G/AG/W/158  
 
28 October 2016  
(16-5949) Page: 1/23 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 9-10 NOVEMBER 20161 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
25 October  2016, as specified in  WTO/AIR/AG/15 . 
 
_______________  
 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Mem bers or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONT ENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  4 
1.1   Canada's market price support for dairy products  ................................ ............................  4 
1.1.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82058)  ................................ ..............................  4 
1.2   EU intervention programmes  ................................ ................................ .........................  4 
1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82023)  ................................ ................................ .... 4 
1.3   Greek coffee tax  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  4 
1.3.1    Question by Viet Nam  (AG-IMS ID 82003)  ................................ ................................ ... 4 
1.4   India's export subsidies for onions  ................................ ................................ .................  5 
1.4.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82032)  ................................ ....................  5 
1.5   India's minimum support price for Kharif crops ................................ ................................  5 
1.5.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 82005)  ................................ ........................  5 
1.6   India's export restriction on sugar  ................................ ................................ .................  6 
1.6.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82033)  ................................ ....................  6 
1.7   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82013)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.7.2    Questio n by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82059)  ................................ ..............................  6 
1.7.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82012) and the United States (AG -IMS 
ID 82001)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 
1.8   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .............................  8 
1.8.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82057)  ................................ ..............................  8 
1.8.2    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 82002)  ................................ ........................  8 
1.9   European Union's agriculture policies  ................................ ................................ .............  8 
1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82027)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.9.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82028)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.10   India's importation of apples  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
1.10.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82060)  ................................ ............................  9 
1.11   India's new crop insurance scheme  ................................ ................................ ..............  9 
1.11.1    Question by t he European Union (AG -IMS ID 82031)  ................................ ...................  9 
1.12   India's sugar export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82024)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.13   Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs ................................ ................................ ....10 
1.13.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82062)  ................................ ........................... 10 
1.14   U.S. purchase of cheese stock  ................................ ................................ .................... 10 
1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82025)  ................................ ................................ .10 
1.14.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 82061)  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.15   U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  ............................. 11 
1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82026)  ................................ ................................ .11 
1.16   Argentina's tax policies  ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 G/AG/W/158  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 82041)  ................................ ................................ ...11 
1.17   China's regional assistance programmes  ................................ ................................ ......12 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82014)  ................................ ................................ .12 
1.18   Turkey's domestic support policies  ................................ ................................ .............. 12 
1.18.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 82056)  ................................ ................................ ...12 
1.19   Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising the use of domestic dairy  ................................ .13 
1.19.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82067)  ................................ ........................... 13 
1.20   Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  ................................ ................................ 13 
1.20.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82030)  ................................ .................. 13 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  13 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ............... 13 
2.1.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/31)  ................................ ................................ ............... 13 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 14 
2.2.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/30)  ................................ ................................ ............... 14 
2.2.2    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/81)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 14 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1 ) ................................ ........................ 15 
2.3.1    Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/1)  ................................ ................................ .................... 15 
2.3.2    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/35)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 15 
2.3.3    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 16 
2.3.4    Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/53)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 
2.3.5    Norway  (G/AG/N/NOR/90)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 
2.3.6    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/39)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 
2.3.7    Paraguay  (G/AG/N/PRY/24)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 
2.3.8   South  Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/88)  ................................ ................................ .................. 19 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ........ 21 
2.4.1    Afghanistan (G/ AG/N/AFG/2)  ................................ ................................ .................... 21 
2.4.2    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/89)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 21 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  21 
3.1   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 21 
3.1.1    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 21 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  22 
4.1.1    Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 22 
4.1.2    European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......22 
4.1.3    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 22 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  23 
5.1   New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 23 
  
 G/AG/W/158  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTAT ION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  Canada's market price support for dairy products  
1.1.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82058)  
In response to New Zealand 's question of Canada at the 81st Committee on Agriculture on 
domestic support  (AG-IMS ID 81023) , Canada s aid that it only reports support prices for butter 
and skim milk powder (SMP) at the federal level. Can Canada explain why it does not include 
market price support provided at the provincial level given all milk produced in Canada, with the 
exception of th at exported under export subsidy commitments or sold as animal feed, receives the 
benefit of supported domestic prices?  
 
1.2  EU intervention programmes  
1.2.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82023)  
Australia notes the positive direction of reform in the European Un ion on domestic support. 
Australia is trying to ascertain the impact of some of the "intervention" programmes in the 
European Union. Accordingly, Australia would be grateful if the European Union could provide the 
following information:  
 
a. Which products ar e eligible for intervention programmes?  
b. What are the volume and value of relevant commodities that have been purchased 
through intervention programmes in years (or marketing years) covering 2013, 2014, 
and 2015?  
c. What prices were these commodities purchas ed for? Could the European Union please 
provide details for average purchase prices per commodity for the years (or marketing 
years) 2013, 2014, and 2015?  
d. What was the total value of production and total volume of production for commodities 
purchased unde r intervention program mes for the years (or marketing  years) 2013, 
2014, and 2015?  
1.3  Greek coffee tax  
1.3.1   Question by Viet Nam (AG -IMS ID 82003)  
On 1 January 2017, a WTO -inconsistent tax on coffee is scheduled to enter into force in Greece. 
This tax is an imper missible "other duty or charge ", adopted in violation of the obligations of 
Greece and the European Union under Articles II:1(b) and II:1(a) of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade ( "GATT ") 1994.  
 
The tax was included in a comprehensive austerity Bi ll passe d by the Greek Parliament on 
22 May 2016. The tax will be imposed on various categories of coffee, at a rate ranging from 
EUR 2 to EUR  4 per kg net weight. Viet Nam is a major exporter of non -roasted coffee to Greece, 
and will be directly impacted by this new, WTO -inconsistent measure.  
 
The new coffee tax violates Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because the deadline to inscribe 
"other duties or charges " in the EU 's Tariff Schedule expired on 15 April 1994. The new Greek 
coffee tax was clearly not i nscribed in the EU 's Tariff Schedule at that time, and so it cannot validly 
be imposed on imported coffee in 2017.  
 
As the coffee tax violates the WTO obligations of Greece and the European Union under 
GATT  Article II:1(b), it also consequentially violates  GATT Article II:1(a), as it provides less 
favourable treatment to imported coffee than that set out in the EU 's Tariff Schedule.  
 
It should also be stressed that this coffee tax is not a "charge equivalent to an internal tax " within 
the meaning of GATT Ar ticle II:2(a). As a threshold matter, the Greek tax could not be considered G/AG/W/158  
 
- 5 - 
 
  as a "charge equivalent to an internal tax " unless the obligation to pay it accrues as a result of an 
internal event. The 22th May 2016 Greek law states that "coffee production " does "not include 
roasting, grinding or packaging of the final product ". No coffee beans are grown in Greece. 
Although roasting, grinding and packaging of coffee occur in Greece, the Greek Parliament has 
stated in the law that these steps do not constitute "coffee production " for the purposes of the tax. 
In other words, there is no "internal " event, as defined by the Greek law. Therefore, this cannot be 
considered as an "internal " tax. It is an "other duty or charge " imposed on imported coffee.  
 
Could the Eur opean Union please outline what actions will be taken to ensure tha t Greece and the 
European  Union will not be in breach of their WTO obligations with respect to this tax as of 
1 January ? 
 
1.4  India's export subsidies for onions  
1.4.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 82032)  
According to press reports, Maharashtra State has proposed to put in place an export subsidy 
programme for onions.  
 
a. Could India confirm this and provide more information about this programme (duration, 
total amount and subsidy rate per t onne, number of producers concerned, etc.).  
b. Could India confirm that such subsidies are planned to reduce the costs of marketing 
and transport of onions?  
c. Will India submit any notification relating to this programme, and when?  
d. Since export of onions in Mah arashtra state is subject to state trading through the 
Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board, how would India see its policies complying 
with Article  20 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
e. It is also EU  understanding that India is working on a market price support programme 
for onions. If confirmed, could India give any indication about the state of preparations 
of such a programme?  
1.5  India's minimum support price for Kharif crops  
1.5.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 82005)  
The United State s notes on 1 June 2016, India announced  the minimum support price for kharif 
crops of 2016/17. In its announcement 
(http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=145856 ), the Cabin et Committee on Economic 
Affairs  (CCEA) increased the minimum support price for 14 kharif commodities, including for 
certain varieties of paddy, jowar, and cotton, on the recommendation of the Commission of 
Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). Further CCE A stated the following: "However, to incentivise 
cultivation of pulses and oilseeds, the Cabinet has decided to give a bonus, over and above the 
recommendations of the CACP[….] there is an increasing gap between the demand and domestic 
supply of pulses and  oilseeds and reliance on import is increasing. Government has, therefore, 
announced this bonus on pulses and oilseeds to give a strong price signal to farmers to increase 
acreage and invest for increase in productivity of these crops. "  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 78041, India stated "In view of the fact that procurement is made in 
respect of only a few of the crops under the MSP operations, the support given is limited to these 
crops. This is the reason why all the crops for which MS P is announced are not n otified ". 
 
a. In light of this information, could India please confirm that one of the main objectives of 
further increasing the minimum support prices for pulses and oilseeds is to limit imports?  
b. The United States notes that in response to AG -IMS ID 78041, India stated it sets 
targets for procurement for wheat and rice for the ensuing marketing year. Did India set 
procurement targets for pulses and oilseeds in 2016? If so, how much?  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 6 - 
 
  c. Please identify whether India expects to procure any pulses and oilseeds.  
d. Further, what were the procurement targets for the other 14 commodities?  
1.6  India's export restriction on sugar  
1.6.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82033)  
Despite having granted export subsidies on sugar (cf. e.g. AG -IMS ID 81025), the Indian 
governmen t has now decided to tax exports of sugar in order to dissuade operators from exporting 
to international markets and instead to sell their products on the domestic market which suffers 
from inflation in sugar prices. According to Article 12 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture, India should 
have notified in advance this programme as India is a net exporter of sugar. Could India provide 
information about this programme and its effects on other WTO members ' food security?  
 
1.7  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.7.1   Questi on by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82013)  
In response to New Zealand 's questions co -sponsored by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81055 and 
AG-IMS ID 81001), Canada responded that it was premature to confirm whether new milk classes 
will be created, or to speculate on detaile d elements of a final package. Now that several months 
have passed, can Canada:  
 
a. Provide an update on details of the milk classes, including definitions for each milk class 
as well as information on how prices will be set for each class and whether produc ts 
made from these classes can be, or will be, exported?  
b. Provide an update of how the agreement "in -principle" between Canadian dairy 
producers and processors has progressed in the context of its ratification process, given 
its planned implementation date  is 1 November 2016?  
c. Provide an update on the Canadian government 's consideration of the matter and in 
particular whether the ingredients strategy was discussed at the Canadian Milk Supply 
Management Committee 's October 2016 meeting?  
d. Provide an update on  how the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) will implement the 
dairy ingredients strategy, should it be implemented and detail what legislative changes 
will be necessary?  
Could Canada please advise the volume of exports made through the CDC for this year to date on 
a commodity basis?  
 
1.7.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82059)  
New Zealand has been made aware, via media reports, of the conclusion of an "agreement in 
principle" between dairy farmers and processors which reportedly establishes a nationwide pricin g 
strategy for dairy ingredients. New Zealand has the following questions in relation to this 
"agreement in principle":  
 
a. Can Canada provide details on the producer -processor agreement, including information 
on the agreement 's proposed establishment of a n ew milk class?  
b. Can Canada confirm our understanding that the price of fluid milk in this new milk class, 
used for the production of dairy ingredients, will be set based on the lowest world 
market prices?  
c. For the purposes of setting the price of the new "ingredient " milk class, can Canada 
please provide further information on how the 'lowest price' will be calculated?  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 7 - 
 
  d. New Zealand understands that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) conducts cost of 
production studies for dairy products as part of its admi nistration of Canada's dairy 
supply management system. Can Canada please provide the results of these studies as 
they relate to the new ingredient class, including whether the set price of the new milk 
class would be significantly below the average cost of  production for Canadian dairy 
farmers, and by what approximate amount?  
1.7.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82012)  and the United States (AG -IMS 
ID 82001)  
In Canada 's response to U.S. questions at the September Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 81009) , Canada stated that the expanded Class 4(m) was extended 
until 31 October  2016.  
 
a. Would Canada please provide an update on any additional extensions and confirm 
whether or not the Class 4(m) amendments are still in effect?  
In response to U.S. questions (AG -IMS ID 81009) , Canada stated that "[t]hrough milk class 4(m), 
manufacturers of these products have access to dry and liquid milk protein concentrates (MPC), as 
well as liquid skim milk and skim milk powder at competitive prices. The Canadian Dairy 
Commissi on publishes prices for milk class 4(m) on the website milkingredients.ca ".  
b. Would Canada please explain what is meant by "competitive prices " and how it is 
determined?  
In response to U.S. questions AG -IMS ID 81009 , Canada stated that "[t]he administratio n of milk 
class 4(m) does not differentiate between milk or ingredients that were produced in Canada, or 
elsewhere.  
c. Would Canada please explain this statement, particularly the term "does not 
differentiate "? The United States understand s manufacturers hav e access at competitive 
prices through Class 4(m) to only milk and ingredients produced in Canada. By "does not 
differentiate ", is Canada confirming that a processor could use domestic liquid MPC and 
liquid skim milk and imported fluid milk and ingredients  and still qualify for the 
Class 4(m) adjustment for the domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used? By "does 
not differentiate ", is Canada confirming that a processor could use domestic liquid MPC 
and liquid skim milk, and use imported ultra -filtered ( UF) milk to meet the minimum 
percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk in the compositional cheese 
requirements, and still qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment for the domestic liquid MPC 
and liquid skim milk used?  
d. Would Canada please confirm that the administration of Class 4(m), including qualifying 
for the Class 4(m) adjustment, would not depend on which product (e.g., ultra -filtered 
milk) is used to meet the minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk 
in the compositional c heese requirements? In Canada 's response to U. S. questions at the 
September Co A (AG-IMS ID 81009), Canada stated, "The use of MPC, liquid skim milk 
and skim milk powder priced under milk class 4(m) is limited at different rates under 
each permitted specifi c use".  
e. Would Canada please explain this statement? Does "rates" refer to a minimum or 
maximum level or percentage of domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk for which a 
manufacturer can qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment? Does "each permitted specifi c 
use" refer to the products listed on this website ( http://www.milkingredients.ca/index -
eng.php?link=234 )?  
In resp onse to U.S. questions (AG -IMS ID 81009) , Canada stated that "[g]oods 
produced under these classes, or any milk class other than milk class 5(d), can be sold 
by any eligible processor on the domestic or export markets, and do not require export 
permits. " G/AG/W/158  
 
- 8 - 
 
  f. In resp onse to U.S. questions (AG -IMS ID 81009) , Canada stated that "[i]t is not 
possible at this stage to determine whether there have been any exports of dairy 
products from milk class 4(m) or Ontario milk class 6. " Is Canada able to determine at 
this stage if there have there been exports under Class 6 or Class 4(m)? If so, how 
much? If not, at what stage will Canada be able to make this determination? The 
United  States understands from Canada's response (AG -IMS ID 81009)  that as of the 
September 2016 Committee on Agriculture meeting, the "agreement in principle " was in 
the process of being ratified.  
g. Please provide any update on the ratification or implementation of the "agreement in 
principle ".  
h. What steps will the  Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC ) have to take related to 
implementation of the "agreement in principle "?  
i. Is Can ada now able to answer question s e and f from (AG -IMS ID 81009) ?  
1.8  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.8.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82057)  
New Zealand remains concerned about provincial level restrictions on the sale of wine in Canada. 
Given the high number and  variation in restrictions on the sale of wine in Quebec, British 
Columbia  (BC) and Ontario, what is the Federal government doing to ensure that restrictions 
across its provinces are WTO consistent and do not discriminate between domestic and imported 
product? Can Canada explain whether it considers wine from different sized wineries to be "like" 
products?  
 
1.8.2   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 82002)  
The United States continues to be concerned about wine regulations implemented in British 
Columbia (BC)  that allow for sales of BC wines on regular grocery stores shelves, to the exclusion 
of imported products.  
 
a. Please provide an update on how many licenses and what type of licenses have been 
transferred to grocery stores in BC, both to the grocery store s helf model and the store -
within -a-store model. We request transparency on policy changes that may affect 
exported products to Ontario.  
b. Please provide an update on Ontario 's Regulation 232/16, including the information that 
was provided to select trading p artners and industry representatives on 13 September 
by Ed Clark, the Chair of the Premier's Advisory Council on Government Assets.  
c. Please provide an update on other alcohol policy changes under consideration in Ontario, 
including those related to mark -ups, bag -in-box wine, and Wine Retail Stores in grocery 
stores.  
The United States understands from Canada 's respo nse to Australia's September 
CoA questions ( AG-IMS ID 81024) that a date has not been set for implementation of 
Quebec 's Bill 88.  
d. Does Canada h ave an update on when implementing regulations will be published and 
timing of implementation? Will Quebec undertake a notice and comment process for 
implementing regulations?  
1.9  European Union's agriculture policies  
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82027)  
Australia thanks the European Union for answers provided to Australia's questions on the new 
EUR 500 million support package for dairy farmers (AG -IMS ID 81058). As part of the package, G/AG/W/158  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the European Union announced EUR 150 million to "incentivise a reducti on in milk production". 
Australia welcomes the direction of this programme in reducing milk production in the face of low 
dairy prices. Can the European Union provide information on:  
 
a. Which types of dairy farms or dairy producers will be eligible for fund ing?  
b. Which measures are included as part of the package?  
c. What is the eligibility criteria used to determine access to funding and the amount of 
funding granted?  
1.9.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82028)  
Australia thanks the European Union for answers prov ided to Austr alia's questions on the new 
EUR 500 million support package for dairy farmers (AG -IMS ID 81058). As part of the package, 
the European Union announced EUR  350 million as  conditional aid. Under Article  1 Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016 /1613 the Commission can provide aid for the "application of 
extensive production methods". Could the European Union please explain what the "application of 
extensive production methods" means and what sort of activities are covered by this description?  
 
1.10  India's importation of apples  
1.10.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82060)  
New Zealand understands that Visakhapatnam Port and Tuticorin Port remain closed to apple 
imports since they were originally closed in September 2015. India advised the WTO Council fo r 
Trade in Goods (CTG) on 14 July that its other ports, where food safety systems are fully 
operational, have been reopened to apple imports. New Zealand has raised this question in all 
appropriate fora within the WTO, including the SPS Committee and the C ommittee on Agriculture. 
At all of these venues India has failed to provide an explanation. New Zealand once again raises 
this matter, asking that India engage and provide information on the trade restrictive measure.  
 
a. Are the two remaining ports closed t o the import of apples due to SPS reasons?  
b. When will they reopen?  
c. When will these closures be notified to the WTO?  
d. How are these closures consistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture which 
states that "Members shall not maintain, resort t o, or revert to any measures of the kind 
which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties"?  
1.11  India's new crop insurance scheme  
1.11.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82031)  
According to information in the press, India implemented fr om July to September 2016 a new crop 
insurance programme. Could India please give more information about this programme, including 
which crops are covered, the eligibility criteria and the level of compensation (per crop). Further, 
could India indicate how  many producers subscribed to this programme and the total amount of 
subsidy? When does India intend to notify this to the WTO, including the DS:2  notification if the 
scheme fulfils the criteria of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
1.12  India's sugar e xport subsidies  
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82024)  
Australia thanks India for the answers provided to Australia's questions on the Minimum Indicative 
Export Quota Scheme raised at the 81st Committee on Agriculture  (AG-IMS ID 81062). In its 
response In dia states : "Further, after withdrawal of the prod uction subsidy scheme on 
19 May 2016, sugar mills will be provided subsidy based on ethanol supply to Oil Marketing G/AG/W/158  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Companies under the Ethanol Blending Programme and export of sugar with equal weightage ". 
Australia asks India the following questions in relation to the above statement:  
 
a. Can India please provide an explanation of how the "Ethanol Blending Programme" 
outlined in its response to AG -IMS ID 81062 works?  
b. Can India please provide a reference to t he legislation which underpins the "Ethanol 
Blending Programme"?  
c. Can India please provide the eligibility criteria for sugar mills to access the subsidies 
referred to in AG -IMS ID 81062?  
d. How is the subsidy amount paid to sugar mills calculated?  
e. What is t he total amount of sugar exported under the programme to date and what is 
the target amount of sugar to be exported by year)?  
f. India's response to AG -IMS ID 81062 states that the subsidy is provided to sugar mills 
"based on ethanol supply…  and export of sug ar with equal weightage". Can India confirm 
if the subsidies being provided to sugar mills under the Ethanol Blending Programme are 
contingent upon the exportation of sugar?  
1.13  Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs  
1.13.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82 062)  
As New Zealand emphasised in its question to Sri Lanka at the 81st Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 81007), New Zealand considers the recent reduction in Sri Lanka 's applied tariffs for 
dairy products to be a step in the right direction. Can Sri La nka advise what remaining steps need 
to be taken to return its applied tariffs back in line with its WTO bindings and when these can be 
expected to happen?  
 
1.14  U.S. purchase of cheese stock  
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82025)  
Australia thanks the United States for answers provided to Australia's questions on the purchase of 
cheese stocks by the USDA (AG -IMS ID 81066) . Australia notes that the USDA  announced on 
11 October 2016 t hat it will purchase another USD  20 million of cheddar cheese stocks. Could the  
United States please provide information on:  
 
a. How much cheese USDA plans to purchase in volume and value terms?  
b. How will the USDA determine the price it pays for any cheese that will be purchased?  
c. Is there a volume limit on how much cheese the USDA wil l purchase?  
d. Are there plans for USDA to purchase any other dairy commodities?  
1.14.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 82061)  
Follow -up to AG -IMS ID 81089 . 
 
Canada thanks the United States for its response to questions  on the USDA announcement of 
13 August 2012 to purchase pork, lamb, chicken and catfish to "assist …  producers who are 
currently struggling due to challenging market conditions  ..." In the U.S. response to a specific 
question on how these purchases conform to the provision in Annex 2, paragraph 1(b) th at 
support … "shall not have the effect of providing price support to producers ", the United States 
responded that the USD 170 million used to purchase these commodities represented less than 
1% of their total value of production.  
 G/AG/W/158  
 
- 11 - 
 
  a. Could the United States  share its view as to what share of a commodity 's total value of 
production Section 32 purchases would need to meet in order to be considered to 
provide price support to producers?  
b. Given that the stated aim of these purchases is to  assist producers, and t he 
U.S. assertion that these purchases are not providing price support to producers, does 
the United States have plans to increase the size or scope of these emergency purchases 
to better help its producers? Canada understands that USDA has also engaged in  two 
separate purchases of cheese under Section 32. According to the USDA website 
(http://www.fsa.usda.gov/news -room/news -releases/2016/nr_20160823_rel_0181 ), the 
U.S. government announced on 23  August 2016 plans to purchase approximately 
11 million pounds of cheese (valued at $20 million) from private inventories to "… assist 
the stalled marketplace for dairy producers whose revenues have drop ped 35% over the 
past two years ". More recently, on 11 October 2016 the USDA announced a pledge to 
purchase another USD  20 million worth of cheese to help dairy farmers and reduce a 
record -setting  private  cheese  surplus  (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome
?contentid=2016/10/0220.xml ).  
c. Could the United States elaborate on if it has purchased the cheese referenced in the 
23 August 2016 announcement and when it expects to purchase cheese fu rther to the 
11 October 2016 announcement?  
d. Could the United States clarify why these surplus purchases are necessary to assist dairy 
producers, given other support programs in place, such as the Dairy Margin Protection 
Program?  
e. As the decision to purchase cheese is meant to assist the stalled marketplace for 
producers, could the United States confirm that these purchases serve to provide price 
support to producers?  
f. Does the United States foresee additional announcements of government purchases of 
surplus c heese to help increase market prices?  
1.15  U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  
1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82026)  
Australia notes that the USDA announced on 4 October 2016 that it will be issuing safety -net 
payments through t he Agriculture Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage programmes. Could the 
United States please provide information on:  
 
a. What are the eligibility requirements to access these payments?  
b. How long these payments are expected to continue?  
c. What is the value o f these payments?  
d. What commodities do these payments cover?  
1.16  Argentina's tax policies  
1.16.1   Questi on by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 82041)  
Outstanding replies to Questions to Argentina ( AG-IMS ID 80059, paragraphs d. and e.)  
 
Argentina kindly replied that due to  a lac k of specifics  a substantive response to Ukraine 's 
questions (AG -IMS ID 80059) was  impossible in June 2016 . While Ukraine u nderstand s a specific 
Argentine policy aimed at improvement of agricultural land with aid of fertilizer subsidies may not 
yet be full y adopted, early awareness of potential scope and parameters remains desirable. An 
Argentine comprehensive land improvement policy (via fertilizer subsidies) could represent a G/AG/W/158  
 
- 12 - 
 
  significant farm support measure, given it 's nearly 1 .5 million square kilometre s of agricultural 
land. Therefore, Ukraine reformulates the query as follows:  
 
a. Can Argentina please advise the status of the (draft or final) law "On improving the use 
of Land for Agricultural Purposes "?  
b. Could Argentina please indicate if the (draft or f inal) measure would cover all of 
Argentina 's agricultural land or  if the coverage is limited  in some fashion?  
c. If some limitation is likely intended, can Argentina provide information on the general 
nature of such criteria and, if possible, the potential p ercentage of agricultural land it 
would likely cover?  
 
1.17  China's regional assistance programmes  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82014)  
Since China has not supplied written responses, Australia r esubmits its question  AG-IMS ID 79057 
and AG-IMS ID 81053:  
 
China reported an increase in expenditure from 2009 to 2010 of approximately 15% for Regional 
assistance programmes (under Other General Services). This continues a trend from previous 
notifications showing significant increases in expenditure for these pr ogrammes (more than double 
from 2005).  
 
a. Can China please explain what eligibility requirements are needed to receive payments 
under these programmes?  
b. What types of activities receive funding and can China explain how these activities are in 
accordance wi th Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.18  Turkey's domestic support policies  
1.18.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 82056)  
Follow up to AG -IMS ID 81064 Canada notes that it has not received a written response from 
Turkey on Canada 's questions raised at the Septe mber 20 16 meeting of the Committee 
(AG IMS ID 81064). Canada 's questions were as follows:  
 
Canada notes that there are reports that the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock announced 
higher levels of domestic support with the objective of increasin g production in certain sectors. Of 
note is the plan in 2016 to grant 3.2 billion TL (USD 1.1 billion) in subsidies to livestock producers 
in order to increase the cattle population and subsequently increase meat production.  
 
a. Could Turkey provide informat ion regarding how this grant to cattle producers will be 
applied?  
i. Will it be used by the producer to purchase cattle?  
ii. For producers with an existing herd of cattle what is the amount of the payment per 
head of cattle?  
iii. What other subsidies would be availa ble to these producers? For example, would 
these producers be eligible to receive feed subsidies?  
iv. What is the projected increase in the number of cattle as a result of this grant?  
v. What is the projected increase in meat production?  
b. What are Turkey 's longe r term domestic policy objectives related to increasing meat 
production and self -sufficiency?  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 13 - 
 
  c. In 2015, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock increased the pulse premium 
introduced in 2009 from 100  TL per tonne to 200  TL per tonne in 2015. As thi s premium 
is directly linked to production it is not surprising that the plantings of lentils increased 
in 2016. What is the projected incre ase in production for crop year  2016?  
d. What other subsidies/grants are available to these producers that would suppor t the 
production of lentil? For example, could producers receive fertilizer or fuel subsidies? If 
so, what are the amounts of these input subsidies?  
e. What are Turkey 's longer term objectives for lentil production and self -sufficiency?  
1.19  Turkey's subsidies a imed at incentivising the use of domestic dairy  
1.19.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82067)  
At the 81st meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 81065) New Zealand highlighted 
that regulations issued by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livest ock (Communique on 
Fundamentals of Support and Practice for the Utilisation of Raw Milk) appear to establish a subsidy 
for the use of domestic powdered and/or raw milk in processed export products. New Zealand 
notes that Turkey has yet to provide the Commi ttee with an answer to that question. In addition to 
New Zealand's previous question to the Committee, could Turkey also explain in detail the policy 
objectives of the 'Fundamentals of Support and Practice for the Utilisation of Raw Milk' subsidy 
programme ?  
 
1.20  Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  
1.20.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82030)  
The European Union would like to repeat its questions from the last meeting since no reply has yet 
been received (AG -IMS ID 81033).  
 
The Food Reserve Agency, a ccording to EU information, is responsible for ensuring a food securi ty 
stock of 500,000 tonnes (= 3  months of food c onsumption). During the 2014/15  marketing year, 
the Food Reserve Agency seems to have bought in the order of 1.2  million tonnes, of which p art 
seems to have been exported at prices below the price at which it was bought -in.  
 
Could Zambia indicate the prices at which maize was bought -in during the 2014/15 marketing year 
and the average selling price in the internal market as well as the quant ities sold on export 
markets from the Food Reserve Agency stocks?  
 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  
2.1.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/31)  
AG-IMS ID 82034: Question by Russia n Federation - Transparency issues  
Could the European Union clarify certain issues concerni ng its latest MA:1 
notification  (G/AG/N/EU/31):  
 
a. What is the rationale for import licences for meat and egg products to be valid only for 
150 days from the first da y of the sub -period for which they are issued?  
b. Why for certain country -specific tariff quotas are importers not required to present 
certificate of origin, while for other country -specific TRQs they should?  
c. Could the European Union confirm that for CN  1602 31 there is country -specific 
allocation to Thailand? Please, provide quantities allocated to Brazil, Thailand and other 
countries under this TRQ.  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 14 - 
 
  d. Could the Eur opean Union confirm that for CN  1602 39 21 it applies Erga omnes 
allocation among supplying co untries? Please, provide quantities allocated to other 
countries under this TRQ.  
e. Could the European Union confirm that for TRQ for cuts of fowls of the species Gallus 
Domesticus, frozen (CN 0207 14 10, CN 0207 14 50, CN  0207 14 70) it allocates 
country -specific shares only to Brazil and other countries? Please, provide quantities 
allocated to Brazil and other countries under this TRQ.  
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/30)  
AG-IMS ID 82029: Question by R ussian Federation - Transparency issues  
Could the European Union clarify certain issues concerning its latest MA:2 notification for the 
marketing year 2013/2014 and the calendar year 2014 (G/AG/N/EU/30):  
 
a. In-quota import s of chicken cuts, fresh, chilled o r frozen was notified by the European 
Union at the level of 1,470 tonnes. According to the E urostat data, in marketing 
year 2013/2014 EU import under the corresponding ta riff lines were more than 
12,000  tonnes. Could the European Union explain why the noti fied quantities are 
significantly below the actual import?  
b. There is a similar situation for certain other agricult ural products. For instance, in -quota 
import s during the notified periods for tur key meat, fresh, chilled were 30  tonnes, for 
poultry cuts an d offal other than livers of turkeys, frozen – 6,877  tonnes, for common 
wheat (medium and low quality) – 124,621 tonnes. While according to the Eurostat 
statistics, import s under corresponding tariff lines were 1,460  tonnes, 9,988 tonnes and 
2,587,979 tonn es respectively. Could the European Union also explain why the notified 
quantities for these agricultural products are below the actual import?  
c. If the reason for this  situation is that the quantities indicated  are based on the 
authorization to import, cou ld the European Union clarify why it imports certain 
agricultural products in excess of quantities for which it issues respective authorizations?  
d. Does "the authorization to import" mean import licensing?  
e. Could the European Union provide the rationale for indicating  quantities on the basis of 
authorization to import, and not on the actual import basis?  
f. Could the European Union explain why for certain agricultural products "effective import" 
was used to determine in -quota import, while for other agricultur al products 
authorization to import was used for the same purpose?  
2.2.2   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/81)  
AG-IMS ID 82063: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand's WTO quota for "milk and cream, not concentrated, not containing added sugar or other 
matters  (including flavoured milk)" has not been filled. In 2014, the fill rate was  76.53%.  
 
a. Could Thailand explain why the fill rate is so low?  
b. Is Thailand considering any changes in the administration of this quota, in order to boost 
the fill rate? If so, in wh ich direction are the changes being made?  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/1)  
AG-IMS ID 82011: Question by the United States - General services: extension and 
advisory services  
The United States would like to congratulate A fghanistan on its first notification.  
 
The United States understands that there has been a significant decrease in expenditure for the 
measure on extension and advisory services from calendar year 2013 to 2014. According to the 
table submitted, the expendi ture for 2014 was about Afs 1.8 million. In 2013 and 2015, the 
expenditure for this measure was about Afs 21.8 million and Afs 20.9 million; respectively. Can 
Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in expenditure for this measure in 2014 and the sudden 
increase in 2015?  
AG-IMS ID 82008: Question by the United States - General services: inspection services  
For the inspections services, the United States understands th at when comparing calendar 
year 2015 to the previous calendar years, there has been a signi ficant decrease in expenditure. In 
2013 and 2014, the expenditure for the measure was abou t Afs 26.4 million and Afs  23.1 million, 
respectively. In 2015, the expenditure fo r this measure is about Afs  2.8 million. Can Afghanistan 
explain the sudden decrease  in expenditure for this measure?  
AG-IMS ID 82009: Question by the United States - General services: marketing and 
promotion services  
For the marketing and promotional services measure, the United States understands that there is 
a significant decrease in expenditure from about Afs 13.9 million in calendar year 2013 to Afs 0 in 
2015. Can Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in expenditure for this measure?  
AG-IMS ID 82010: Question by the United States - Domestic food aid  
For domestic food aid, the Unite d States understands that there is a significant decrease in 
expenditure from Afs 192.4 million in calendar year 2013 to Afs 0 in 2015. Can Afghanistan 
explain the process for food aid expenditures?  
 
2.3.2   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/35)  
AG-IMS ID 82035: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
a. According to the notification, there is no payment to small sugarcane producers in the 
northern part of Argentina. Can Argentina confirm that no such support was provided 
during 2009/2010.  
b. Could Argentina set out the methodology for calculating the interest rate subsidy 
programme for loans to small -scale agricultural producers (Supporting Table DS:7), 
including the effective subsidy rate and market rate and the basis for setting these rates.  
c. Could Argentina indicate under which item the food security programme "Pro -huerta" is 
notified and the amounts concerned.  
AG-IMS ID 82037: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In its 2009/2010 notification, Argenti na notified payments for relief from natural disasters under 
the Agriculture Emergency Programme Law 26.509, whereas, in its domestic support notification 
for years 2006/2007 to 2008/2009 (G/AG/ARG/N/31) natural disaster relief payments were 
attributed to the Agriculture Emergency Programme Law 22913. Could Argentina please explain 
the differences between these two domestic laws?  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 16 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 82038: Question by Canada - Direct payments: other  
In its 2009/2010 notification, in Supporting Table DS:1, Argentina has notified what appears to be 
a new programme called "Support Programme for Small and Medium -Sized Producers" under 
Annex 2, paragraph 5 of the Green Box.  
a. If this is a new measure could Argentina indicate wh en it plans to a submit a 
DS:2 notification?  
b. There are a number of activities/projects covered by this measure including 
"improvement of the rural infrastructure and environment, strengthening of 
organizations and cooperatives, research and technical assistance, inter alia". Could 
Argentina please ela borate on the projects under rural infrastructure eligible for funding 
and outline whether these projects include on -farm infrastructure? Could Argentina also 
elaborate on the types of projects that fall under "environment"?  
c. Could Argentina elaborate on t he criteria used to determine who is a small or medium -
sized producer?  
AG-IMS ID 82036: Question by Canada - De minimis  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:4, Canada appreciates the information provided on the value of 
production for those products where the su pport is exempted as de minimis . Could Argentina 
provide a source or sources for the value of production data included in its notification?  
 
2.3.3   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  
AG-IMS ID 82007: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2) 
The United States would like to thank Costa Rica for its DS:1 notification for domestic support. The 
United States understands the hard work that goes into preparing these notifications and the 
United States appreciates the effort Costa Rica has put f orth to notify this information in a timely 
manner.  
 
The United States notes the reforms stated and notified by Costa Rica to its rice sector, which took 
place in early 2015 pursuant to Executive Decree No.  38884 -MEIC 
(https://members.wto.org/CRNAttachments/2015/AGCD/CRI/GEN126 -02.pdf ). According to Costa 
Rica, the administered producer price was replaced by a reference price, which went into effect on 
1 March 2015.   
 
a. Please c onfirm the market price support figure of USD 4.06 billion was the support 
provide d to rice producers only for the months of January and February 2015.  
b. Please confirm that Costa Rica reports no domestic support measures for rice that would 
qualify as Amber  Box for the months March through December 2015.  
Executive Decree No. 38884 -MEIC sets a "reference price " for producers at 
colones  22,139 per 73.6 kg bag of dry and clean paddy rice,  equivalent to approximately 
USD 557 per metric tonne, only slightly below  the applied administered price notified for 
January and March. It is noted that the Decree states it wri tten in accordance with 
Article  57 of 8285 Act, which reads, "Article 57. When necessary and in order to promote 
the purchase of domestic production of  grain, the Executive Power may implement 
mechanisms for supporting producers in price related matters, for the sale of  grain to 
the domestic industry ". Among the four elements the Decree considers to affect this 
control is the gap between the local price of rice and the international price of rice that 
could affect deterioration of domestic agricultural production, loss of competitiveness of 
the industrial sector, higher productivity of those who access imported rice (industrial 
sector and importers) and d isplacement of agents and rent concentration in a few 
operators… listed under V(c). Further, VI(c) states "the parties assure/claim that the 
purchase and sale of paddy  is done at the reference price ". Also, VI (h) states that 
"Producers and millers cannot establish purchase/sale conditions in unilateral form ". G/AG/W/158  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Article 10 continues that any commercial practice should not undermine the legislative 
intent of this Decree.  
With the aforementioned information from the Decree it appears that Costa Rica,  while 
not directly administering  the purchase price for producers, is continuing to promulgate 
a price support for rice producers in all but name through support to millers (e.g., set 
prices for consumers) to be able to purchase paddy rice at (or near) the stated re ference 
price so as to avoid undermining the Decree.  Further, looking at Costa Rica 's rice market 
situation, there is no appearance of a change in de facto policy towards rice.  Area 
harvested and production are both forecast to increase to levels above tha t seen in 
2014, the last full year Costa Rica notified market price support for rice.  
c. Given these facts please explain how Executive Decree No. 38884 -MEIC and other 
relevant legislation do not confer a benefit by the government, directly or indirectly, to 
producers in the form of a "market price support "? 
d. Please explain how these measures are notified in Costa Rica 's DS:1 notification.  
AG-IMS ID 82015: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Australia thanks Costa Ri ca for its domestic suppo rt notification (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  and requests 
further information on the Environmental Programs "Payment for  environmental services in 
agro-forestry systems" and "Recognition of the environmental benefits of organic farming by 
micro , small and medium -sized organic producers". For these programmes could Costa Rica please 
provide information on:  
 
a. What are the eligibility requirements to receive payment?  
b. Are these payments based on production levels?  
AG-IMS ID 82039: Question by Cana da - Market price support  
Canada thanks Costa Rica for its continued transparency with regards to its domestic support 
notifications and market price support programme for rice. Cana da is pleased to see that 
Costa  Rica's 2015 Current Total AMS is again wit hin its Total AMS commitment. In Supporting 
Table  DS:5 (ST/DS:5) there is a footnote that says "… the administered producer price was 
replaced by a reference price, which ente red into effect on 1 March 2015 ". 
 
a. Could Costa Rica confirm whether the data prov ided in ST/DS:5 covers only January and 
February of 2015, or all of Calendar Year 2015?  
b. If ST/DS:5 covers only January and February, will Costa Rica be providing a revised 
notification that shows market price support calculations based on the "reference pr ice" 
in place from 1 March 2015 onwards?  
c. If ST/DS:5 covers the entirety of 2015, could Costa Rica explain whether the reported 
applied administered price provided is an average of the "reference price" and the 
"administered producer price" it replaced?  
d. Could Costa Rica please provide more information on the reference price mentioned in 
the footnote to Supporting Table DS:5? How is it determined and how does it differ from 
the applied administered price?  
e. Canada also notes that the eligible production has dropped to 11,887 tonnes in 2015 
from 224,157 tonnes in 2014. Could Costa Rica please explain this change in reported 
eligible production?  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 18 - 
 
  2.3.4   Cuba  (G/AG/N/CUB/53)  
AG-IMS ID 82006: Question by the United States - Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natu ral disasters  
The United States would like to thank Cuba for its notification o n domestic support for the 
year 2015. Cuba has notified that no data is available for "natural disaster relief " and reported no 
support for that programme. The United States not es that this data was available in previous 
years. What is the reason for the change in level of support in 2015 versus previous years?  
 
2.3.5   Norway  (G/AG/N/NOR/90)  
AG-IMS ID 82040: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Norway last no tified market price support for beef in 2009 (G/AGN/NOR/59) and for eggs and 
sheep in 2013 (G/AG/N/NOR/78). Since shifting away from providing market price support for 
these products, Norway has notified "price compensation " expenditures for beef as part o f other 
product specific support in ST/DS:7 since 2010, and for eggs and sheep since 2014. Corresponding 
to the shift away from market price support and the introduction of "price compensation " 
expenditures, reported product -specific AMS for these products  has trended downwards. 
Product -specific support to sheep for instance, listed as NOK  257.9 million in 2015 equaled 
NOK 666.3 million in 2013, the last year in which market price support measures were notified.  
 
a. Could Norway provide more information about its price compensation scheme?  
b. What, if any, are the linkages between past target or administered prices and the 
current price compensation scheme?  
AG-IMS ID 82055: Question by the European Union - Transp arency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union notes that Norway still used administered prices for wheat, barley, oats, rye, 
oilseeds, goat milk, milk and pork in 2015. From information provided in Norway's answers to 
questions asked during previous meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, the European Union 
understands that Norway eliminated administered prices for sheep meat and eggs from 
1 July 2013 and for beef from 1 July 2009. At the 79th meeting of the Committee in March 2016, 
when the European Union asked if Norway was planning to elimin ate the administered prices for 
any additional products, Norway answered that the Norwegian government was "working on a new 
White Paper on agricultural policies " and that "the remaining administered prices are among the 
issues that will be discussed ". The European Union would welcome any update on this issue.  
AG-IMS ID 82017: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia thanks Norway for its domestic support notification (G/AG/N/NOR/9 0), and requests 
further information on the two structural adjustment assistance packages provided through 
investment aids programmes, "The Agricultural Development Fund" and "Interest concession". 
Australia asks Norway the following questions in relation to these programmes:  
 
a. What are the eligibility requirements for these programmes?  
b. What "structural adjustments" do these measures provide assistance to?  
AG-IMS ID 82054: Question by the European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
Could Norway explain the reasoning and the specific provision of the Agreement on Agriculture 
which allows for a tax on pesticides to be included as a negative support in a DS:1 notification.  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.3.6   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/39)  
AG-IMS ID 82018: Question by Australia - Classification of measure s 
Australia thanks Panama for the answers provided to Australia's questions on the programme 
termed the "Incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and other crops" raised at 
the 80th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80021). In its respons e Panama notes that the 
programme is aimed at increasing production. Australia notes th at programmes notified as 
Green  Box measures must meet the fundamental requirement that they have "no, or at most 
minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on product ion" (Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture). In light of Panama 's previous response can Panama confirm that the programme has 
"no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production"?  
 
2.3.7   Paraguay  (G/AG/N/PRY/24)  
AG-IMS ID 82053: Questi on by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Paraguay 's notified spending under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture has declined 
significantly in recent years, from a high point of USD  37 million in 2012 to the reported 
USD 4 million i n 2015.  
 
a. Could Paraguay explain its reason(s) for the reduction of Article 6.2 spending in 2015?  
b. Is this the result of a policy shift?  
AG-IMS ID 82052: Question by Canada - Classification of measures  
In its DS:1 notification for 2012 and 2013 (G/AG/N/PRY /23), Paraguay notified the Programme to 
Promote Food Production through Family Farming and the Sustai nable Rural Development 
Project  (PRODERS) programmes as conforming to the stipulations laid out in Annex  2, 
Paragraph  2 (d) General service, E xtension and  advisory services. In 2015, these programmes are 
notified as Annex 2, Paragraph 4 (domestic food aid).  
 
a. Could Paraguay explain whether there has been a substantive change to the 
administration of the two programmes between 2013 and 2015?  
b. Could Paraguay e xplain the reason(s) for changing the classification of these two 
measures?  
c. Is Paraguay planning to submit a DS:2 notification to explain the change in programme 
classification and provide information on any new programmes that have been 
introduced since t he release of Paraguay 's last DS:2 in 2001 (G/AG/PRY/8)?  
2.3.8   South  Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/88)  
AG-IMS ID 82050: Question by  the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The European Union would welcome further information about the Recapitalisat ion 
programme  (RECAP) which was raised by the European Union in question AG -IMS ID 77106, 
during the June 2015 Committee meeting. This programme appears to support investment for 
emerging farmers with through infrastructure development, acquisition of mech anisation, 
entrepreneurial support, production inputs, market access and integration into the value chain 
over a five year period. All support is implemented through partnerships with commercial farmers. 
The European Union would therefore like to know in m ore detail why South Africa considers these 
funds not to be agricultural support as indicated in its reply to question AG -IMS ID 77106 point b ). 
AG-IMS ID 82042: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
During the period 2011 -2014 S outh Africa significantly increased the Green Box programme 
funding as follows:  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 20 - 
 
   
 "Resource conservation and environmental management: to promote sustainable utilization 
of the natural agricultural resources, viz, the soil, water resources and vegetation a nd 
protect the environment " from 731,08 to 1209,54 million Rand, or by 65.4%;  
 "Veterinary Services: to promote animal production, animal health and the quality of the 
products of animals through the determination of norms and standards as well as 
coordina tion and rendering of services " from 861,21 to 1089,72 million Rand, or by 26.5%;  
 "Agricultural research: contribution towards agricultural research and the expenditure, 
training, depreciation, salaries and maintenance of the Agricultural Research Council  with 
the overall purpose of agricultural research " from 1368,68 to 1711,24 million Rand, or by 
25.0%.  
a. Could South Africa please provide background and policy rationale for the sizable 
increase in funding for these three programmes?  
b. Further , could South Africa in particular highlight more specifically the measures 
undertaken under resource conservation and environmental management?  
AG-IMS ID 82016: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
South Africa 's expenditures unde r Regional Assistance Programs have increased from R3.26 Billion 
in 2009 to R4.38 Billion in 2011 to R5.2 Billion in 2013.  
 
a. Please explain the reason for this increase.  
b. Please specify any individual programmes that are included under this category.  
Accordi ng the SA Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), "The aim of this 
programme is to provide post settlement support to the targeted beneficiaries of land reform and 
to other producers who have acquired land through private means and are, f or example, engaged 
in value -adding enterprises domestically or involved in export ". The DAFF 's website notes six 
priority areas including 1) information and technology management, 2) technical and advisory 
assistance and regulatory services, 3) marketing and business development, 4) training and 
capacity building, 5) on/off farm infrastructure and production inputs, and 6) financial support.  
This programme appears to cover a wide array of activities.  
 
c. How does South Africa notify the Comprehensive Agricul tural Support Program, which 
has an estimated budget of R1.6 billion in 2014?   
AG-IMS ID 82020: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
Australia thanks South Africa for its domestic support notificati on (G/AG/N/ ZAF/88). Could 
South  Africa provide further information on the eligibility requirements, the number of recipients 
and the delivery of the Subsidies for Flood disaster programme?  
AG-IMS ID 82051: Question by the European Union - Classification of measures  
a. Could South Africa explain more in detail the functioning of Comprehensive Agricultural 
Support Programme (CASP) and Fetsa Tlala Programme as well as these under which 
provision of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture they are notified.  
b. Can South Africa  explain under which provision of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture the Recapitalisation and Development P rogramme (RDP) managed by 
DRDLR  are notified? The programme appears to include procurement of material, 
buildings and inputs for new farmers.  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 21 - 
 
  2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications  (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 ) 
2.4.1   Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/2)  
AG-IMS ID 82004: Question by the United States - Transparency issues  
It appears that Table ES:1 for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015 was not submitted. When will 
Afghanis tan submit Table ES:1 notification?  
 
2.4.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/89)  
AG-IMS ID 82047: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that Norway still provided substantial export subsidies to cheese in 
2015. During the meeting of the  Committee in June 2015 Norway indicated that a proposal had 
been presented to the Norwegian Parliament on the abolition of export subsidies for cheese. Could 
Norway please provide an update on this issue.  
 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
3.1.1   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 82021: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's qu estion raised at the 81st and 
80th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID  80023 and AG -IMS ID  81085). Can Tunisia please 
provide a written answer to AG -IMS ID 80023 and AG -IMS ID  81085?  
AG-IMS ID 82049: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible pro duction  
Canada notes that it has not yet received a written response from Tunisia for Canada 's question 
from the September 2016 meeting of the Committee (AG -IMS ID 81088). Canada 's question is 
again provided below:  
 
In reporting year 2015, in its Supporti ng Table DS:5, Tunisia notified much smaller eligible 
production than in its previous notification for durum wheat (8,500 tonnes in 2014 and 3,500 
tonnes in 2015) and barley (4,500 tonnes in 2014 and 1,000 in 2015). Can Tunisia explain why 
there is such va riance between eligible production from 2014 to 2015?  
AG-IMS ID 82022: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation  
Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's question raised at the 
81st Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 8 1086). Can Tunisia please provide a written answer to 
AG-IMS ID 81086?  
AG-IMS ID 82048: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada notes that it has not yet received a written response from Tunisia for Canada 's question 
from the September 20 16 meeting of the Committee (AG -IMS ID 81087). Canada 's question is 
again provided below:  
 
In this notification, and in previous notifications, Tunisia continues to make adjustments to the 
external reference prices for durum wheat, common wheat, barley and  milk. Canada has noted in 
previous meetings that when a Member is in breach of its domestic support commitment it should 
notify unadjusted data to the Committee for review and consideration. The Member should also 
explain the steps it will undertake to co rrect the situation. In response to a question from the 
European Union (AG -IMS ID 80072), Tunisia shared figures from the Central Bank of Tunisia that 
showed that annual rates of inflation in 2014 and 2015 were both  4.9%. In its 2014 G/AG/W/158  
 
- 22 - 
 
  notification  (G/AG/N/T UN/47), Tunisia adjusted its fixed external reference prices upwards by 
almost 10% from the prices notified in its 2013 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/45). In its 2015 
notification (G/AG/N/TUN/49), Tunisia adjusted its fixed external reference prices by over 21%  
from the prices listed in its 2014 notification, despite the same reported level of inflation.  
 
a. Could Tunisia explain why the increase in the fixed e xternal reference price 
between  2014 and 2015 is more than double the increase between 2013 and 2014, 
when its own reported annual level of inflation is 4.9% for both years?  
b. Could Tunisia provide the full methodology and calculations it has used in each year it 
has adjusted the fixed external reference price?  
c. Could Tunisia describe what steps it will underta ke to address the situation so that in the 
future it will no longer adjust the external reference prices?  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1.1   Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 82046: Question by the European Union  
Could Egypt update Members on the progress made since the June 2015 Com mittee meeting on 
outstanding not ifications on Domestic Support?  
 
4.1.2   European  Union  
AG-IMS ID 82045: Question by Russian Federation  
The last MA:2 notification submitted by the European Union contained information concerning 
import under tariff quotas during  the marketing year 2013/ 2014 and the calendar year  2014 
(G/AG/N/EU/30). Could the European Union provide the reasons for delay in MA:2 notification 
submission for 2014/2015 and 2015?  
 
4.1.3   Turkey   
AG-IMS ID  82019: Question by Australia  
Australia appreciates recent discussions with Turkey on the status of its outstanding notifications . 
Turkey has not submitted an export subsidy notification since 2001, or a domestic support 
notification since 2002. Further to AG -IMS ID 81092, Australia asks Turkey to provide u pdates on:  
 
a. The status of progress on Turkey 's work programme to finalize and submit outstanding 
notifications;  
b. When Turkey will submit its domestic support notification; and  
c. When Turkey will submit its export subsidy notification.  
AG-IMS ID 82044: Que stion by Canada  
Canada remains concerned with Turkey 's lack of timely export subsidy and domestic support 
notifications. Turkey 's most recent notifications related to year 2000 for export subsidies and 2001 
for domestic support. In previous meetings, Turk ey has indicated that work was underway on its 
outstanding notifications. Could Turkey please provide the Committee with an update and a 
specific timeline as to when it intends submit these missing notifications to the Committee?  
AG-IMS ID 8204 3: Question  by the European Union  
Could Turkey update Members on the progress made since the September 2016 Committee 
meeting on outstanding notifications?  G/AG/W/158  
 
- 23 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 8 2064: Question by New Zealand  
At the 80th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80017 ), Turkey indicated it was 
in the process of preparing its export subsidy notifications, which have not been notified since 
2000. At that time Turkey stated that it hoped to make these notifications available soon, 
however, that was around five  months ago.  Can Turkey please provide an indicative timeframe on 
when it expects to complete its overdue export subsidy notifications, and submit them to the 
Committee on Agriculture?  
 
5  OTHER  
5.1  New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 82065: Question by Chile  
In its answers to Chile's q uestions (RD/AG/49) during the annual dedicated discussions on export 
competition of June 2016 (G/AG/W/155) New Zealand stated: "it is important to clarify that 
Kiwifruit New Zealand and ZESPRI Limited are two entirely separate legal entities, established 
under two separate pieces of legislation" and "…(the Regulations) establish the independent 
regulator 'Kiwifruit New Zealand' and define its functions ".  
But, Kiwifruit New Zealand's  (KNZ)  Board of Directors consists of five members, which under 
Article  36 (Membership) of the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 are appointed as follows:  
"(a) three members are to be elected by producers in accordance with regulation 37;  
 
(b) one member is to be appointed by New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Incorporated or its 
successor;  
 
(c) one member is to be appointed by the other members, who is fully independent of the 
kiwifruit industry and who is to act as the chairperson of the Board."  
 
There is no regulatory restriction as to who may be appointed under para 1(a) or (b) ab ove. They 
do not need to be independent from ZESPRI, and as it appears to be the case, currently they are 
not. Even letter (c), that is supposedly destined to fully guarantee the Board's independence, 
allows that the rest of the Board designates such membe r (which according to letters (a) and (b) 
may already have an interest in ZESPRI).  
Chile is aware that the Cabinet has agreed to changes to the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 in 
relation to the KNZ's Board composition, to ensure that is comprised of a mix of grower and 
independent directors:  
a. How will the New Zealand Government guarantee that the new KNZ Board structure is 
independent from ZESPRI? and  
b. Which specific authority of such Board will ensure that New Zealand Government 
complies with its intern ational commitments, specifically those established under 
Paragraph 21 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
__________