs"]:::note classDef root fill:#D6EAF8,stroke:#1B4F72,color:#154360; classDef node fill:#EBF5FB,stroke:#2980B9,color:#1B4F72; classDef note fill:#F5F6F7,stroke:#B3B6B7,color:#424949; classDef wm fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#FFFFFF,color:#FF0000,font-weight:900,font-size:11px;
UPSC Mains Capsule (Concluding Line):
“Reform of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture must move from a narrow focus on market access to a development-centric framework that recognises the Right to Food, livelihood security of smallholders and the need to discipline historically high subsidies in advanced economies.”
“Reform of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture must move from a narrow focus on market access to a development-centric framework that recognises the Right to Food, livelihood security of smallholders and the need to discipline historically high subsidies in advanced economies.”
★ IASNOVA.COM ★
