G/AG/W/116  
 
17 January 2014  
(14-0286)  Page: 1/20  
Committee on Agriculture   
 
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 29 JANUARY 2014 
The present document compiles questions receiv ed by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
15 January 2014 as specified in WTO/AIR/4232.1 
 
 
_______________ 
 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat’s own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
Table of Contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 4 
1.1   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 72051) ............................................ 4  
1.2   Canada's proposed ch anges to tariff  schedule ................................................................ 4  
1.2.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 72049) ............................................ 4  
1.3   China's cotton domestic support .................................................................................. 5  
1.3.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 72052) ............................................ 5  
1.4   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 6  
1.4.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  72005)  .................................................................... 6  
1.4.2   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 72050) ............................................ 6  
1.5   Ecuador's import licensing of  certain agricultur al products ............................................... 7  
1.5.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 72053) ............................................ 7  
1.6   Egypt's export restriction on rice .................................................................................. 7  
1.6.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 72054) ............................................ 7  
1.7   European Union's levy on fruits and vegetables .............................................................. 7  
1.7.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  72007)  .................................................................... 7  
1.8   European Union's sugar production levies ...................................................................... 8  
1.8.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  72006)  .................................................................... 8  
1.9   India's rice exports ....................................................................................................  8 
1.9.1   Question by Paki stan (AG-IMS ID 72059)  ................................................................... 8  
1.10   India's wheat st ocks and ex ports ............................................................................... 8  
1.10.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 72008) ................................................................... 8  
1.11   Japan's new agricultural policy ................................................................................... 9  
1.11.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 72009) ................................................................... 9  
1.12   Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for po ultry and pork ................................. 9  
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72055) ........................................... 9  
1.13   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme .............................................................................. 9  
1.13.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 72010) ................................................................... 9  
1.13.2   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72056) ........................................... 9  
1.14   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 10 
1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72057) .......................................... 10 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 11  
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 11 
2.1.1   El Salvador (G/AG/ N/SLV/38, G/AG /N/SLV/41) .......................................................... 11 
2.1.2   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/16) ............................................................................. 11 
2.1.3   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/29) ...................................................................................... 11 
2.2   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5) ...................................... 11 G/AG/W/116 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.2.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/108) .......................................................................... 11 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 12 
2.3.1   Georgia (G/AG/N/GE O/11) ...................................................................................... 12 
2.3.2   Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/34) ................................................................................... 13 
2.3.3   India (G /AG/N/IN D/7) ............................................................................................ 13 
2.3.4   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ IDN/30, G/AG/N /IDN/34) ............................................................ 13 
2.3.5   Jordan (G/AG/N/JO R/16) ........................................................................................ 14 
2.3.6   Lesotho (G/AG/N/LS O/4) ........................................................................................ 15 
2.3.7   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/28) ...................................................................................... 15 
2.3.8   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/63) ................................................................................. 16 
2.3.9   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/89/REV.1,  G/AG/N/USA/93) ............................. 16 
2.3.10   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VN M/4) .................................................................................... 16 
2.3.11   Zambia (G/AG/N/ZM B/8) ...................................................................................... 18 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMEST IC SUPPORT MEASU RES (DS:2) .......................................... 19 
2.4.1   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/31) ......................................................................................... 19 
2.4.2   Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/35) ................................................................................... 19 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION S (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) ................................. 19 
2.5.1   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/3) ...................................................................................... 19 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 20  
3.1   Turkey .................................................................................................................. .. 20 
3.1.1   Question by the Euro pean Union (AG- IMS ID 72011)  .................................................. 20 
3.2   Viet Nam ................................................................................................................. 20 
3.2.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS 72031) ...................................................................... 20 
 
 
  G/AG/W/116 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1    Brazil's domestic support programmes 1.1.1    Question by United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID 72051) 
The United States of America appreciates Brazil 's response to the question on Prêmio para 
Escoamento do Produto (PEP) from the September 2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting 
(G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71028).  
a. What is the status of providing the requeste d information on the quantities shipped to 
specific domestic destinations as well as on the quantities by commodity exported under the programme? 
The United States of America recognizes that a similar programme, Prêmio de Equalização pago ao 
Produtor (PEPRO), was used extensively in recent years for corn. 
  
b. Please describe any difference in PEP and PEPRO, specifically those differences related to 
policy framework, eligibility criteria, and auction procedures. 
c. Please provide a list of auction destinations for corn through the PEPRO programme. 
d. Please provide the quantities of corn thro ugh the PEPRO programme by destination and 
by commodity for the last 5 years. 
1.2  Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule 
1.2.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72049) 
On 22 November 2013, Canada's lower house of parliament tabled  a "Ways and Means motion" to 
amend Canada's Customs Tariff Schedule to add a supplementary note affecting certain 
commercial "food preparations" that contain meat and cheese to Chapter 16 of its tariff schedule, to be effective retroactively to 29 November 2013.  The new supplementary note states: 
  
Where the components of food preparations of a type used commercially in the preparation of fresh food products for direct sale to a consumer include cheese, those components are to be classified separately, in their respective headings, regardless of 
their packaging. 
  Following the change, certain products under tariff subheading 1601.00.90 that previously entered 
Canada at a zero-duty rate would be subject, once the motion is made law, to a prohibitively high 
tariff.   
Since the proposed law is retroactive to November 2013, the motion itself has effectively stopped 
U.S. exports of certain products covered under the new supplementary note.  In addition, on 
2 December 2013, a Canadian importer received a notice from the Canada Border Services Agency stating that its 2006 Advance Ruling allowing its pizza topping product to be imported under 
Chapter 16 had been revoked, effective immediately.   The revocation referenced the motion, even 
though it has not yet been passed into law. 
  
a. Please explain the legal basis for the change to Canada's tariff schedule and provide a 
list of all relevant measures related to it. 
b. Please identify and explain the specific co mmercial products that Supplementary Note 2 
is intended to cover. 
c. Please provide information on historical im ports of the product(s) affected by the 
referenced Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16, and what the impact of the Parliamentary motion has been on imports of these products. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 5 - 
 
  d. Did Canada consult with any of its trading partners prior to proposing Supplementary 
Note 2 to Chapter 16?  If yes, please describe the nature of those consultations. 
e. Please describe the process and timeline, for amending Canada's tariff schedule, 
including its notification for and consultation process with trading partners. 
f. By using an effective date that is retroactive, the United States of America believes the 
measure immediately impacts trade negatively without any stakeholders' input.  Is there a purpose for using a retroactive date?  What is the intended effect of retroactive 
implementation? 
g. Is Canada currently enforcing Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16?  If yes, please 
describe how it is being enforced, i.e., how is Canada verifying the separate classification of the components of a food preparatio n in instances where the components are 
comingled or mixed together.  If it is not yet in force, please describe whether and how 
it intends to enforce Supplementary Note 2. 
h. In 2013, the Canada Border Services Agency revoked Tariff Classification Advance Ruling 
No. 218973 (an advanced ruling on a certain pizza topping product) citing 
Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16.  Please explain the legal basis and provide a list of 
all relevant measures regarding the revocation of this advance ruling. The United States 
of America understands that Supplementary No te 2 was not effective at the time of the 
revocation of Advance Ruling No. 218973.  Please explain the legal basis for revoking the advance ruling prior to the effective date of the Supplementary Note. 
i. Are importers now subject to increased tariffs as a result of Supplementary Note 2 to 
Chapter 16?  Has any importer appealed or so ught further review within Canada of the 
classification determination that resulted in the higher tariffs?  Please provide details on the application of the higher tariff rate on affected products, including the products 
covered and volume of trade concerned. 
j. Are there any further proposals to amend Canada's tariff schedule in a similar manner in 
the area of food preparations or other goods?  If the answer is yes, please identify and 
describe in detail those proposals.  Are there any proposals to amend the supplementary 
notes of any other chapter of Canada's tariff schedule to target cheese and/or dairy products in a similar fashion?  If the answer is yes, please identify and describe in detail those proposals. 
k. The U.S. traders have raised concerns with th e timing of the application of the measure. 
Would Canada consider revoking or delaying application of Supplementary Note 2? 
1.3  China's cotton domestic support 
1.3.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72052) 
The United States of America thanks China for its responses to questions regarding its cotton 
support programme from the September 2013 Committee meeting, and notes that China's last 
domestic support notification (from 13 October 2011 - G/AG/N/CHN/21) was through 2008. In that 
submission, China reported cotton-specific support  (seeds, reserves, transportation) accounting for 
RMB 2.8 billion or 2.5% of the value of cotton production in 2008. Since 2008, there has been increasing attention around the world on China's cotton policies, including substantial trade and 
other media. One theme is the growing and si gnificant impact on the global cotton supply 
equation. China has yet to submit domestic support notifications that include further information on the referenced price support programme. In this regard, the United States of America submits 
the following questions: 
 
a. China noted in its last response that it would be notifying domestic support shortly. 
Please provide an update on the intended ti meframe for China to notify domestic support 
notifications for recent years, in particular for years when cotton price support was applied. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 6 - 
 
  b. Please provide the Committee with specific information from its official website(s) on 
various subsidy measures associated with price support, including the legal mechanisms by which they are implemented, as well as updated data on the accumulation, 
maintenance, and distribution of cotton stocks since the programme's inception? 
c. The United States of America requests that China provide the Committee with a brief 
summary of China's analysis on the economic impact and effects of China's management of its sizable domestic cotton stocks on the world cotton market, taking into account the 
large role China plays in both global supply and demand of cotton. 
1.4  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 1.4.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72005) Canada would like to reiterate its appreciation of Costa Rica's commitment to transparency during 
the many discussions of its domestic support in this Committee and its willingness to engage 
openly with Members regarding the elimination of its market price support programme for rice.   
a. Could Costa Rica provide a status update regarding the domestic process underway and 
provide further information regarding remaining steps in eliminating its price support mechanism for rice? 
b. Could Costa Rica say if it still plans on meeting the deadline of 1 March 2014 for 
complete elimination of the mechanism? If not, what would be the new timeline? 
c. Considering Costa Rica's response to the questions raised by the United States of 
America at the 26 September 2013 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
(AG IMS ID 71030), could Costa Rica elaborate further on the functioning of the new 
marketing system for rice that will replace the price support mechanism? 
1.4.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72050) 
The United States of America thanks Costa Rica for regularly updating this Committee on its rice 
policies over the past several years during which time Costa Rica has notified an Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) well beyond its agreed limit.  In June 2013, Members learned that 
Costa Rica was changing its policies with the previous mechanism set to be eliminated by 1 March 
2014 and that an alternative mechanism would go into  effect on that date.  As of the September 
meeting of this Committee, Costa Rica had no t worked out the details of the alternative 
mechanism.  The United States of America notes Costa Rican media has reported that the 
elimination of the current policy is being delayed. 
 
a. Is Costa Rica delaying the elimination of the price support mechanism that has resulted 
in Costa Rica exceeding its AMS limit? 
b. If there is a delay, when will the current mechanism be eliminated?  What are the 
reasons for the delay in eliminating the programme? 
With respect to the alternative mechanism that the United States of America understands is to be 
introduced, the United States of America repeats the specific questions asked in September (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71030) when Costa Rica was not yet ready to fully respond:   
c. Please provide the status/details of the new policy including steps taken toward its 
implementation? 
d. Specifically, what will be the role of the Government of Costa Rica, particularly in 
comparison to other organizations' role , in conducting the new rice policy? 
e.  Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system? 
f. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying them to 
the WTO? G/AG/W/116 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.5  Ecuador's import licensing of certain agricultural products 
1.5.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72053) 
In Ecuador's recent notification to the WTO Import Licensing Committee (G/LIC/Q/ECU/4) relating 
to Resolution 102 and 299-A, Ecuador states that "there are times when factors external to 
national production which have an influence on quality of products, such as enormous amounts of 
domestic support for production and export subsidies, make it necessary to count imports outside national harvest periods for these producers". Given that most, if not all, of these references are 
related to agricultural products, could Ecuador please clarify what it means by this statement? 
1.6  Egypt's export restriction on rice 1.6.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72054) 
The United States of America notes trade and press reports that Egypt implemented an export ban 
on rice in 2013. 
  
a. Please confirm whether Egypt implemented such an export restriction or ban. 
b. If Egypt implemented a restriction, please confirm via provision of relevant, recent trade 
data that Egypt is or is not a net-food  exporter of this specific foodstuff. 
c. If confirmed as a net-food exporter for the relevant product, please indicate when Egypt 
intends to submit an export restriction notification. 
1.7  European Union's levy on fruits and vegetables 
1.7.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72007) Canada understands that France imposes an ad-valorem levy on fruits and vegetables. Through a 
decree on 26 March 2013, this ad-valorem fee was extended. Canadian stakeholders have raised 
concerns with this programme. (source: http ://formulaires.agriculture.gouv.fr/3046-INTERFEL-
Accord-cotisation-ad). Could the European Union provide additional details on how this ad-valorem 
fee is applied? 
  
a. What products are subject to the levy? (i.e . are all bananas and potatoes exempted, or 
only processed products?) 
b. Is the levy applied equally to fruits and ve getables from all sources (domestic, EU 
member state, non-EU members)? 
c. How is the levy applied for non-EU and EU suppliers compared to French suppliers? 
d. What is the total amount collected under this levy? (Total for the programme as well as 
total amount by filler) 
e. The rate is identified as being levied at a maximum of 0.6%. Is the same rate applied at 
every level of the value chain? If not, what rate is applied at each level? 
f. Support funded through this programme is identified as 80% towards generic 
promotions and 20% towards quality control. What level of the value chain receives this 
support, in particular the "quality control". (e.g. producers, transport, and wholesale 
level) 
g. Does the European Union notify this progra mme? If so, please identify where. (Canada 
recognizes that it may be a component of an aggregated measure) G/AG/W/116 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.8  European Union's sugar production levies 
1.8.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72006) According to media reports, an EU Court of Justice ruling on 27 September 2012 in joint cases 
C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10, annulled in its entirety Commission Regulation (EC) 
No. 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 that retroactively corrected the sugar production levies for the 
2001-2006 marketing years. Following this ruling, Canada understands from media reports that EU 
member states' experts have reached an agreement on the rules for fixing retroactively the sugar 
production levies for the 2001-2006 marketing year s; resulting in the reimbursement of nearly 
350 million euros (including interest) to individu al sugar producers and beet growers across the 
European Union. Can the European Union provide background information on the programme:   
a. At what level were the production levies set during this period? 
b. At what level should the levies have been set (i.e. at what level did the EU member 
states' experts determine the levies should have been set)? 
c. What was the reason for the inaccuracy? Ca n the European Union provide additional 
details on the process going forward: 
i. What was the interest rate used to determine what compensatory interest was owed? 
ii. How many producers will receive the payment? 
iii. Which member states will be covered by the payment? 
iv. How does the European Union plan to ensure that the correct producers are receiving 
the payments (i.e. what eligibility criteria are used)? 
v. When will producers receive their payments? 
1.9  India's rice exports 1.9.1  Question by Pakistan (AG-IMS ID 72059) 
According to the information available on Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export 
Development Authority (APEDA) non-basmati rice cons titutes 60-65% of Indian rice exports. India 
emerged as the biggest exporter of rice in financial year 2012-2013 with rice exports of 
approximately 9-10 million tonnes. 
 
a. Could India please provide/verify the total figu re of its exports of rice in the last two 
years? 
b. According to Food Corporation of India, all Gr ade A rice varieties are eligible for market 
price support, do all non-Basmati rice varieties qualify as grade A? 
1.10  India's wheat stocks and exports 
1.10.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72008) 
As a wheat exporter Canada has a commercial interest in media reports that India will be 
exporting up to 20 lakh tonnes (2 million metric tonnes) of wheat due to surplus stocks from the 
Food Corporation of India. The reports indicate that the Government of India has lowered the floor 
price for this wheat to $260 per tonne from $300 per tonne which is lower than the price of the same quality wheat from Canada (and other countries) sold in the range of $270 to $275 per tonne. 
  
a. Could India elaborate as to the volume of wheat stocks held by the Food Corporation of 
India? G/AG/W/116 
 
- 9 - 
 
  b. How does India determine the floor price for wheat exports? 
1.11  Japan's new agricultural policy 1.11.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72009) At the 7 October 2013 Ministerial Meeting on International Food Prices, Japan indicated that it had 
a new policy on agriculture called Aggressive Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Canada 
understands that this policy aims to develop new markets for Japanese agricultural products, to establish value chains for farmers and to increase the size of agriculture holdings by consolidating 
farmland. Could Japan provide more details as to how existing small scale land holdings will be 
consolidated?  1.12  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.12.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72055) 
The United States of America resubmits its questions to Saint-Lucia since no response has been 
received to date from questions posed at the September 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 
71032). The United States of America understands, as indicated by industry sources, that Saint-
Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for po ultry increased on 29 October 2012 from 25% to 
33%. The United States of America also understands that there is a domestic purchase 
requirement set at approximately 67% for pork. 
 
a. Please identify where these requirem ents are documented and published. 
b. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Saint-Lucia's laws and regulations) for these domestic 
purchase requirements? 
c. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Saint-Lucia's laws and regulations) for the increased 
domestic purchase requirement for poultry that was notified by letter to poultry 
importers on 29 October 2012? 
d. Where was the domestic notification publicly published? 
e. Does Saint-Lucia intend to submit notifications to the WTO related to poultry or pork 
market arrangements, domestic purchase requirements and/or import licensing 
requirements? 
1.13  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72010) 
Canada appreciates Thailand's participation in informal consultations on this issue. However, 
Canada regrets that its questions to Thailand on its Paddy Pledging Scheme from the March 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031), the June 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/111, AG IMS ID 
70017) and the September 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/115, AG IMS ID 71018) remain 
unanswered.  Could Thailand please provide an estimate of government expenditures related to the purchase of rice under the Paddy Pledging Scheme? 
1.13.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72056) 
The United States of America notes that Thai rice prices have declined dramatically in 2013. 
Further, Thailand has gone from the highest-priced  supplier to one of the lowest over the past two 
years. In AG-IMS-ID 71033 Thailand indicated that it was taking measures to minimize the impact 
on markets of its release of government rice stocks. Press reports in Thailand have also indicated 
that Thailand has sold rice at below market prices. 
a. What factors have contributed to this dramatic decline in Thailand's export prices? G/AG/W/116 
 
- 10 - 
 
  b. Has Thailand evaluated whether it needs to take any additional steps to minimize the 
impact of its stock releases on markets, including displacing exports of other countries due to its low prices? 
c. Press reports in Thailand note that even at these low prices, Thailand is finding it difficult 
to find buyers for its rice and is simultaneously under pressure to sell stocks in order to 
fund its rice subsidy programme, which is currently late in making payments to its producers. Given the current situation, what, if  any, changes does Thailand plan to make 
to its rice pledging scheme to address these concerns? 
d. Please provide an update on the following aspects of Thailand's rice pledging scheme. 
i. How much rice has been procured by the government in the current crop year? 
ii. How much rice does Thailand curre ntly have in government stocks? 
iii. What is the current support price for rice in Thailand? 
iv. What is the support price for the upcoming rice crop year? 
e. Thailand last made a domestic support notification for the year 2007. Thailand's rice 
domestic support has undergone several reforms since that time and is much different 
today than it was seven years ago. The United States of America notes this significant delay in notifications. Given Thailand's major role in the global rice market, the United 
States of America requests an update as to when Members can expect Thailand to come 
into compliance with its notifications requirements. 
1.14  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 1.14.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 72057) 
During the 26 September 2013 Committee on Agriculture, the United States of America requested 
that Turkey provide information on the destination, whether for export and/or for the domestic market, of the flour made from Turkish Grain Board (TMO) wheat sales (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 
71034). In response, Turkey provided data on sales to export markets, but not domestic sales. To 
better understand the operational aspects of the TM O, which is understood to be a state trading 
enterprise, please provide further information: 
  
a. Please confirm and explain TMO's legal authority to trade, specifically with regard to 
imports into and exports from Turkey; 
b. Please confirm and explain TMO's legal authority to buy and sell on the domestic market; 
c. Please elaborate on TMO's ability to purchase under inward processing schemes; 
d. Please provide information outlining the TMO's activity with regards to: 
i. Domestic sales of imported wheat 
ii. Domestic sales of flour made from imported wheat 
iii. Quality requirements/specifications for such purchasing wheat (from any source) 
iv. Quality requirements/specifications for domestic sales of such wheat/flour 
e. Please provide information regarding any assistance Turkey provides for the financing of 
flour exports. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 2.1.1  El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38, G/AG/N/SLV/41) AG-IMS ID 72012: Question by European Union – Transparency issues 
The commitments of El Salvador comprise eleven  bound tariff quotas, while the notification for 
2011 and 2012 includes only one of them. The European Union would like to request El Salvador to include all bound tariff quotas in the notifications as a matter of transparency. This request was 
also raised at the 66
th meeting of the Committee in June 2012 (paragraph 23 of G/AG/W/96 
refers) and at the 71st meeting of the Committee in September 2013 (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 
71026). 
2.1.2  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/16) 
AG-IMS ID 72013: Question by Australia – Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes that a substantial number of the European Union's quotas were significantly under 
filled. Could the European Union explain why these tariff quotas have had very low tariff fill rates 
over a number of years? 
  In particular, Australia notes from the  European Union's  WTO notifications 2012 (and also 2011) 
that the  European Union's  annual quota for brown rice has not been filled. Indeed, in 2011 only 6 
per cent of this quota was filled and in 2012 ther e were no imports under this quota. Can the  
European Union please explain the specific reasons for underfill on this quota. 
2.1.3  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/29) 
AG-IMS ID 72015: Question by European Union – Transparency issues 
The European Union appreciates Panama's high degr ee of transparency in the MA:2 notification 
and welcomes the information on single tariff lines as well as on total imports during the period. 
However, it is not clear what the letter "c" means in the two right columns. 
AG-IMS ID 72014: Question by Australia – Tariff quota fill Australia notes that several quotas were significantly under filled, particularly the quota for bean 
(0713.33.30). Panama has previously explained that  even though the tender process was opened, 
there was no transaction due to there being no seller, no buyer, or the transaction being void. Could Panama explain in more detail the reasons why the quota is under filled, especially given that there were significant out-of-quota imports? Does the out-of-quota trade occur under 
preferential trade agreements? 
AG-IMS ID 72060: Question by Switzerland – Tariff quota fill Switzerland has noted that some of Panama's tariff quotas have fairly low fill rates for 2012. Could 
Panama please explain the reasons for these low fill rates, in particular for certain milk products 
(e.g. 0401.10)? 
2.2  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5) 
2.2.1  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/108) 
AG-IMS ID 72034: Question by United St ates of America – Trigger calculations 
The United States of America notes that in  this safeguard notification 2012 import and 
consumption data was excluded in the trigger level calculations on poultry offal. Could Chinese 
Taipei provide a detailed rationale for this omission? G/AG/W/116 
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/11) AG-IMS ID 72016: Question by Australia – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Australia notes that a number of Georgia's domestic support programmes appear to be 
new. These include: 
 Paragraph 2(d): "Intensification of Agricultural Production", "Promotion of Modern 
technologies" and "Development of Viticulture" programmes" 
 Paragraph 2(f): "Measures for Promotion of Georgian Agriculture Products, Wine and 
Kitchen" 
 Paragraph 2(g): "Agricultural Support Program" and "Rehabilitation of Amelioration 
System" 
 Paragraph 6: "Support of Agricultural Land Utilization in Regions" 
Georgia does not appear to have provided the required Table DS:2 notifications for these 
programmes. Could Georgia advise when it is planning to do this? 
b. Similarly, could Georgia clarify whether its previously notified "Rural development 
programme in regions" still exists, and if so, whether it should be included in this notification? 
c. Could Georgia clarify whether the programme notified under paragraph 2(b) "Epizootic 
Reliability" is a new name for the previously notified "Anti-Epizootic Measures", or a new programme? Similarly, is the programme notified under paragraph 2(e) "State Control of Food Safety" a new name for the previously no tified "Food Stuff Laboratory Testing", or 
a new programme? 
AG-IMS ID 72017: Question by Canada –Tra nsparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
In 2012, Georgia's expenditures under "Measure s exempt from the reduction commitment – Green 
Box" (Supporting Table DS:1) have increased considerably when compared to previous years. A 
majority of expenditures and most of the increase in spending are attributable to measures related to the "Intensification of Agricultural producti on" and "Renewal of Agrarian Machinery" under 
paragraph 2 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture. 
  
a. A significant amount of decoupled income support was also provided when compared to 
previous years. Could Georgia provide more details as to the nature of the measures 
listed in Supporting Table DS:1, their consistency with Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture, paragraphs 2 and 6, and the reason for the significant increase in spending? 
b. Canada notes that "Intensification of Agricultural production", "Promotion of Modern 
technologies", and "Development of Viticulture" appear to be new programmes notified 
under Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture, however there is no information to explain these programmes and how they meet the criteria of Annex 2. Could Georgia 
indicate when it plans to submit a Table DS:2 notification for these measures as well as 
those from previous notifications? 
AG-IMS ID 72018: Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
a. Could Georgia please explain the reasons behind the considerable increase in its Green 
Box expenditure from 2011 to 2012? G/AG/W/116 
 
- 13 - 
 
  b. Is the Green Box expenditure financed only through the national budget? If not, could 
Georgia please provide separate figures for the measures financed through the national budget and the ones financed through different sources? 
AG-IMS ID 72020: Question by European Union – General services: extension and 
advisory services 
Could Georgia please provide more details about the programme called "Intensification of 
Agricultural production" notified under General Services (paragraph 2(d) of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture)? 
AG-IMS ID 72001: Question by New Zealand – General services: infrastructural services 
In G/AG/N/GEO/11 Georgia notified Domestic Support commitment of GEL13,850,000 for 
"Rehabilitation of Amelioration System". Could Georgia please clarify what constitutes 
"rehabilitation of amelioration system"? 
AG-IMS ID 72019: Question by European Union – Direct payments: decoupled income 
support 
In the absence of a Table DS:2 notification, coul d Georgia please provide more details about the 
programme called "Support of Agriculture Land Ut ilization in Regions" notified under decoupled 
income support (paragraph 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture)? 
2.3.2  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/34) 
AG-IMS ID 72021: Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
Honduras' Supporting Tables DS:1 and DS:2 are almost identical for the two years 2009/10 and 
2010/11. Could Honduras please confirm that the figures are correct for both years? 
2.3.3  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) AG-IMS ID 72004: Question by Pakistan – Non-product-specific AMS 
India's notifications from 1995 to 2003 indicate that non-product-specific AMS which was reported 
only in 1995 has now been reported under Article 6.2. When will India report its non-product-specific AMS for 1996-2003? Is India planning to revise its notification for these years to indicate 
non-product-specific AMS (10% of total value of production/de minimis) in the relevant supporting 
table (Supporting Table DS:9) as it was notified in 1995? 
2.3.4  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30, G/AG/N/IDN/34) AG-IMS ID 72035: Question by United Stat es of America – General services: other 
In response to AG-IMS ID 70025 and AG-IMS ID 71039, Indonesia noted that in 2012 the 
government spent IDR 601 billion in subsidizing loans. Please indicate how Indonesia accounts for this support in previous years' notifications. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 14 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 72036: Question by United States of America – Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
The United States of America appreciates Indonesia's response (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71031) 
to the United States of America's questions, and repeats the questions since Indonesia has not 
notified Supporting Tables DS:4 and DS:5, nor submitted a revision to its notification for 
administered prices during 2001-2004. Could Indo nesia please explain and provide further clarity 
regarding these policies, notification information and responses in the Committee in light of the 
following points: 
 
a. The United States of America notes that Indonesia states that stocks are procured at 
administered prices, which take market prices into account (G/AG/W/111, AG-
IMS ID 70026). 
b. The United States of America also notes that Indonesia has not provided a Supporting 
Table DS:4 nor Supporting Table DS:5 to account for the use of administered prices per 
footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
c. Further, the United States of America understands Indonesia's response to part (b) of 
AG-IMS ID 70031 to state that no administered price was reported after 2001 due to 
Indonesia's procurement being for buffer stock operations. This appears to be 
inconsistent with the aforementioned footnote 5. 
2.3.5  Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/16) AG-IMS ID 72037: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America is interested to understand how Jordan defines "low-income or 
resource-poor producers" with regards to its input subsidies programme. 
  
a. Does Jordan have a specific standing definition used to provide the associated support 
benefits to some agriculture producers and not to others? 
b. If so, how long has this definition been employed? 
c. Also if such a definition is used, could Jordan kindly share a reference to where this can 
be found and further reviewed? 
d. Could Jordan provide a general sense of what percentage of agricultural producers meet 
the existing policy as applied in Jordan and any recent trends in the change of the 
percentage of agricultural producers benefiting? 
AG-IMS ID 72027: Question by Austra lia – Excessive rates of inflation 
Australia notes that Jordan's notification - without adjustment for inflation - results in an AMS in 
excess of Jordan's domestic support commitment levels. Australia welcomes Jordan's efforts to comply with its notification obligations, as well as its commitment to transparency in making this 
notification. Australia acknowledges the requir ements of Article 18.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, however, Australia also reiterates it s concerns about unilateral adjustment of figures. 
Australia sees no basis for this in Article 18.4 an d is of the view that this is not necessary for 
Article 18.4 to be utilised. Australia requests fu rther background information on Jordan's market 
price support programme and in particular, the methodology used in calculating the applied 
administered price. Australia also seeks to under stand Jordan's views about excessive inflation. 
Australia anticipates that this will help inform broader discussions about Article 18.4. 
AG-IMS ID 72028: Question by Canada – Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada appreciates Jordan's commitment to transparency in providing both unadjusted and 
adjusted numbers in its notification to the Committee for its review and consideration of the 
influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of Jordan to abide by its domestic support G/AG/W/116 
 
- 15 - 
 
  commitments. The basis of the Committee's due consideration of the application of Article 18.4 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture is a Member's annual domestic support notification, thus it stands to reason that the Committee considers the rate of excessive inflation for the year of the notification.   
Canada notes that the footnote in Supporting Table DS:5 for 2009 says, "The inflation rate in 2009 
was 68% based on average consumer price from 1997 – 2009 (Jordan Central Bank, Statistics Department)", and the footnote in Supporting Table DS:5 for 2010 says, "The inflation rate in 
2010 was 67.3% based on average consumer pr ice from 1997 to 2010 (Jordan Central Bank, 
Statistics Department)".   
a. Could Jordan elaborate on the reasons why it believes inflation adjustments could be 
based on an accumulation of inflation from 1997 to 2009 and 1997 to 2010 and not on a 
year-to-year basis? 
b. According to World Bank data, over the 1997 to 2010 period, Jordan's inflation rate was 
of 3.60% per year on average. Could Jordan  provide additional information, including 
information on major macroeconomic factors or shocks that might have led to excessive inflation (e.g., financial crisis, monetary policies implemented, volatile exchange rates), 
annualized consumer price index data covering the period (1997-2010) and other similar 
considerations, to allow the Committee to better understand its particular circumstances with regards to excessive inflation for the years 2009 and 2010? 
c. Could Jordan give further information which would explain the decrease in administered 
prices for wheat and barley in and 2009 and 2010 when compared to 2008 prices, while 
it is claiming excessive inflation? 
2.3.6  Lesotho (G/AG/N/LSO/4) 
AG-IMS ID 72038: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America greatly appreciates Lesotho's timely notification of its domestic 
support. 
  
a. Does Lesotho have a specific standing definition used to provide the associated support 
benefits to some agriculture producers and not to others? 
b. If so, how long has this definition been employed? 
c. Also if such a definition is used, could Lesotho kindly share a reference to where this can 
be found and further reviewed? 
d. Could Lesotho provide a general sense of what percentage of agricultural producers 
meet the existing policy as applied in Lesotho and any recent trends in the change of the percentage of agricultural producers benefiting from the policy. 
2.3.7  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 72039: Question by United States  of America – General services: training 
services 
The United States of America notes that, as with previous notifications highlighted in 
AG-IMS ID 69076, the description of "Subsistence farming and sustainable agriculture 
programmes, including crop promotion, use of accessible technology and environmental protection" and "Farming promotion and technological development programmes" differs in 
G/AG/N/PAN/28. 
  
a. It is the U.S.' understanding from Panama's response in AG-IMS ID 69076 that there 
was a legislative change. Please confirm this is also the case for the current notification 
compared to the previous year. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 16 - 
 
  b. If so, please indicate when Panama will subm it a Table DS:2 notification to explain these 
changes. 
2.3.8  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/63) AG-IMS ID 72002: Question by New Zealand – Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes 
In G/AG/N/CHE/63 Switzerland notified Domestic Support commitment of CHF 352 million for 
payments for herding animals under difficult conditions. Could Switzerland explain what animals 
this support relates to and what constitute s difficult conditions for herding animals? 
AG-IMS ID 72029: Question by European Union – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Could Switzerland please explain how the budget for "guarantee stocks - concentrated fruit juice" 
(included in Supporting Table DS:7 for cider apples and cider pears) is spent? Is it the cost for 
maintaining the stocks? 
2.3.9  United States of America (G /AG/N/USA/89/REV.1, G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 72025: Question by Ca nada – Non-product-specific AMS 
Regarding the programme "Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE)" in Supporting 
Table DS:9:  
a. Under notifications G/AG/N/USA/89.Rev.1 the United States of America revised its 
notified support under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) upwards from US$395.017 million to US$524.633 million. Can the United States of America provide additional details on why the notified support increased? 
b. Notified support under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) grew 
significantly between 2010 and 2011 to US$1,442.390 million – a 175% increase. Could the United States of America provide additi onal details on why the notified support 
increased to such an extent? 
AG-IMS ID 72026: Question by Ca nada – Non-product-specific AMS 
The Rural Energy for America Programme (formerly Renewable Energy Programme) is now more 
correctly classified as non-product specific support and outlays have increased by almost 40% 
from US$60 million in 2010 to US$83 million in 2011. Could the United States of America explain the increase in outlays for this programme? 
2.3.10  Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/4) 
AG-IMS ID 72041: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciates Vietnam submitting its first domestic support notification 
for 2007 and 2008 and looks forward to reviewing subsequent notifications. 
 
a. In the case of sugar, did the Government of  Vietnam subsidize the losses of sugar mills 
in 2007 and 2008 (whether government-owned or controlled or private mills)? 
b. If so, at what value? 
c. Did the Government of Vietnam provide loans at below-market interest rates to sugar 
mills? 
d. If so, at what value? G/AG/W/116 
 
- 17 - 
 
  e. Did the Government of Vietnam include these support programmes into G/AG/N/VNM/4? 
AG-IMS ID 72042: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Many of the subsidy programmes notified by Viet nam in Supporting Tables DS:1, DS:2, and DS:9 
have data sources at both the national and provincial level. Some Members, which have 
involvement of provincial governments in providing domestic support, notify separate values (i.e., national and provincial) for each notified programme. 
 
a. Please specify if and how provincial governments are involved in the funding, 
implementation and monitoring of domestic support programmes in Vietnam. 
b. Has Vietnam considered providing separate value data, especially if provincial 
governments do in fact monitor and implement their own programmes? 
AG-IMS ID 72043: Question by United States  of America – General services: pest and 
disease control 
Vietnam notifies the "provision of vaccines" under "Pest and disease control". Please specify how 
the provision of vaccines occurs and how it meets the criteria of paragraph 2 (b) in Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture. 
AG-IMS ID 72030: Question by Australia – Public stockholding for food security 
purposes 
Australia acknowledges Vietnam as the newest member of the Cairns Group and welcomes 
Vietnam's domestic support notification to the Committee on Agriculture. Can Vietnam please 
provide advice about whether or not its purchases for stockholding programmes are made at 
current market prices? 
AG-IMS ID 72024: Question by Canada – Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
a. Canada notes that expenditures for public stockholding for food security purposes 
increased four-fold from VND 414.40 billion in 2007 to VND 1,681.60 billion in 2008. Could Vietnam elaborate on the conditions that resulted in the increased purchase of rice 
for public stockholding? 
b. Could Vietnam provide additional information as to the volumes of food stocks purchased 
for public stockholding and how these compare to pre-determined targets? 
c. Could Vietnam provide information as to whether these food stocks acquired in 2007 and 
in 2008 have been released? And if so, in which year(s) were the stocks released, what 
volume was released and at what price? 
AG-IMS ID 72044: Question by United States  of America – Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes 
Please provide more specific details as to what Vietnam's "Environmental programmes" are and 
how they are implemented, including how they meet the criteria of paragraph 12 in Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
AG-IMS ID 72045: Question by United Stat es of America – Direct payments: other 
Vietnam notifies "Program 134 (policies to support production land, etc…)".  Please provide more 
detail with regards to how this programme is implemented. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 18 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 72032: Question by Canada – In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Canada notes that the explanatory note in Supporting Tables DS:2 includes a reference to freight 
subsidies for the transport of "policy commodities and production inputs" to mountainous and 
remote regions. Could Vietnam provide information as to which commodities and types of 
production inputs are covered under this measure? 
AG-IMS ID 72046: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producer 
Vietnam notifies both short term soft loans and budget allocations under "input subsidies generally 
available to low-income and resource-poor producers". Please provide a breakdown of the monetary value for the soft loans and for the budget allocations. 
AG-IMS ID 72033: Question by Canada – Su pport to encourage diversification from 
growing illicit narcotic crops 
Regarding measures to "encourage diversification from growing illicit narcotic crops" in Supporting 
Table DS:2, could Vietnam provide additional information as to which alternate crops are being 
planted in these regions? 
AG-IMS ID 72047: Question by United Stat es of America – Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
The United States of America understands that the goal of the Vietnamese Food Association (VFA), 
under the direction of the Prime Minister, is to b oost national rice production. The VFA establishes 
a guaranteed purchase price for paddy rice, which was VND 3,500 per kilogram in MY 2008 and 
has risen since then. Further the Vietnam State Bank pays the interest, for 3 months, to 
commercial banks that give loans to VFA's members who participate in the programme.  It is noted that Vietnam notifies support prices fo r rice seeds, but not for paddy rice. 
 
a. Please explain how paddy rice price supports are accounted for in Vietnam's notification.  
b. Does the "Preferential interest rates to pu rchase agricultural products" represent the 
interest paid by the Vietnam State Bank? 
2.3.11  Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/8) AG-IMS ID 72040: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciates Zambia submitting its domestic support notification. 
According to the U.S. understanding of the current agricultural notification guidelines least-developed Members should submit Supporting Tables DS1: to DS3 every two years. However, all 
Members should provide an annual Summary Table DS:1 as well as the Supporting Tables DS:1 to 
DS:3 when notifications do occur every two years for least developing.  
The United States of America recognizes that this understanding may not be widely practiced. 
However, available and consistent data for all years, including the "off-years", appears to be 
important for domestic policy decision-makers as well as international observers.   
a. To this end the United States of America requests that Zambia provide the Summary 
Table DS:1 and the Supporting Tables DS:1 to DS:3 for the years not yet covered in this notification(2005, 2007, 2009, 2011). 
b. The United States of America also notes that Zambia has not notified support from 1999-
2003. Would Zambia be in a position to notify for these years as well? G/AG/W/116 
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTI C SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.4.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/31) AG-IMS ID 72003: Question by Pakistan – Domestic food aid 
Pakistan appreciates Brazil's efforts to increase transparency and information sharing. Could Brazil 
inform about the mode of acquisition of products at current market prices from family farms? Is it 
through tender? 
2.4.2  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/35) 
AG-IMS ID 72022: Question by Australia – General services: marketing and promotion 
services 
Australia appreciates the opportunity provided by Honduras' notifications to the Committee on 
Agriculture to learn further about its Poverty Reduction Strategy through engagement in the rural 
and farm sector. Australia welcomes in particular Honduras' emphasis on non-production and trade 
distorting Green box measures to increase agricultural production and productivity including through support for small and medium-scale farming enterprises. To further Australia's 
understanding of this programme Australia requests Honduras provide more information about the 
specific elements of its PYMERURAL in creating jobs and income in rural areas. 
AG-IMS ID 72058: Question by European Union - General services: marketing and 
promotion services 
Could Honduras please provide more details ab out the programme called PYMERURAL notified 
under General Services in paragraph 2(f) of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture)? How is the programme implemented? 
 
AG-IMS ID 72023: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture 
Could Honduras please provide more details about the programme called "Productive Solidarity 
Voucher" notified under Article 6.2 of the Ag reement on Agriculture? How is the programme 
implemented? 
 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.5.1  Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/3) AG-IMS ID 72048: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
The United States of America appreciates Vietnam submitting its first export subsidy notification. 
According to this notification, Vietnam "provided no export subsidies to the agricultural products during the calendar years 2007 to 2012". The United States of America understands that Vietnam 
operates at least one programme aimed at facilit ating rice exports under the rice price support 
programme.  
a. Please provide information about the programme that offers interest-free, three-month 
loans to Vietnam Food Association (VFA) members who purchase rice at the price support level. 
b. Can millers who participate in this loan programme sell the rice domestically or are they 
obligated to export the procured rice? 
c. The United States of America understands that Vietnam provides a value added tax 
(VAT) refund to some agricultural products under the condition that these products are 
exported. Please provide information about this programme including the legal 
framework, a list of eligible products for VAT refund, and procedures for receiving the 
VAT refund. G/AG/W/116 
 
- 20 - 
 
  3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Turkey 3.1.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 72011) As already raised at the 70
th meeting of the Committee in June 2013, the European Union would 
like to know when Turkey intends to present its overdue notifications to the WTO. 
3.2  Viet Nam 3.2.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS 72031) 
Australia acknowledges Vietnam as the newest member of the Cairns Group and welcomes 
Vietnam's domestic support notification to the Committee on Agriculture. Can Vietnam please provide advice on its plans to provide further updated notifications consistent with its reporting requirements? 
 
 
__________