G/AG/W/154  
 
8 August 2016  
(16-4241) Page: 1/63 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CO MMITTEE  
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 7 -8 JUNE 20161 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/ 152 as well as follow -up comments made during the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 4 August 2016:  
 
AG-IMS ID  Answer by  Question by  Notification Reference  
80011  India Australia  Article 18.6  
80037 India European Union  Article 18.6  
80016  Sri Lanka  New Zealand  Article 18.6  
80045  Thailand  European Union  Article 18.6  
80096  United States  Brazil  Article 18.6  
80079  Kazakhstan  Canada  G/AG/N/KAZ/1  
80075  Fiji Canada  G/AG/N/FJI/13  
80023  Tunisia  Australia  G/AG/N/TUN/47  
80080  Malaysia  European Union  G/AG/N/MYS/36  
80050  United Arab Emirates  United States  G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8  
80051  United Arab Emirates  United States  G/AG/N/ARE /7, G/AG/N/ARE/8  
80053  United Arab Emirates  United States  G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
                                               
1 This docu ment has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions  of Members or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
1.1   Argentina's tax policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  5 
1.1.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 80059)  ................................ ................................ .... 5 
1.2   Argentina's support for dairy producers  ................................ ................................ ........  6 
1.2.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80032)  ................................ ...................  6 
1.3   Argentina's commodity and grain export policy  ................................ ..............................  7 
1.3.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80031)  ................................ ...................  7 
1.4   Brazil's s oft loans to sugar cane growers for cane planting  ................................ ...............  7 
1.4.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80033)  ................................ ...................  7 
1.5   Brazil's do mestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ..........  8 
1.5.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80024)  ................................ .......................  8 
1.6   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ .............  8 
1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 80003)  ................................ ................................ .. 8 
1.6.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80006)  ................................ .............................  9 
1.6.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80005)  ................................ .............................  9 
1.6.4   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80025)  ................................ ......................  10 
1.7   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ..........................  11 
1.7.1   Question by New Zealand and the United States (AG -IMS ID 80008, AG -IMS ID 
80095)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  11 
1.7.2   Question by New Zealand and the United States (AG -IMS ID 80009, AG -IMS ID 
80094)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  12 
1.8   Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  ................................ ................................ ...........  12 
1.8.1   Question by New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 80007, AG -IMS ID 
80001 and AG -IMS ID 80002)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  12 
1.9   Canada's compositional standard for chee se ................................ ................................ . 13 
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80004)  ................................ ............................  13 
1.10   China's decision to end corn floor price  ................................ ................................ ...... 14 
1.10.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80036)  ................................ .................  14 
1.11   Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  ................................ .........................  14 
1.11.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80026)  ................................ ....................  14 
1.12   European Union's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ............  14 
1.12.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 80013)  ................................ ................................ .... 14 
1.13   European Union's agriculture policies  ................................ ................................ .........  15 
1.13.1    Question by N ew Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80010)  ................................ ..........................  15 
1.14   India's importation of apples  ................................ ................................ ....................  16 
1.14.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80014)  ................................ ..........................  16 
1.15   India's new crop insurance scheme  ................................ ................................ ...........  16 
1.15.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 80068) ................................ ................................ .. 16 
1.16   India's sugar export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...................  17 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 80011)  ................................ ................................  17 
1.16.2    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80037)  ................................ .................  17 
1.17   India's export assistance programmes  ................................ ................................ ....... 17 
1.17.1    Question by the Uni ted States (AG -IMS ID 80027)  ................................ ....................  17 
1.18   Japan's Act on price adjustment of sugar and starch  ................................ ....................  18 
1.18.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80042)  ................................ .................  18 
1.19   Moldova's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ ...........................  19 
1.19.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80028)  ................................ ....................  19 
1.20   Russian Federation's measures affecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural products 
to Kazakhstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  19 
1.20.1    Question by Ukrai ne (AG -IMS ID 80065)  ................................ ................................ . 19 
1.21   Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs  ................................ ................................ .. 21 
1.21.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80016)  ................................ ..........................  21 
1.22   Thailand's export of rice from government stocks  ................................ ........................  21 
1.22.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80045)  ................................ .................  21 
1.23   Turkey's support scheme to certain agricultural sectors  ................................ ................  21 
1.23.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80049)  ................................ .................  21 
1.24   Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies  ................................ ..........................  22 
1.24.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 80012)  ................................ ................................ .... 22 
1.24.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80017)  ................................ ..........................  22 
1.24.3    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80048)  ................................ .................  22 
1.25   Turkey's fruit and vegetable export subsidies  ................................ ..............................  23 
1.25.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80056)  ................................ .................  23 
1.26   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale  ................................ ................................ ...... 23 
1.26.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80029)  ................................ ....................  23 
1.27   Turkey's rice support  ................................ ................................ ...............................  24 
1.27.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80052)  ................................ .................  24 
1.28   U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Shar e programme  ................................ .........................  25 
1.28.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 80096)  ................................ ................................ .... 25 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  25 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ...............  25 
2.1.1   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/1)  ................................ ................................ ...................  25 
2.1.2   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/13/ADD.17)  ................................ ................................ ..... 26 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  .....................  26 
2.2.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/210)  ................................ ................................ ........................  26 
2.2.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/86)  ................................ ................................ ......................  27 
2.2.3   Russian Federa tion (G/AG/N/RUS/12)  ................................ ................................ ....... 28 
2.2.4   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/135)  ................................ ................................ ..........  28 
2.3   SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  ................................ ...........................  28 
2.3.1   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/44)  ................................ ................................ ...................  28 
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/133)  ................................ ................................ ..........  30 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3.3   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/134)  ................................ ................................ ..........  31 
2.4   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ .......................  31 
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/ N/AUS/99)  ................................ ................................ .....................  31 
2.4.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/28)  ................................ ................................ .........................  32 
2.4.3   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/53)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  33 
2.4.4   Fiji (G/AG/N/FJI/13)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  34 
2.4.5   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/15)  ................................ ................................ ......................  35 
2.4.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/Cor r.1) ................................ .........................  38 
2.4.7   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/55)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  38 
2.4.8   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/39)  ................................ ................................ ......................  43 
2.4.9   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/13)  ................................ ................................ ....... 45 
2.4.10    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/47) ................................ ................................ ......................  47 
2.5   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUP PORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ..........  50 
2.5.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/100)  ................................ ................................ ...................  50 
2.5.2   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/38)  ................................ ................................ ......................  50 
2.6   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ .. 52 
2.6.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/108, G/AG/N/CAN/108/Corr.1)  ................................ .................  52 
2.6.2   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/36)  ................................ ................................ .....................  52 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  52 
3.1   MATTE RS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  ............  52 
3.1.1   U.S. soybean programmes - Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 79095)  ..............................  52 
3.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ..............................  53 
3.2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................  53 
3.2.1.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/30)  ................................ ................................ ......................  53 
3.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ .......................  55 
3.3.1   China (G/A G/N/CHN/28)  ................................ ................................ .........................  55 
3.3.2   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8)  ................................ ...............  56 
3.3.3   United States (G/AG/N/USA/93)  ................................ ................................ ..............  58 
3.4   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  .......................  61 
3.4.1   United States (G/AG/N/USA/105)  ................................ ................................ .............  61 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  62 
4.1   Argentina  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  62 
4.2   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  62 
4.3   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  62 
4.4   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  63 
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6  
1.1  Argentina 's tax p olicies  
1.1.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 80059)  
Argentina has undertaken significant policy changes in the area of export duties applied 
to agricultural products. A large number of export taxes have been el iminated. Limited 
other product -specific export tax es were only marginally reduced and strong differential 
export tax rates within products continued.  
 
a. Can Argentina kindly provide for the benefit of the Committee policy 
background and rational as to why for certain product groups export duties 
were not e liminated, but only marginally reduced?  
b. Particularly for sector of soybeans and its by -products, could Argentina provide 
policy background why for this oilseeds complex strong differential export tax 
structures continue?  
c. Can Argentina share plans concernin g reduction of export duties on 
agricultural products as well as forecast the impact of these measures on the 
production of agricultural commodities and their export?  
 
According to media reports, and the Argentine Wheat Institution in particular, Argentina  
applies a preferential tax for fertilizers to improve the fertility of soil. On first 
appearance this measure seems to directly benefit in monetary terms the industrial (not 
agricultural) producers. Accordingly, as a strictly industrial subsidy, such a me asure 
would not fall under the disciplines of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
d. Could Argentina please provide detailed information regarding the nature and 
scope of the preferential taxation for Argentine production of fertilizers?  
e. Could Argentina please ind icate what policy and oversight is in place so that 
the measure does not serve as an input subsidy for agriculture?  
 
Answer by Argentina  
a. Export duties have largely been eliminated, with a few exceptions. For budgetary 
reasons, Argentina has opted for a st aged phasing out of export duties in the soybean 
sector (instead of immediate removal). Export duties in this complex have been reduced 
by 5% (from 35% to 30% in the case of soybeans and from 32% to 27% in the case of 
oils and oil products). The Argentine authorities have undertaken to reduce these duties 
by 5% each year with a view to their complete removal within t he next six years. This 
phasing -out method , selected because of budgetary concerns , will be maintained  until 
the country manages to reverse the  delicate fiscal situation facing the new national 
authorities.  
b. Argentina reiterates that both export duties and differential export taxes (DET) are fully 
consistent with the WTO rules.  
 
DETs are a trade policy instrument permitted by the WTO and implement ed in view of 
the need to compensate for the tariff escalation that most importing countries apply to 
their imports as the product to be imported acquires higher value added. In other 
words, differential export taxes are merely a response to the tariff esc alation applied by 
importers, which prevents developing countries such as Argentina from adding value to 
processing industries ' exports. The key purpose of DETs is to neutralize the impact of 
the aforementioned tariff escalation.  
c. For plans to reduce/elimin ate the export duties still in effect, see the replies to the 
preceding questions.  
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 6 - 
 
  As regards the impact of the measures on the production and export of commodities, 
the first quarter of the year saw the first positive effect on wheat and maize exports 
(previously restricted by quotas) .The objective is to achieve a substantial increase in 
future exports, with output targets, in the case of grain for example, of 150  million 
tonnes by 2020.  
d-e. Argentina would be happy to reply to Ukraine 's questions. Howev er, for lack of specifics 
in this particular instance, it is impossible to provide a detailed answer.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine welcomed the EU question on this issue and considered Argentina's reduction 
of export taxes  to be  a significant agricultural  trade pol icy development . The United States 
indicated interest in this issue, particularly regarding taxes on fertilizers. Philippines congratulated 
Argentina for this positive development and hoped to see its implementation.  
1.2  Argentina 's support for dairy producer s 
1.2.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80032)  
According to press reports Argentina has granted a subsidy of 0.03 USD/l during 
October to December 2015 for the first 3,000 litres of milk produced per day per farmer. 
For the period from January to March  the subsidy was increased to 0.04 USD/l.  
a. Can Argentina explain in more detail the criteria for obtaining this support and 
the financing of the subsidy?  
b. How much has been spent so far in 2015 and 2016 on this measure?  
c. Could Argentina also explain the conse quences of the abolition of the export 
authorisations in the dairy sector ( "ROE blanco "). 
 
Answer by Argentina  
a. The criteria triggering the dairy producer compensation scheme have been the 
following:  
 
 For the months of March, April and May  2015, it covered  only producers with an 
output of up to 2,900  l/month.  
 
 For the months of June and July  2015, it covered only the first 2,900 litres for 
producers with an output of up to 6,000 l/month.  
 
 For the months of October, November and December  2015, and February  and 
March  2016, it covered the first 3,000 litres for all producers.  
 
Beneficiaries are paid monthly by bank transfer, authorized under a resolution issued by 
the relevant authority (currently the Ministry of Agroindustry). Expenditure under the 
scheme is  financed by funds from the National Treasury of the Argentine Republic.  
b. Expenditure under this scheme amounted to Arg$914,687,281 in 2015, and to 
Arg$453,135,340 for the months of January to April  2016.  
c. On 29  March  2016, Argentina implemented a system of Sworn Declarations of Foreign 
Sales of Dairy Products (DJVEL), which replaced the previous procedure for registering 
exports of dairy products known as "ROE Blanco ". The Ministry of Agroindustry checks 
the documents submitted within a maximum of three work ing days, and operations can 
begin if the data have been correctly entered.  
 
The purpose of this change is to facilitate and streamline all formalities required for normal 
compliance with the legal  regimes applicable to the agro -industry sector, pursuant t o the principles 
of expeditiousness, economy and efficiency that should govern all administrative procedures.  
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 7 - 
 
  The noteworthy consequences of the change are that operations have become more predictable 
and producers have regained the competitiveness they h ad lost in recent years.  
1.3  Argentina 's commodity and grain export policy  
1.3.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80031)  
The European Union would welcome an update on Argentina 's commodity and grain 
export policy, in particular whether export taxes or othe r export measures have been 
eliminated, whether any new accompanying measures have been adopted and whether 
any impact on trade has been observed or is expected.  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
The chief measures adopted as of 10  December  2015 (date when the new gov ernment took office) 
were the following: (i) removal or reduction of export duties depending on the product; 
(ii) standardization and unification of the exchange market; and (iii) elimination of the Register of 
Foreign Trade Operations (ROE) system applied  to our exports.  
 
  Elimination of export duties: All export duties have been eliminated (23% on wheat, 20% 
on maize and sorghum, 30% on sunflower, 15% on meat) .The sole exception is the 
soybean complex (only a 5% reduction). The removal of duties in the so ybean sector is 
due to be completed within the next six years.  
 
The key objective of these measures is to increase planted area, production profitability 
margins and crop rotation.  
 
  Standardization and unification of the exchange market: A single, free ex change rate has 
been established for all types of foreign trade operation. Prior to this, there was an official 
exchange rate (set by the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic) and another, "parallel " 
rate of exchange, which was illegal but reflected the true value of the dollar, distorting all 
foreign trade.  
 
The deadline for converting foreign exchange earnings on foreign trade was extended to 
360 days; it had previously been less than 30 days for most agricultural products, which 
hampered both cred it transactions and documentary -collection transactions.  
 
  Removal of export restrictions: The Register of Foreign Trade Operations (ROE) system 
has been altered, with a return to the Sworn Declarations of Foreign Sales (DJVE) system 
of automatic approval, for information purposes, without any restrictions. The quotas for 
some products, for example wheat, maize, meat and dairy products, have been abolished.  
 
The measures listed above have not only had a significant impact on wheat and maize export 
levels in the first quarter of this year, but have also considerably raised expectations for the next 
planting season.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and the United States expressed interest . 
1.4  Brazil 's soft loans to sugar cane growers for cane planting  
1.4.1   Question by the European Union  (AG-IMS ID 80033)  
Could Brazil indicate which sugar cane producers may obtain loans for planting, and the 
conditions for granting these loans as well as for their repayment. From press reports it 
appears that repayment of these loans has been postponed. H ow does Brazil intend to 
include this in its future Domestic Support notification?  
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil  
 
Brazilian sugar cane producers may obtain soft loans for planting under several program mes. One 
of them is specific to sugar cane producers (PRORENOVA - Program to Support the Renewal and 
Creation of New Sugarcane Fields). The other program mes are non -specific: Rural Savings and 
Mandatory Resources at controlled interest rates; Constitutional Funds (FNO, FNE and FCO); 
Pronamp (National Program to Support th e Medium -Scale Agricultural Producer); and PRONAF 
(National Program to Strengthen Household Agriculture). There were no postponements of the 
repayment of soft loans granted to sugar cane producers during the past few years.  
1.5  Brazil 's domestic support progr ammes  
1.5.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80024)  
In previous responses by Brazil to questions from the United States, Brazil stated that 
the Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) programme was suspended for a 
reassessment to address concerns regardi ng its control mechanism in order to prevent 
irregularities. Concerning the Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) 
programme, the United States notes that the programme was used for corn, cotton and 
wheat as recently as 2014.  
 
Brazil has not deliv ered PEP and PEPRO data that it agreed to provide in June  2014 (AG -
IMS ID 74021). In the September 2015 meeting of this Committee, Brazil stated that 
while it lacked a suitable system for collecting the information it would provide the data 
in September  2015. In March 2016, Brazil indicated that the status of this request had 
not changed.  
 
What is the status of reporting the subject data? What specific steps have been taken 
since March  2016 to develop a suitable system to collate the data?   
 
Answer by Brazil 
 
The status has not changed since September 2015. The work is still in progress, and there is no 
deadline set for its conclusion.  
 
Follow -up: The United States noted  continued interest in this topic. Canada also expressed 
interest , noting  that the PEPRO  programme  also applied to wheat.  
1.6  Canada 's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 80003)  
Australia notes the announcement by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee 
to allow subsidi zed skim milk under Class 4(m) to be used as an ingredient for 
"standardi zed cheese ", which will make domestic milk proteins for cheese processing 
available at reduced prices compared to imported milk proteins. Australia is concerned 
that this would undercut existing imports, including those from Austra lia. Australia 
would welcome more detail from Canada on the reason for this decision, its intended 
length of operation and how Canada considers this decision to be consistent with its 
WTO obligations.  
 
Further, Australia notes that on 29 March 2016, the On tario Ministry of Agriculture, Food 
and Rural Affairs made changes to the Ontario Milk Act in order to establish the new 
class  6, effective 1  April  2016. Can Canada please outline the specific actions that the 
government of Canada is taking to avoid breach ing Canada's export subsidy 
entitlements, and harming other WTO  Members' ability to export like products to Canada 
consistent with Uruguay Round outcomes?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Milk class 4(m) has been in place for a number of years, is limited in scope and i s aimed at 
addressing demand for milk protein concentrates by dairy processors and further processors for G/AG/W/154  
 
- 9 - 
 
  specific uses (standardized cheeses, pet foods and nutraceuticals). Milk class 4(m) was recently 
amended as a temporary measure, scheduled to end on 3 1 July 2016, by the Canadian Milk Supply 
Management Committee (CMSMC) to address potential imbalances that could emerge in the 
market from the implementation of milk class 6 in Ontario. As milk proteins are used in many 
different applications, including fo od products, nutraceuticals and non -food usages, Canada 
considers the amended milk class 4(m) will not have any significant impact on the overall imports 
of milk proteins. The new milk class in Ontario is a non -contingent class intended for milk used to 
process certain milk ingredients and milk products. This new milk class is part of an effort by the 
dairy sector to adapt to the changing market environment and address the need for skim milk 
solids in the Canadian market. The food processing industry in Can ada will continue to be able to 
source its inputs domestically or through imports.  
 
1.6.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80006)  
New Zealand thanks Canada for its response to its question about Ontario's new milk 
ingredient class aimed at import displacement  (Special Milk Class 6). Canada responded 
that "The government of Canada is not directly involved in these discussions and is 
following these discussions with interest, with a view to ensuring they are in conformity 
with Canada's international obligations ".  
 
New Zealand notes that on 29 March 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and 
Rural Affairs made changes to the Ontario Milk Act in order establish the new class 6, 
effective 1 April 2016. Could Canada outline the specific actions that the fed eral 
government of Canada is taking to avoid any of the following from occurring as a result 
of this action taken by the Ontario provincial government?  
a. Export subsidies circumventing existing WTO limits;  
b. Serious prejudice to countries exporting like prod ucts to Canada;  
c. The impairment of market access opportunities negotiated under the Uruguay 
Round.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada does not agree with the assertion contained in the first sentence of the question. The 
Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission a mended R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 753 (Grades, 
Standards, Designations, Classes, Packing and Marking), made under the Milk Act, to establish a 
new class for milk used to process certain skim milk ingredients and products. The new milk class 
in Ontario is a no n-contingent class intended for milk used to process certain milk ingredients and 
milk products. This new milk class is part of an effort by the dairy sector to adapt to the changing 
market environment and address the need for skim milk solids in the Canad ian market. The food 
processing industry in Canada will continue to be able to source its inputs domestically or through 
imports.  
1.6.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80005)  
The Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) which is chaired by the 
Canad ian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, has announced an interim 
change (effective 1 May to 31 July 2016) to allow subsidi zed skim milk under Class 4(m) 
to be used as an ingredient for "standardi zed cheese ". As a result Canadian dairy 
processor (A gropur) has announced that this change allows it to "immediately " end its 
imports of cheese ingredients. Given the serious prejudice caused by this measure to 
exports from third countries, and the role a Crown corporation has played in the 
formation of thi s measure, what steps is the Canadian government taking to repeal it 
and prevent further WTO -inconsistent subsidisation of products aimed directly at import 
substitution?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada does not agree with the assertions contained in the questio n. Milk class 4(m) has been in 
place for a number of years, is limited in scope and is aimed at addressing demand for milk protein G/AG/W/154  
 
- 10 - 
 
  concentrates by dairy processors and further processors for specific uses. Milk class 4(m) was 
recently amended as a temporar y measure by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee 
(CMSMC) to address potential imbalances that could emerge in the market from the 
implementation of milk class 6 in Ontario. As such, Canada does not see a rationale to seek a 
repeal of the amendmen t to milk class 4(m).  
 
1.6.4   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80025)  
The Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC), which is chaired by the 
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, announced a change (effective 
May 1 to July 31, 201 6) to provide at world prices liquid milk protein concentrate (MPC) 
(up to 85% protein) and skim milk under Class 4(m) to be used as ingredients for 
"standardized cheeses ".  
a. Under Canada's cheese compositional standards, does milk claimed by 
processors to qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment count as an ingredient or 
as fluid milk? Does MPC claimed by processors to qualify for the class 4(m) 
adjustment count as an ingredient or as fluid milk? If only part of the Class 
4(m) milk or MPC will be counted as fl uid milk for purposes of the 
compositional standards, please specify the percentage.  
b. How exactly are these world prices determined? For example, world prices of 
which products are considered?  Are U.S. prices used?  
c. Since world prices are lower than Canada's  domestic prices, are dairy farmers 
expected to incur a reduction in revenues? If so, are they expected to be 
compensated for this reduction in revenues? If they will be compensated, how 
and by whom?    
 
In March, New Zealand posed a question about Ontario' s new milk class (Special Milk 
Class 6) (AG -IMS ID 79035). Canada responded that "The government of Canada is not 
directly involved in these discussions and is following these discussions with interest, 
with a view to ensuring they are in conformity with C anada' international obligations ". 
The United States notes that on 29 March 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food 
and Rural Affairs made changes to regulations under the Ontario Milk Act in order to 
establish the new class, effective 1 April 2016 .  
d. Please explain the role of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and the Ontario 
Milk Act in the establishment of Special Milk Class 6.  
e. Is there a listing of the prices under the various milk classes for Ontario 
processors before and after Special Milk Cl ass 6 was instituted? If so, please 
provide it to us or let us know where we may locate it.  
f. Since prices under Special Milk Class 6 are supposedly lower than Canada's 
domestic prices, are dairy farmers expected to incur a reduction in revenues? If 
so, are  they expected to be compensated for this reduction in revenues? If they 
will be compensated, how and by whom?  
g. May processors who receive milk under Class 6, and whose production process 
results in excess skim milk solids, export that excess?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Milk prices are administered by provincial marketing boards. They are not connected with the 
Canadian regulations on the cheese compositional standards. Under Canada's cheese 
compositional standards, only milk (including ultrafiltered milk) can acco unt for the milk portion of 
cheese. Any other substance, including milk protein concentrates, cannot account for the milk 
portion of cheese, regardless of its price or source. As such, milk protein concentrates produced 
with input priced under milk class 4 (m) can only be used in the ingredient portion of the 
processing of standardized cheeses.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 11 - 
 
   
With regards to milk class 6 in Ontario, the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission 
amended R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 753 (Grades, Standards, Designations, Classe s, Packing and 
Marking), made under the Milk Act. The new milk class is part of an effort by the dairy sector to 
adapt to the changing market environment and address the need for skim milk solids in the 
Canadian market. The food processing industry in Cana da will continue to be able to source its 
inputs domestically or through imports. Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) is a provincial marketing 
board established under the Milk Act and has the authority to establish milk prices that dairy 
processors pay for cow 's milk. DFO sets milk prices for each of the milk classes in Regulation 753. 
DFO publishes  milk prices  on its website:  http://www.milk.org/classic/pltinfo/plt_milk_prices_inq.a
sp.  
 
Under both milk class 4(m) and Ontario milk class 6, a portion of the milk price paid to farmers will 
be lower than it ha d been previously. The g overnment of Canada does not compensate dairy 
producers for these changes in pricing.  
 
Follow -up: New Zeala nd noted its concern on the commercial impacts of Canada's milk classes and 
their consistency with the WTO. More specifically, New Zealand was concerned with the 
introduction of ingredient class 6 and whether this was aimed at displacing imports. Although 
according to Canada its processors could continue to choose whether to import raw materials or to 
source it locally, New Zealand noted that there was already a change in the market. For example 
Canadian dairy processor Agropur's had announced  the end of its imports of cheese ingredients. 
The United States indicated its interest in this issue and would likely follow up. The European 
Union noted  concern regarding  how Canada's measure could influence trade in dairy products.   
1.7  Canada 's wine sale policy  
1.7.1   Questio n by New Zealand and the United States (AG-IMS ID 80008 , AG-IMS ID  
80095 ) 
New Zealand remains concerned by the wine regulations implemented in British 
Columbia (B.C.) that allow for the sales of B.C. wines on regular grocery stores shelves, 
to the exclusio n of imported product. In this regard:  
a. Can Canada explain how B.C. 's regulation of imported wine is consistent with 
Canada 's national treatment obligations under Article III: 4 of the GATT 1994, 
given that sales are restricted to "stores within a store " which are subject to 
restrictions that do not apply to the grocery store sales of B.C. wine?  
b. Can Canada explain why no new "stores within a store " selling imported wine 
have been opened since these changes took effect on 1 April 2015?  
c. Can Canada explain o n what basis public health considerations differ between 
locally produced and imported wine and spirits?  
 
Answer by Canada  
a. The exclusive sale of B.C. wine at certain locations has existed for many years and is 
grandfathered through many trade agreements t o which Canada is a Party. The 
regulations provide for the transfer of existing licenses to new locations, but no new 
licenses are being created.  The one kilometre restriction applies to a "store within a 
store" when it has a full license allowing it to se ll beer and spirits in addition to wine. 
This rule has applied to private B.C. liquor stores for a number of years. Under B.C. 's 
policy, stores selling only wine (domestic or imported), and not beer or spirits, are not 
subject to the one kilometre rule.  
b. Existing private full service liquor stores, government full service liquor stores and 
private wine stores have had the option of relocating to the store -within -a-store model 
since 1 April 2015. Whether or not a store relocates under this model is a business  
decision of the license holder.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 12 - 
 
  c. While there is no known difference in public health considerations between locally 
produced and imported wine and spirits, the B.C. policy is intended to address different 
public health considerations with respect to wine vs. spirits (i.e. hard liquor). The store -
within -a-store model is open to licensees that could sell spirits in addition to wine. There 
are stronger public health and safety concerns relating to the limitation of shoplifting 
and prevention of access by mino rs to spirits than from wine.  
 
1.7.2   Question by New Zealand and the United States (AG -IMS ID 80009, AG-IMS ID  
80094 ) 
New Zealand was pleased that Ontario has not followed British Colombia in restricting 
grocery store sales to local wines. However  New Zealand i s disappointed to note that, 
according to the Ontario Premier 's Advisory Council 's recommendations, of the initial 70 
licences it proposes to issue, only 50% will allow for the sale of imported wines from the 
outset, with those licenses only allowing for t he sale of imported wines after a three 
year phase -in. New Zealand  would welcome an update from Canada on this issue.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The Ontario Premier 's Advisory Council recommendations on wine were announced on 
18 Februar y 2016. The recommendations have not yet been implemented, but it is anticipated 
they will be put in place later this year. The changes will benefit imported products, because the 
final result of fully implementing the Council 's recommendations will be that all the 150 new 
universal licenses granted will permit the sale of imported wine in grocery stores.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand remained concerned about the expansion of these policies which appeared 
to favour domestic over imported wine. The United States would likely follow up. The E uropean 
Union strongly supported these questions. In its view, there appeared to be discrimination against 
sales and distribution of imported wine in grocery shops in British Colombia and other regions of 
Canada.  
1.8  Canada 's tariff -rate quota for cheese  
1.8.1   Quest ion by New Zealand , Norway and Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 80007, AG -IMS ID 
80001 and AG -IMS ID 80002)  
New Zealand refers to previous questions asked to Canada in regard to proposed 
changes to Canada 's WTO tariff quota for cheese as part of the Comprehensive Ec onomic 
and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union (EU). 
New Zealand acknowledges Canada 's previous responses that it will continue to 
administer its WTO TRQ for cheese in conformity with its WTO obligations and that the 
size of the WT O cheese TRQ will remain at 20,411,866 kg. New Zealand remains 
concerned that the proposed change would unilaterally reduce the quantity of market 
access available to WTO Members. Can Canada please confirm the quantity of market 
access available to WTO Mem bers other than the EU if 800 tonnes of WTO cheese TRQ is 
reallocated to the EU?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The size of the WTO cheese TRQ is 20,411,866 KG. The quantity available to WTO members other 
than the EU, when 800 tonnes of the WTO cheese TRQ is realloca ted to the EU, will be 
6,140,034  KG. Canada will, as it has done in the past, notify WTO Members of these changes 
through the normal WTO channels once they become applicable.  
 
Follow -up: Norway stated that since 1995, Canada had  spilt the WTO import quota for cheese of 
2,412 thousand tonnes with 66% for the E uropean Union and 34% for other Member s. With 
reference to the EU enlargement in 2004, 2007 and 2013, Canada, as part of CETA, had  increased 
the EU share  of the quota by  800 tonnes to 14,272 tonnes. In Norway's  view, any increase must 
respect the interest s of other WTO Members , and Canada would risk  violating other Members' WTO 
entitlements  if there were  no empiric al justification for  the reallocation. Norway noted that 
historical cheese imports to Canad a from the 13 EU member States  were far below  800 tonnes. 
Given the f igures from  Statistics Canada  which showed average yearly import s of less than  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 13 - 
 
  300 tonnes, both for the period 2011 -2013 and 2011 -2015, Norway considered  that more than 
500 tonne s were  reallocated with no empiric al justification. Norway invited Canada and the 
European Union to reflect on whether it was legally acceptable to reduce the access of  other WT O 
Members to multilateral  import quota as a result of a bilateral agreement.  Switzerland  and the 
United States supported Norway's intervention. New Zealand remain ed unconvinced that allocating 
part of a WTO MFN quota to a subset  of the WTO Membership could  be consistent with the 
fundamental MFN obligations  in the WTO  and would continue to mon itor this issue.  
1.9  Canada 's compositional standard for cheese  
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80004)  
Canada 's compositional standard for cheese appears to be inconsistent with 
fundamental "national treatment " obligations in both the General Agreement on T ariffs 
and Trade (GATT 1994) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT 
Agreement). The three elements required to demonstrate a breach of Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994:  
a. First, "less favourable " treatment of imported dairy ingredients. Canada 's 
compositional standards de facto require that a set percentage of ingredients 
in cheese (e.g. 83% for cheddar) are sourced from Canadian milk. This 
domestic -content requirement appears to accord "less favourable " treatment 
to imported dairy ingredients.  
b. Second, domestic Canadian milk and imported dairy ingredients are "like 
products ". When used as ingredients in the manufacture of dairy products, 
Canadian fluid milk is a "like product " to imported dairy ingredients. The 
situation is analogous to that in the Mexico – Soft drinks WTO dispute 
(WT/DS308). That dispute involved Mexican regulations that favoured the use 
of cane sugar, which was predominantly sourced domestically, over the use of 
high-fructose corn syrup, which was predominantly imported, as swe eteners in 
the manufacture of soft drinks. The panel and Appellate Body ruled that, as 
ingredients, the products were "like" and that Mexico 's import -substitution 
measure was inconsistent with WTO national treatment obligations. A similar 
conclusion of nat ional treatment violation appears to be likely in this instance.  
c. Third, the measures are "laws, regulations or requirements ". Canada 's 
compositional standard is set out in the Dairy Products Regulations SOR/79 -
840. Given this, what steps is Canada taking to repeal its WTO -inconsistent 
compositional standard for cheese? Has the Canadian government been asked 
by potential investors in Canada 's dairy sector about the WTO -inconsistency of 
these and other measures that are part of Canada 's evolving "Dairy Ingre dients 
Strategy "?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada does not agree with the assertions contained in the question. When developing the cheese 
compositional standards, Canada fully took international standards and other countries ' regulations 
into account, as well as the comments received during the World Trade Organization notification 
period.  
 
The cheese compositional standards require that a certain percentage of casein content in 
standardized cheeses be derived from milk, regardless whether this milk was produc ed in Canada 
or not. Canada 's compositional standards for cheese also allow for the use of imported ingredients. 
In the discussions being held among Canadian dairy industry stakeholders on the modernization 
and reform of the dairy value chain, the governme nt of Canada is not involved, but is following 
with interest.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted its serious concern about the inconsistency of Canada's 
compositional standard with the WTO's "national treatment" obligations. The European Union also 
signalled c oncern.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.10  China 's decision to end corn floor price  
1.10.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80036)  
According to press articles China has ended its corn floor price system.  
 
a. Could China explain more in detail about the consequences of this change in 
policy  on the market, production and internal consumption?  
b. Does China intend to introduce any other type of support to its maize producers 
to replace the floor price system?  
Answer by China  
 
In 2016, China initiated the reform on the procurement and stockholding  scheme for corn. The 
reform is market oriented . The price will be  determined  by the market, reflecting the conditions of 
demand and supply. Corn producers will sell their corn following the market signals and subsidies 
will be provided to corn producers. The consequences of this policy reform on the production and 
domestic consumption will be decided by the market . China is also eager to observe  the future 
consequences of the reform .  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and the United States looked forward to t he results of this reform. 
Australia welcomed China's significant efforts to shift away from market price support.  
1.11  Costa Rica 's compliance with AMS commitments  
1.11.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80026)  
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its tran sparency, though remains concerned by 
Costa Rica 's continued lack of compliance with its WTO obligations. In response to AG -
IMS ID 79004, Costa Rica notes that the upcoming notification "will reflect the 
Aggregate Measurement of Support for 2015. Only then  will it be possible to determine 
whether the amount is within the annual monetary limits of Costa Rica 's bound AMS of 
USD 15.9 million ".  
a. When does Costa Rica expect to have the calculations for 2015?  
b. Does Costa Rica expect to be within the annual monetar y limit for AMS for 
2015?  
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica thanked the U.S. delegation for the follow -up question on this issue. Costa Rica reports 
that in a few weeks it will notify the AMS support for 2015. It is expected that the notified amount 
will be  less than the annual bound AMS of USD 15.9 million.  
 
Follow -up: Canada, New Zealand and the United States thanked Costa Rica for the on -going 
transparency and looked forward to the upcoming notification.  
1.12  European Union 's export subsidies  
1.12.1   Question by Jap an (AG -IMS ID 80013)  
With regard to the elimination of export subsidies, could the European Union confirm if 
there are any products to which the footnotes 3 or 4 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition are applied and  for which the elimin ation of export subsidy are 
postponed?  
 
If there are such products, could the European Union describe the detailed tariff lines 
(CN number) and the latest budgetary outlay of export subsidy on each tariff line?  
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Answer by the European Union  
 
Footnote 3 of the Nairobi Decision applies  to the 1,374,400 tonnes of export subsidy quantity 
commitment for the EU sugar: see the most recent notification G/AG/N/EU/29. The European 
Union pays no subsidy on these quantities but they count against the quantity commitmen t. 
 
As set out in the relevant EU notifications, the European Union  has not granted any export 
subsidies on the products referred to in footnote 4 since 2011/12 for pig meat, 2009/10 for dairy 
and 2012/13 for processed products.  
 
Follow -up: Argentina noted  interest  in this issue .  
 
1.13  European Union 's agriculture policies  
1.13.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80010)  
New Zealand would like to thank the European Union for its answer to the question (AG -
IMS ID 79032)  New Zealand posed in the 9 March  2016 Committee o n Agriculture 
regarding European Union efforts to adopt more market -focused agriculture policies 
through reform of the CAP. New Zealand is interested in the European Union 's statement 
that 23  member States are "granting targeted aid in the form of payments  per 
production unit (farm, number of animals, production volumes, or a combination of 
these) ", and would like to request more information.  
 
Specifically, New Zealand would be interested to learn:  
a. The combined annual value of these payments across the 23 member States;  
b. The criteria used to determine the amount of aid that will be granted; and  
c. The proportion of funding targeted, respectively, at the dairy sector, the pig 
meat sector and the beef sector.  
Answer by the European Union  
 
Around two -thirds of the EUR 420 million of targeted aid is destined for the dairy sector, the rest is 
split between the pig meat sector and other livestock sectors. For details see the followin g 
document on the EU Europa web site: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/newsroom/231 -table_en.pdf . 
 
The amount available for each member State has been calculated on the basis of 2014 -15 national 
milk quotas, the national pig population, farm gate milk and pig carcass  price decreases, the 
degree of dependence on the Russian market, and the impact of the drought on feed crop 
production and prices.  
 
In order to ensure targeting support to those farmers most affected by the market disturbance, 
member States have been give n the flexibility to distribute their national amount through the most 
effective channels on the basis of objective and non -discriminatory criteria while ensuring that 
farmers in the livestock sectors are the ultimate beneficiaries of the targeted aid, whi lst avoiding 
any market and competition distortion.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted that a range of different methods were proposed for the spending 
of temporary aid, including some that allocated money directly to famers based on past years' 
production. New  Zealand encouraged the European Union and its member States to ensure that 
spending under the aid package, including matched member  State funding, would be at most 
minimally distorting to trade and production, would address real financial hardship and would 
assist in making long -term adjustments to support the sector's vitality. Canada and the 
United  States noted interest in learning more about the structure of this payment.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.14  India 's importation of apples  
1.14.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80014)  
New Zeala nd understands that Visakhapatnam Port and Tuticorin Port remain closed to 
apple imports since they were originally closed in September 2015.  
a.  Why are two ports closed to the import of apples?  
b. When they will reopen?  
c. How are these closures consistent wit h Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture which states that "Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert 
to any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted into 
ordinary customs duties "?  
Answer by India 
 
India's respon se remains  the same as was already given in previous  Committee meeting s. This 
issue is beyond the mandate of  the Committee on Agriculture  and the scope of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand and the United States acknowledged the opening of some of  India's ports 
to apple imports but remained concerned about the continued closure of two ports. New Zealand 
considered that the issue was relevant to the Committee on Agriculture given apples were 
agriculture products . In New Zealand's view such port clos ures appeared inconsistent with the 
Agreement on Agriculture, including Article 4.2. In light of India's continued reluctance to discuss 
the issue in this Committee New Zealand intended to revert to the Council for Trade in Goods 
which would take place on 5 July 2016. The European Union and the United States shared 
New Zealand's view that this issue was within the purview of this Committee. Ukraine highlighted 
the importance of transparency and predictability for traders.  Argentina and Nigeria also indicate d 
interest in this issue.  
1.15  India 's new crop insurance scheme  
1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 80068)  
Canada is following up on a question it had on India 's new crop insurance scheme from 
the 79th meeting of the Committee (AG -IMS ID 79051).  
 
India provided a w ebsite link ( http://agricoop.nic.in/ ) to the Department of Agriculture, 
Cooperation and Farmers Welfare which includes information on a number of insurance 
products available to India 's farmers. The site includes inf ormation on the Pilot Modified 
National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) for which the operational guidelines 
were authorized on 28 September 2010. The description of the Pilot Modified NAIS 
indicates that the scheme will be implemented on a pilot basi s in 50 districts. It appears 
that the Pilot Modified NAIS has been in operation for over five years.  
 
Could India clarify if the Pilot Modified NAIS has become the new crop insurance scheme 
that was announced earlier this year, or if this is a different insurance product available 
to India 's farmers?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The new crop insurance scheme ("Pradhanmantri Fasal Bima Yojana ") covers the entire country. 
All the details of the operational guidelines and implementation methodologies are available on the 
website  of which the  address was shared in the previous meeting.  
 
Follow -up: Canada thanked India for its confirmation that the crop insurance was in place and 
indicated that it might pose follow -up questions regarding how this programme would work.  
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.16  India's sugar export subsidies  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 80011)  
Australia thanks India for the answers provided to Australian questions raised at the 
79th  Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 79047), and notes that India has confirmed 
the discontinuat ion of the export subsidy programme established under the Sugar 
Development Fund (Amendment) Rules in February 2014. Can India please:  
a. Provide further updates in relation to the operation of the Maharashtra export 
subsidy programme, including total amount of subsidy paid, and the total 
amount of sugar exported under the programme (by year).  
b. Confirm reports suggesting that the Minimum Indicative Export Quota scheme 
(MIEQ) will be, or has been terminated.  
c. Provide the total amount of sugar exported to date aga inst the 2015 -16 MIEQ 
export target, and provide the total amount of payments made to cane farmers 
under the MIEQ scheme.  
d. Provide a written answer to AG -IMS ID 78087.  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
1.16.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80037)  
India in its response to question AG -IMS ID 79023 clarified that the production incentive 
is allowed on all cane crushed by the sugar mills during 2015 -2016 sugar season. 
However, the European Union understands that the i ncentive is provided only to those 
mills which have exported at least 80% of the targets notified under the Minimum 
Indicative Export Quota  (MIEQ).  
 
a. Could India confirm that payments were only made to crushers having fulfilled 
the 80% export target under MIEQ?  
b. Does India consider this support to be contingent on export performance, as 
referred to in Article 1(e) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by India  
 
India undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil and Colombia flagged c ontinued interest in India's sugar policies.  
1.17  India 's export assistance programmes  
1.17.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80027)  
The United States asked several detailed questions in September 2015 (AG -IMS ID 
78007) and March 2016 (AG -IMS ID 79002) regard ing India 's export assistance 
programmes and received a general response from India. While the United States 
understands that the Vishesh Krishi Gram Upaj Yojana (VKGUY  – or "Special Agriculture 
Produce Scheme ") scheme was discontinued on 31  March 2015, th e United States is 
resubmitting some of its previous questions, noting its interest in historical data. In 
addition, the United States also seeks more details on the new programme, the 
Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS).  
 
a. Would India confirm wheth er the VKGUY programme is suspended permanently 
or simply suspended currently?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 18 - 
 
  b. How much revenue was foregone by the government under the VKGUY 
programme?  
c. From 2010 -2014, which agricultural products received export assistance under 
the VKGUY programme, and in what amounts?  
d. Will India notify benefits provided under the new MEIS in its export subsidy 
notifications?  
e. Since 2014, have any agricultural products received export assistance under 
the MEIS programme, and if so, in what amounts?  
Answer by India  
 
a. It is confirmed that VKGUY programme has been discontinued permanently.  
b. The value  of revenue foregone  is provided in Rupees and crores . In 2015 -2016, 2014 -
2015 and 2013 -2014, the revenue is Rupees 1,441.19 crores, Rupees 3, 291.13 crores 
and Rupees 2,748.96 crores, respectively .  
c. The details of the agriculture products which have received export assistance can be 
seen in Appendix  37a of the web link http://dgft.gov.in/exim/2000/download/Appe&AN F
/37A.pdf . 
d. India's notification will be fully compliant with the A greement on Agriculture  and the 
guidelines developed by the Committee.   
e. Under MEIS, the programme has been introdu ced from 1 April 2015 and India is 
compiling the  data sector -wise and produ ct-wise. Because the  HS code s of the products 
to which assistance has been provided do not match the ones in the  Agreement on 
Agriculture, the matching will take some time.  
Follow -up: Canada and the European Union noted interest in these programmes.  
 
1.18  Japan 's Act on price adjustment of sugar and starch  
1.18.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80042)  
An amendment to the Act on price adjustment of sugar and starch has recently been 
proposed. Under this amendment, the price of imported sweetened preparations a nd 
sugar will be regulated through a special levy collected by ALIC. Could Japan give more 
detailed information on the type and origin of products that will be covered by this 
special levy, and at which stage the levy will be collected? Are any exemptions provided 
for?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
First, Japan would like to  explain the  basic idea of this amendment to  the Act on Price Adjustment 
of Sugar for Members'  understanding of Japan's response to the question . By amending the Act on 
Price Adjustment of Sugar an d Starch, Japan does not intend to establish a new trade scheme, but 
rather to apply to imported sugar preparations the same rule that Japan currently applies to 
imported sugar for collecting levy. The levels of customs duties, which include the levy, impo sed 
on those goods will remain unchanged after the amendment.  The purpose of the amendment is to 
replace current custom duties on sugar preparations, which is collected on MFN basis, with levy on 
sugar preparations, which will be collected also on MFN basi s. 
 
Regarding the EU's questions on specific products, Japan is considering that imported sugar 
preparations subject to the levy will include preparations such as cocoa or powdered skim -milk 
preparations that contain not less than 50% of sugar. Japan will stipulate the details in 
government ordinance. The levy will be applied to MFN trade.  
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 19 - 
 
  The levy on imported sugar preparations will be collected before the import declaration at the 
custom authority . This approach is similar to  the current rule applied to  imported sugar.  
 
The levy on imported sugar preparations is exempted in several cases . For example , under 
Article  14 of the Custom Tariff Act, tariffs on goods are exempted when the custom  value of the 
good is less than 10,000 yen . 
 
Follow -up: Australia, N ew Zealand and the United States noted interest. New Zealand encouraged 
Japan to provide more details as soon as possible to address Members' concerns.  
 
1.19  Moldova 's poultry tariffs  
1.19.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80028)  
The United States is concern ed with Moldova 's domestic legislation establishing tariff 
rates (initially established in Act No. 1380 -XIII "Customs Tariff " from 
20 November  1997). Specifically, for many tariff lines with mixed tariffs, the domestic 
legislation does not include language  "… but not greater than x% " that is found in 
Moldova 's WTO bound tariff schedule, effectively eliminating an applied tariff rate cap. 
As a result, a few of Moldova 's applied poultry import duties can be and have been  in 
excess of WTO bound rates.  
 
The Uni ted States understands that Moldova was preparing a modification to its fiscal 
legislation that would have eliminated the issue. However, because the relevant parts of 
the law were not included in the bill submitted to parliament, the correction has not 
happened.  
 
a. Has Moldova completed these steps needed to ensure that its poultry tariff 
stays within its WTO binding?  
b. If not, what are Moldova 's plans to come into compliance?  
Answer by Moldova, Republic of  
 
The discrepancy between the WTO bound tariff sched ule and the domestic legislation of the 
Republic of Moldova has been previously raised at both national and international level. The 
government of the Republic of Moldova is determined to amend its legislation in order to provide 
applied tariff rates which  are consistent with its WTO commitments.  
 
The Moldovan national authorities initiated the process of preparing a medium -term budgetary 
framework (CBTM) for the period of 2017 -2019. The document will be elaborated by the 
government of the Republic of Mold ova before the annual budget approval, representing a 
strategic framework for the preparation of the budget. It will forecast and mitigate the 
repercussions of the amendments in order to be adopted for the fiscal -budget policy for the year 
2017. The review  of the fiscal -budget policy of 2017 will consist of adjusting the tax formula 
calculation and application of customs duties in accordance with WTO practices.  
 
The Republic of Moldova takes this opportunity to highlight that its government is committed to 
pursue further reforms with the objective to diminish the above -mentioned discrepancy and set up 
solid fundamentals for a modern country based on the rule of law.  
 
Follow -up: United States appreciated Moldova's efforts to pursue this issue. Ukraine indicat ed 
interest.  
 
1.20  Russian Federation 's measures affecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural products 
to Kazakhstan  
1.20.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 80065)  
The continuation of Russian Federation 's restrictive measures applied to transit of goods 
transported from  the territory of Ukraine to Kazakhstan through the territory of Russian 
Federation by truck and railway routes leads to practically a ban on Ukrainian goods, G/AG/W/154  
 
- 20 - 
 
  particularly agricultural goods. Recalling that the Russian Federation at the March 2016 
meeting did not provide clear, specific responses to Ukraine 's questions (AG -IMS ID 
79084), Ukraine kindly requests that the Russian Federation provide substantive and 
meaningful answers to each of the updated questions below.  
 
According to the RF Presidential Dec ree No.  1 and RF Government 's Decision No.  1 as of 
1 January  2016, the Russian Federation has imposed a measure requiring that transit of 
goods coming from the territory of Ukraine to the territory of Kazakhstan through the 
territory of the Russian Federat ion by automotive and railway routes must enter the 
territory of the Russian Federation through the Republic of Belarus. In addition, only 
two checkpoints in the Russian Belarus border and three points in the Russian -
Kazakhstan border may be used for the t ransit of such goods. The requirement to use 
specific transit checkpoints and transit via Belarus lengthens the shipping distance and 
adds burdens such as delays and additional costs. Moreover, from the beginning of 2016 
Ukraine also has faced a number of restrictions on traffic in the transit of the Ukrainian 
goods through the territory of the Russian Federation to the third countries (not 
Kazakhstan).  
 
Thus Ukraine kindly requests that the Russian Federation:  
 
a. Explain why the Russian Federation decided t o restrict the entry of traffic in 
transit from the territory of Ukraine through two entry points in the border of 
Belarus with the Russian Federation and through three exit points in the border 
of the Russian Federation with Kazakhstan.  
b. Explain in detail  the requirements that traffic in transit from the territory of 
Ukraine through the territory of the Russian Federation must comply with after 
1 January  2016. Provide WTO Members with all operational details, including 
subsidiary legislation or enforcement  orders for customs authorities regarding 
the implementation of this measure.  
c. Explain if the country of origin of an agricultural good is the basis for applying 
the measure and whether any similar trade restrictions on transit are being 
applied to agricul tural goods of any other WTO Member.  
d. Clarify whether the measure is applied, in law and/or in fact, only to goods in 
transit from the territory of Ukraine to the territory of Kazakhstan, or the 
measure is also applied, in law and/or in fact, to goods in tr ansit from the 
territory of Ukraine to the territories of other countries. List these countries, if 
applicable.  
e. Explain how the Russian Federation 's restrictive measures are consistent with 
Art. 4.2 (footnote  1) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
f. Explain in detail the requirements for traffic in transit of the Ukrainian 
agricultural goods subject to TBT restrictions under the Russian Federation acts 
through the territory of the Russian Federation.  
g. Explain when the above mentioned Russian Federation 's restrict ive measures in 
relation to transit of Ukrainian goods will be eliminated.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
All actions of the Russian Federation are in full compliance with the WTO provisions.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine underlined the importance of providing trade rs with clear and transparent 
information to allow them  to trade efficiently and predictabl y. The United States indicated  interest 
in this issue. Canada, Moldova, and Paraguay  encouraged Ukraine and the Russian Federation to 
resolve this issue as swiftly a s possible. The European Union reiterated its concern and comments 
expressed at the General Council meeting on 24 February 2016 that it strongly regretted the trade G/AG/W/154  
 
- 21 - 
 
  restrictive measure introduced by the Russian Federation. Turkey also flagged concern about  this 
measure and the lack of explanation from the Russian Federation.  
 
1.21  Sri Lanka 's increase in milk powder tariffs  
1.21.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80016)  
New Zealand is pleased that Sri Lanka is currently working to bring its applied tariffs for 
dairy  products that exceed its WTO bindings in line with its WTO commitment levels by 
the middle of 2016. Can Sri Lanka advise the Committee what remaining steps need to 
be taken in order for it to deliver on this mid -year commitment?  
 
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
Sri Lanka undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand thanked Sri Lanka for engaging in various bilateral discussions and invited 
Sri Lanka to continue to update the Committee on its progress in bringing applied dairy tariffs back 
in line with WTO bindings. Australia signalled interest in this issue.   
 
1.22  Thailand 's export of rice from government stocks  
1.22.1   Question by  the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80045)  
According to the FAO, and as reported in the press, in 2016 Thailand is expected to 
export 9.9  million tonnes of rice, which is a slightly greater quantity than exported in 
2015. However due to reduced production in 2015, a higher share of the export will 
come from government stocks.  
 
a. Could Thailand indicate the total quantity of rice exp orted from government 
stocks in 2015 and the average sales price of these quantities?  
b. Could Thailand indicate the expected quantities to be sold on export markets 
from government stocks during 2016?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand undertook to provide an ans wer at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Canada, India, Nigeria, the Philippines and the United States registered interest and 
looked forward to the responses.  
1.23  Turkey's support scheme to certain agricultural sectors  
1.23.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 8004 9) 
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 79026.  
 
The European Union thanks  Turkey  for the detailed reply to  its questions. However, in 
Turkey's 2016 Trade Policy Review exercise, in a reply to EU's question No.  34, Turkey 
stated that "no support was granted to citrus fruit after 1999", which is in direct 
contradiction to the answer given to question AG -IMS ID 79026. How does Turkey 
reconcile these statements?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Question No. 34 from the European Union in the Turkish TPR exercise is related to exp ort subsidies 
on citrus fruit. Turkey responded to this question during the TPR exercise in March 2016. However, 
the response provided to the question AG -IMS ID 79026 is related to domestic support 
programmes. Therefore, there is no contradiction between t he responses provided to those two 
questions.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.24  Turkey 's domestic support and export subsidies  
1.24.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 80012)  
In the last session (79th CoA), Turkey replied to the question from the European Union 
(AG-IMS ID 79027) that "Turkey's export subsidies and domestic support notifications 
are being prepared". Could Turkey update the situation?  
 
With regard to the elimination of export subsidies, could Turkey confirm if there are any 
products to which footnotes 5 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decisio n on Export Competition 
are applied and of which the elimination of export subsidy are postponed?  
 
If there are such products, could Turkey describe the detailed tariff lines (12 -digit level) 
and the latest budgetary outlay of export subsidy on each tariff  line?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
As one of the developing countries with export subsidy entitlements, Turkey has the right to 
benefit from the longer time -frame extended through the footnote 5 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition to eliminate  export subsidy entitlements, for some products or 
groups of products. The list of these products can be found in the Turkey's notifications 
G/AG/N/TUR/9, G/AG/N/TUR/11 and G/AG/N/TUR/13. However, Turkey has yet to identify the 
products that will benefit f rom this flexibility.  
 
The latest budgetary outlay of export subsidies for these products will provided within the export 
subsidy notifications of Turkey, which will be submitted soon to the Secretariat.  
 
1.24.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 80017)  
New Zeala nd notes that Turkey has not notified its export subsidies to the Committee on 
Agriculture since 2000. Turkey's export subsidy outlays for a range of agricultural 
products in the period 2013 -2015 were nonetheless notified in 2012 and 2014 to the 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/N/220/TUR and 
G/SCM/N/253/TUR). When will Turkey notify these export subsidies and any prior to 
2013 to the Committee on Agriculture?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The work of preparation of Turkey's export subsidy noti fications could not be completed for this 
meeting. Turkey hopes to make the notifications available soon . 
 
1.24.3   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80048)  
The European Union continues to request an answer to question (AG -IMS ID 78044) 
raised during the Co A meeting on 25 September 2015:  
 
The European Union has still not received any substantive answer to questions 
AG-IMS ID 77047, AG -IMS ID 75069 and AG -IMS ID 73056 asked during the 73rd, 
75th and 77th meeting s of the Committee , and invites Turkey to presen t its reply to these 
questions.  
 
Further, the US Department of Agriculture in its Citrus Report for the year 2013 
indicates (as in the 2011 report) that "the Turkish government makes support payments 
to exporters and the rates vary each year. The Ministry of Finance is providing a subsidy 
to citrus exporters of 200  YTL/MT in 2013. There is also a minimum price requirement 
for this specific subsidy. The government makes payments to a special account, which 
the exporter can only use to make tax and social sec urity payments as well as utilities 
such as telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas. In order to protect domestic 
producers, the government kept the customs duty rates at 2007 levels for orange juice 
and citrus imports, which are 54% ". 
 G/AG/W/154  
 
- 23 - 
 
  a. Could Turk ey confirm that since 2001 its budgetary outlays and eligible 
quantity as regards export subsidies, notably for citrus fruits, have remained 
below its commitments?  
b. Could Turkey indicate the level of AMS support in absolute amounts since 2002 
per budget yea r or at least for the budget years 2010 to 2014?  
c. Does this level respect Turkey's de minimis  commitment?  
d. When will Turkey make its DS:1 notifications for the years after 2002?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey has started a work programme to notify its agricultural  domestic support programmes on a 
gradual basis, but more time will be needed. Turkey is not in a position to provide a precise 
timeframe for when the notification will be ready.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and Japan looked forward to Turkey's upcoming  notification. 
New Zealand noted that this was a long -running issue in this Committee and it had also been 
raised in Turkey's  recent Trade policy Review (TPR). New Zealand sought an indication regarding 
when the outstanding export subsidy notification  would be ready. New Zealand praised Turkey's 
efforts in providing transparency in the context of the dedicated discussion on export competition. 
This included Turkey's notification to the SCM Committee and its reply to the Secretariat 
questionnaire. New Zealan d noted that these efforts were incomplete in comparison to the 
notification obligation under the Agreement on Agriculture. Australia, Canada, the Philippines and 
Ukraine supported the questions and looked forward to reviewing the notification. Canada and the 
United States strongly encouraged Turkey to submit its overdue notifications as soon as possible.  
1.25  Turkey 's fruit and vegetable export subsidies  
1.25.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80056)  
The European Union continues to request an ans wer to questi on AG -IMS ID 79031  
 
Media reports refer to the Turkish government subsidizing fruit and vegetable exports to 
compensate for the loss of the Russian market. The aid seems to be regulated by a 
Turkish law applicable from 1 January 2016 which consists of per tonne subsidies for 
fruits (fresh, canned or frozen), dried fruit, fruit juice and vegetables.  
a. Could the Turkish delegation provide clarifications whether such an export 
subsidy is currently in place?  
b. Will Turkey notify the use of this export subsidy?  
Answ er by Turkey  
 
No export subsidies have been granted to compensate loss es in the Russian market due to 
Russia 's restrictions on imports of Turkish fruit and vegetables.  
 
1.26  Turkey 's destination of wheat flour sale  
1.26.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 80029 ) 
The United States appreciates Turkey 's response to its question AG -IMS ID 78008. 
However, the response was not clear. The United States resubmits the following 
questions:  
 
a. Are any Members of the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) Board of Directors 
appointed by o r employed by the government of Turkey?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 24 - 
 
  b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing 
certificate holders over the past several years.  In the past, Turkey has cited 
U.S. Department of Commerce countervailing duty decisions on  pasta and steel 
pipes and tubes.  These decisions do not provide the information requested. 
Does Turkey confirm that TMO sells domestic wheat to Turkey flour millers that 
export flour and hold inward processing certificates?  If so, please provide 
wheat pur chase and wheat sales prices for these transactions for the last three 
years.    
c. The United States appreciates Turkey 's response on exported flour and 
imported wheat as shown in the table (Annex 2 in G/AG/W/106; AG -IMS ID 
73042). Are all of the quantities l isted imported and exported through the 
inward processing system? If not, please elaborate on this table by stating how 
much of the imports and exports were through the inward processing system. 
Turkey has responded that "Vast majority of Turkish wheat imp orts and wheat 
flour exports were made under IPR ". Please state precisely how much of the 
imports and exports were through the inward processing system.  
d. In AG -IMS ID 73042, the United States requested data concerning both the 
quantity and quality of wheat imports and flour exports under Turkey 's inward 
processing system. In response, Turkey provided data concerning only the 
quantity of such imports and exports and did not have data to share on quality. 
Please share any information regarding the quality of t he wheat imports over 
the last three years that Turkey can provide, even if not data.    
Answer by Turkey  
 
This is also a question raised by the United States in the Turkish TPR last March. Turkey repeats its 
answer to this question in the TPR as follows:  
 
Turkish Grain Board (TMO) is a fully autonomous entity and operates on the grounds of 
profitability. The same applies to the responsibility of TMO 's board of Directors in its management 
activities.  
 
TMO sells domestic wheat to Turkish flour millers that ho ld inward processing certificate. As it was 
repeatedly stated by Turkey, purchases of domestic wheat from TMO were already examined by 
the US authorities in various CVD proceedings. For example, in its preliminary results of 2004 
countervailing duty admini strative review for certain pasta from Turkey, Department of Commerce 
(DoC) found that purchases of domestic wheat from TMO does not provide a countervailable 
benefit because the prices paid by companies were higher than world market prices, inclusive of 
delivery charges.  
 
Statistics are collected and compiled on the basis of HS codes.  
 
Follow -up: The United States indicated that they would likely follow up with further questions. The 
Philippines and Ukraine registered continued interest in this matter. Th e European Union noted 
interest in monitoring how Turkey's system would influence the wheat flour market.  
1.27  Turkey 's rice support  
1.27.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80052)  
The European Union continues to request an answer to question AG -IMS ID 79029.  
 
On 17 December 2015 the government of Turkey announced the paddy purchasing price 
for 2015 -2016 at around TL 1,580 (around USD  534) per tonne.  
 
a. Could Turkey indicate how many tonnes benefitted from this price and the total 
cost for TMO for this measure?  
b. How does Turkey intend to notify this support in its DS:1 notification?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
The Turkish Grain Board is conducting independent activities taking into account principles of 
profitability and productivity. In cases when the Turkish Grain Board a nnounces a purchasing 
price, this is determined by its Board of Directors in line with its own policies and not by the 
Government. Therefore, the paddy purchasing prices of the Turkish Grain Board do not constitute 
administrative prices but market based pr ices and Turkey does not intend to include the 
purchasing prices of the Turkish Grain Board in the calculation of its domestic support.  
 
On the other hand, since the 2015 -2016 season is not over yet, it is not possible  to know how 
many ton nes any company , including the Turkish Grain Board,  might have purchased.  
 
Follow -up: The United States registered interest in this question.  
1.28  U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Share program me 
1.28.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 80096)  
Brazil is concern ed with  the announcement on 6 J une 2016 that the United States will 
implement a "new Cotton Ginning Cost -Share program me". Brazil will look into the 
programme 's technical details, but Brazil 's first assessment of its design seems to 
indicate tha t this is a new trade distorting  domestic support measure with potential 
impacts to international cotton prices. Brazil expects that expenditures under this 
programme are compatible with multilateral trade commitments of the United States in 
the WTO. Brazil  hope s to receive additional information about this new programme in 
the coming days and encourage the United State s to notify this policy change to the 
Committee on Agriculture in accordance with Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Answer by the United States2 
 
On 6 June 2016, USDA anno unced the Cotton Ginning Cost -Share program me, which provides 
cost-share assistance payments to cotton producers . Cotton ginning is a necessary requirement for 
producers to market the lint for fib re or the seed for oil or feed. Through the Cotton Ginning C ost-
Share program me, eligible producers can receive a one -time cost share payment in 2016, which is 
based on a producer's past plantings (i.e., 2015 cotton planted acres) and  40% of the average 
ginning cost in each of the four production regions. The progr amme is limited in scope by payment 
caps and eligibility requirements for producers.  
 
Any payments under the program me will be based on the 2015 cotton plantings and are not 
connected to either current or future production. Sign -up for U.S. producers bega n on 20 June and 
will run through 5 August 2016.   
 
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   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/1)  
AG-IMS ID 80079: Question by Canada - Allocation of li cences to importing entities  
Canada welcomes the detailed notification from Kazakhstan regarding the 
administration of its tariff rate quotas. Canada notes that the administration for the beef 
TRQ, section (b) ii and iii mentions "45 % of the quota volume is allocated to meat 
processors in accordance with the requested volumes ". Under the WTO Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures as per Article 3: "Consideration shall also be given to 
ensuring a reasonable distribution of licenses to new importers " (i.e. new entrants) in 
the administration of non -automatic import licenses. Could Kazakhstan confirm that the 
45% of the allocation quantity also be available to new entrants?  
 
                                               
2 The information below is provided by the United States at the 5th Dedicated Discussio ns on Cotton and 
is contained in document TN/AG/GEN/34/Rev.4/Add.2 - TN/AG/SCC/GEN/13/Rev.4/Add.2.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Answer by Kazakhstan  
 
Kazakhstan  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: The United States indicated interest in this question.  
 
2.1.2   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/13/ADD.17)  
AG-IMS ID 80030: Question by the United States - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities  
The United States thanks Switzerland for their response to A G-IMS ID 77072 and has a 
follow -up question.  
 
In 2015, Switzerland increased the share of beef and sheep meat import quotas that are 
distributed based on the contribution to Swiss production from 10% to 50%.  In 
Switzerland 's 2016 notification related to th e administration of tariff quotas, 
Switzerland maintains the 50% provision. This provision is disadvantageous to 
companies that principally source product through imports. Will Switzerland explain in 
detail why it considers this system to be in compliance with its WTO commitments?  
 
Answer by Switzerland  
 
The increase in the quota shares for "Animals for slaughter; meat mainly produced on the basis of 
coarse fodder " distributed on the basis of a contribution to Swiss production was decided by the 
Swiss Parli ament in March  2013. In the parliamentary debate, increased predictability for 
importers and easier access to the quota shares for small companies were identified  as goals . The 
new regime entered into force on 1  January  2015.  
 
Fifty per cent of quota share s in bovine and sheep meat and offal are distributed on the basis of a 
contribution to Swiss production. Forty per cent  of quota shares are allocated in this way on the 
basis of the number of animals slaughtered. The remaining 10% of quota shares are alloc ated 
according to the number of animals acquired at auction on monitored public markets. The person 
entitled to a share of quota can nevertheless transfer his/her right to an animal keeper, a livestock 
dealer firm, a meat processing company or a meat tradi ng company.  
 
This change only affects the distribution of quota shares among importers. These provisions do not 
limit the exports of exporting countries. This is reflected in the fact that, as during previous years, 
the fill rate for the tariff quota in qu estion remains clearly above 100% in 2015, when the new 
regime was introduced. Switzerland therefore considers this system to be consistent with its WTO 
commitments.  
 
Follow -up: Supported by Australia, t he United States looked forward to further details on  why 
Switzerland considered this system to be in compliance with WTO commitments. Canada and the 
European Union flagged interest in this question.  
 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/210)  
AG-IMS ID 80018: Questi on by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia notes that Japan continues to significantly under -fill some of its tariff quotas 
for several products, including skimmed milk powder for school lunches, skimmed milk 
powder for other purposes, and prepared whey  for infant formula. Would Japan please 
provide reasons for why these tariff quotas were not filled?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan operate s TRQs appropriately  and in a fair and transparent manner  consistent with WTO 
Agreements . Underutilizati on of some TRQs is r elated to decrease in domestic demand of those G/AG/W/154  
 
- 27 - 
 
  products. "SMP" is consumed for specific purposes (e.g. school lunch.) "Prepared Whey " is used for 
infant formula for babies and infants. These purposes are described in the Table MA:1 notification.  
AG-IMS ID 80058: Question by  the European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Japan's dairy TRQs in the last three years have low fill rates, e.g. "Skimmed Milk 
Powder" fill rates are respectively 27.3%, 27% and 25.2% in the last three years 2012 -
2014, or on butter respective ly 28.6%, 20.5% and 25% in the last three years 2012 -
2014.  
 
a. How does Japan explain such low fill rates?  
b. How does Japan intend to address this low level of imports of dairy products?  
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan operates TRQs appropriately, consistent with WTO A greements and in a fair and transparent 
manner. Underutilizat ion of some TRQs is related to  decrease in domestic demand of those 
products. "SMP (Skimmed Milk Powder) " is consumed for specific purposes (e.g. school lunch) . 
"Butter and butter oil " is for the  consumption of international airlines, international trade fairs and 
other specialized purposes. These purposes are described in the Table MA:1 notification. 
Furthermore, a scheme of reallocation providing  several opportunities of application per year has  
already been introduced to fill the quotas.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand and the United States expressed interest in this topic.  
2.2.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/86)  
AG-IMS ID 80060: Question by the European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union notes that the tariff  quota fill rate for the Norwegian tariff quota 
covering "meat of fowls of the species  Gallus  domesticus " has fallen drastically from 
85% in 2014 to  5% in 2015.  
 
a. What is the reason behind this substantial decrease?  
The European Union also notes that for a  number of TRQs there has consistently been a 
very low fill rate.  
 
b. Does Norway intend to change the administration of these TRQ to allow a 
better fill -in rate?  
Answer by Norway  
 
Unfortunately,  Norway has become aware of the fact that there is an error in t he Norwegian 
notification for 2014 with respect to imports of "meat of fowls of the species Gallus domesticus ". 
Imports under this quota totalled 33 tonnes resulti ng in a quota fill rate of 15% in 2014. A 
corrigendum has been issued (G/AG/N/NOR/86/Corr.1 d ated 24 June 2016) .  
 
The quota fill rate for poultry meat reflects the fluctuations in consumer demands. Historically 
importers have had little interest in the quota in question. 2013  is an exemp tion with a quota fill 
rate of  98%.  
 
Furthermore, as of 201 2 there have been considerable imports of meat of Gallus domesticus  under 
the bilateral quota from the E uropean Union. Although impo rts under this quota also vary  due to 
variations in demand, it seems like the interest among importers has been somewhat hig her than 
for the WTO quota. The quota fill rate for the bilateral quota has varied from 28% in 2014 to 99% 
in 2012. The import  under this quota was 583 tonnes in 2015.  
 
In general, the quota fill for Norwegian WTO import quotas is good. Looking at the thr ee previous 
years there are only four out of 20 quotas t hat have had low or no in -quota imports through all G/AG/W/154  
 
- 28 - 
 
  three years. For these few quotas, the fill rate is not linked to the administration method, but to 
the attractiveness of the quotas in question.  
 
This can be illustrated by looking at the fill rates for the quotas for Gallus domesticus . The bilateral 
EU quota which includes fresh or chilled meat has a high quota fill rate, whereas the WTO quota 
which is limited to frozen meat has a low fill rate. Th e administration methods for the two quotas 
are identical and changing the administration method would thus have no influence on the fill rate.  
 
2.2.3   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/12)  
AG-IMS ID 80100: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand notes tha t fill rates are low for some products, e.g. "fresh, chilled or frozen 
poultry " fill rates are respectively 20.4%, 13.9% and 26.0%. Could Russia explain such 
low fill rates?  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
This decrease reflects the changes in the world ma rket. The Russian Federation has also noticed a 
decrease in domestic demand for these products.  
 
2.2.4   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/135)  
AG-IMS ID 80099: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand understands that  the reported  fill rates  for bananas and ma ngoes are 0%.  
a. Would Chinese Taipei please provide reasons for why these tariff quotas were 
not filled?  
b. Is there any intend to improve fill rate?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
a. The zero quota fill rate occurred for  bananas and mangoes because the main areas of 
production of bananas and mangoes are suffering from quarantine pests and diseases. 
Importation from the infected areas is not allowed until  Chinese Taipei's  quarantine 
requirements are met.  
b. The TRQ mechanism is the result of negotiations on  Chinese Taipei' s accession to the 
WTO. All administration procedures for TRQ products are in accordance with the 
principles of transparency, predictability and equity, and based on market mechanism s. 
Chinese Taipei is committed to implementing TRQs in accordance with its  accession 
commitments and the rules of the WTO. However, the fill rates on TRQs depend on 
market mechanism s and are not subject to any government interventions . 
2.3  SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS  (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  
2.3.1   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/44)  
AG-IMS ID 80085: Question  by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada understands, based on the notification from the Philippines that a price -based 
safeguard was in place from January 2010 to October 2014 on HS 0207.14.92. Recalling 
that Article 5, paragraph 7 of the Agreement on Agri culture stipulates that "… any 
member taking action under subparagraph 1(b) above [a price -based SSG] shall give 
notice in writing, including relevant data, to the Committee on Agriculture within 
ten days of implementation of the first such action  …". G/AG/W/154  
 
- 29 - 
 
  a. When  will the Philippines provide MA:3 and MA:4 notifications that show the 
trigger calculation that has been used to enact the SSG in each case where it 
has been enacted?  
b. Can the Philippines provide information as to the volume of trade affected by 
the imposi tions of the SSG?  
c. Given the near constant SSG action on HS 0207.14.92, can the Philippines 
provide information on the trend in domestic production and consumption on 
this particular product?  
Answer by Philippines  
 
a-b.  With respect to Canada 's request f or MA:4 notifications, the Philippines wish es to refer 
to G/AG/N/PHL/27 dated 23 September 2002. This was the country 's "up-front" 
notification of the price trigger of the product at issue (HS 0207.14 92) and the 
calculation of the trigger. It is noted tha t the up -front notification covers almost all of 
the products marked with "SSG" under the country 's WTO schedule.  
 
Based on the up -front notification (G/AG/N/PHL/27), the price trigger of the product 
concerned (HS 0207.14 92) is PHP 93.96/kg or about USD 2 /kg in May 2016. This 
means that any exporter should expect that a price -based SSG may be applied should 
its export price is below USD 2/kg.  
 
For the price -based SSG applications in 2010 -2015, the export prices that were subject 
to the price safeguard wer e all below USD 1/kg, which were about 55% -65% lower 
than the USD 2/kg price trigger.  
 
The trade volume affected by the imposition of the SSG was 5,591 MT in 2010 . It 
decreased to 2,500 MT in 2015, which was less than half of the 2010 level. Over the 6 -
year period, the affected trade volume by SSG was declining by 11% annually.  
 
Given the fact that the up -front notification has been available since 2002, Canada 's 
request for the Philippines to comply with the transparency requirement under 
paragraph 7 of A rticle 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture is unnecessary and 
redundant.  
 
c.   On domestic production and consumption data, the Philippines is having technical 
challenges in producing this information since the collection of this information would 
involve e xtraction and derivation of specific data at HS 8 -digit level from aggregate 
ones.  
AG-IMS ID 80063: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
In 2015, the Philippines notified the reinstatement of a price -based S SG for certain 
listed products. Could the Philippines give further details on what is meant exactly by 
reinstated? Does it means reinstated on a permanent basis?  
 
Answer by Philippines  
 
With respect to the European Union 's question of whether the word "reinstated " in G/AG/N/PHL/44 
means "permanent " application of the price -based SSG, it simply means the opposite . The price -
based SSG was not imposed automatically by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) of the Philippines, 
regardless whether price triggers were breached.  
 
Under the Philippines ' law, Republic Act 8800 issued in 2000, the Department of Agriculture (DA) 
determines whether to apply a price -based or volume -based SSG regardless  of whether a price 
trigger or a volume trigger has been breached in any given year. If DA would like to invoke o r 
withdraw a special safeguard, it should issue a written Order requesting the BOC to do so. In 
short, the BOC cannot apply a price -based or volume -based SSG mechanically and automatically 
unless the DA directs it to do so (provided a trigger is breached a nd the price and volume -based 
SSGs are not applied at the same time).  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 30 - 
 
   
The Philippines would also like to inform the Committee that it will issue a corrigendum to amend 
the notification at issue (G/AG/N/PHL/44), specifically the last page which concerns th e SSG 
impositions on 6 tariff lines of poultry in 2015, to reflect the following corrections:  
 
i. Only one out of the six poultry tariff lines at HS 8 -digit level was actually subject to the 
price-based SSG, i.e. HS 0207.14 92 (Other cuts and offals of Chi cken, frozen);  
 
ii. Thus, no price -based SSG was imposed on the rest of the poultry lines i.e. HS 0207.11 
20, …12 20 and …14 12 and HS 1602.32 90, not only in 2015 but since 2004; and  
 
iii. Finally, no volume -based SSG was actually imposed on processed chi cken under 
HS 1602.32 20.  
 
In summary, it was only on HS 0207.14 92 where the price SSG was actually imposed in 2010 to 
2015.  
 
The mistake in the notification might have been created due to an inherent limitation in the 
Philippines ' system as described ear lier. Two independent government agencies, the Department 
of Agriculture and the Bureau of Customs, are directly involved in SSG applications and seamless 
and timely exchange of data and communication is a big challenge. Paradoxically, however, this 
set-up is a source of strength in ensuring checks and balance between the two agencies especially 
in determining SSG applications.  
  
Follow -up: Australia and the United States supported the questions. Australia was interested in 
examining the data and notificat ions which supported the use of SSGs.  
 
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/133)  
AG-IMS ID 80077: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
a. Canada notes that the Paragraph 7 of Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
states that Members give notification "…  as far  as in advance as may be 
practicable and in any event within 10 days of the implementation of such 
action". Chinese Taipei's MA:3 notification was issued on 15 March 2016 and 
was for the period 21 August 2015 to 31 December 2015. Could Chinese Taipei 
pleas e explain how, going forward, it will improve its transparency and 
notification requirements under the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Could Chinese Taipei please confirm if the domestic consumption volumes are 
for all of pork, or only for pork belly?  
Answer b y Chinese Taipei  
a. Chinese Taipei  recognizes that transparency is one of the obligations of Members. 
Chinese Taipei  can assure Canada that the operation of SSG will be carried out in a 
transparent manner. In this particular case the importer's customs cleara nce procedures 
were not complete, which resulted in the inability to notify. It was a rare exception.  
b. Chinese Taipei  confirm s that the domestic consumption volumes in the notification 
concerned are for pork belly only.  
AG-IMS ID 80061: Question by  the European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union would welcome information on the economic situation which led 
Chinese Taipei to take this specific measure on pork belly. According to Chinese Taipei's 
notification, imports are decreasing.  
 
a. Why was su ch measure necessary?  
b. Did these imports pose a risk to the national production?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 31 - 
 
  c. Could Chinese Taipei indicate the origin of the imported pork belly?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
Pork belly is one of Chinese Taipei's most sensitive products. The volume of imp orts has a major 
effect on domestic production and industries. Therefore, such measures remain necessary. 
According to latest trade data, the European Union, Canada and the United States are the main 
origins of the imported pork belly in this case.  
 
Follow-up: The United States expressed interest.  
2.3.3   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/134)  
AG-IMS ID 80062: Question by the European Union - Other implementation issues  
Chinese Taipei applies the SSG, both on volume and on price, to a large number of 
products. According  to Chinese Taipei's notification, the SSG was applied both on price 
and on volume on the same products.  
 
Could Chinese Taipei explain how the SSG was applied given that Article 5.1(a) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture provides that both price and volume SS G cannot be used 
concurrently in a given year?  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
For shipments with an import price lower than the trigger price, only the price -based SSG will be 
applied. If the volume -based SSG is triggered, the additional duty will be imposed on shipments 
regardless  of whether  it is volume -based or pric e-based. Therefore, price -based and volume -based 
SSGs are never applied concurrently to the same shipment of imports.  
 
2.4  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99)  
AG-IMS I D 80102: Question by Thailand - General services: Research  
Australia reported Green Box expenditure of AUD 1,447 million. Could Australia please 
provide more details on the following programmes:  
 
a. Research to develop agricultural industries and alig ned foo d and fibre 
production ( in Queenland) . 
b. Research and development into production processing, marketing of 
agricultural production, sustainable land management and pest and disease 
control (in Western Australia).  
Answer by Australia  
 
a. The Queensland governmen t supports a range of agricultural research and development 
activities in five focus areas. The focus areas and spending devoted to each is outlined in 
the following table. The Queensla nd g overnment 's Department of Agriculture and 
Fisheries delivers this s pending in partnership with major research institutions, including 
the University of Queensland, Sugar Research Australia, the Queensland University of 
Technology, and others.  
Research Area  FY13/14  
Animal Science  AUD17m  
Food Science  AUD3m  
Crop Science  AUD26m  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Research Area  FY13/14  
Horticulture Science  AUD12m  
Forestry Science *  AUD2m  
Total  AUD60m  
* Note that forestry is not covered by the Agreement on Agriculture. However, disaggregated data was not 
available at the time of Australia 's notification.  
 
b. The government of Weste rn Australia undertakes research in the four areas outlined in 
the following table. Research focuses on increasing productivity, managing resources 
sustainably and protecting plants and animals from pests and diseases. Research 
activities were undertaken b y officers from the government of Western Australia 's 
Department of Agriculture and Food.  
Research Area  FY13/14  
Livestock  AUD11.85m  
Grains  AUD15.83m  
Irrigated Agriculture  AUD4.31m  
Biosecurity and Natural 
Resource Management  AUD18.97m  
Total  AUD50.96m  
2.4.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/28)  
AG-IMS ID 80034: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
As noted in China 's response to AG -IMS ID 78062, despite its intended purpose to 
stabilize production and provide food security, the programm es are de facto market 
support prices. Therefore, under WTO rules, they should be notified as administered 
prices. The United States requests that China revise its notification to reflect this.   
Answer by China  
Please refer to China 's reply provided in the  last meeting. Chinese experts believe that prices in 
2009 and 2010 were not higher than the market price s and did not have the effect to support 
market prices.  
AG-IMS ID 80035: Question by the United States - Direct payments: payments for relief 
from nat ural disasters  
Regarding AG -IMS ID 78064, China 's "payments for relief from natural disasters " have 
increased substantially since 2005, reaching CNY 583.84 hundred million in 2010. Per 
paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture "… payments s hall arise 
only following a formal recognition by government authorities that a natural or like 
disaster has occurred ". 
a. Please provide a list of all relevant formal recognitions by either the central 
government or local governments that provided eligibilit y for payments in 
2010.  
In response to AG -IMS ID 78064, China stated that it was not in a position to provide 
any specific resources related to other specific policy and implementing guidance 
regarding the notified programmes.  
b. Is China now in a position t o do so? If not, what resources are available to help 
Members better understand programs notified under this subheading?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 33 - 
 
  In response to AG -IMS ID 66050, China indicated that total payments only compensated 
for a small part of farmers ' losses.  
c. Please provi de an indication of the level of compensation provided to farmers 
compared to losses of income.  
d. Please provide a list of the individual programs included under this subheading.  
Answer by China  
As China  explained at the last meeting, the situation in the no tification of direct payments for 
disaster relief programmes is quite similar to that of direct payment under the environment 
programmes (please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 79011 and 79012). Chinese experts 
are studying the case and the reply will be provided as soon as possible.  
AG-IMS ID 80039: Question by the United States - Market price support  
Given China's response to AG -IMS ID 78067, an updated notification continues to be 
warranted. Please provide an estimated submission date for the up dated notification.  
 
Answer by China  
Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 80054.  
AG-IMS ID 80040: Question by the United States  - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
With China 's answer to AGIMS ID 78068, the United States understands th at the entire 
production of wheat and rice in the targeted regions should be used to calculate China 's 
AMS for wheat and rice.    
The United States requests that China revise its notification to reflect this.  
Answer by China  
Please refer to  China 's reply to  question AG -IMS ID 79013.  China would like to add that, rice for 
self-consumption should not be counted in the amount eligible for administered price, since the 
farmers will produce wheat and rice for self -consumption, regardless of whether  the government  
provides support or not. And therefore, this part of production is not affected by the support.  
Follow -up: Canada expressed interest in question AG-IMS ID 80035  as it understood that the data 
was available. The European Union signalled interest in these questions.  
 
2.4.3   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/53)  
AG-IMS ID 80073: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid  
Canada notes that under domestic food aid that Cuba describes the measure as a "retail 
price subsidy for certain products that constitute the basic food basket ". Coul d Cuba 
provide additional information, including the eligibility requirements for the recipients?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Answer by Cuba  
Cuba does not have an eligibility mechanism for recipients of products that constitute the basic 
food basket . The measure is part of a governm ent programme and covers the Cuban population as 
a whole.  
The measure is a retail price subsidy for the sale of products that constitute the basic food basket 
of the country's population across the retail network, implemented through the use of personal 
ration cards.  
There are no eligibility criteria for the distribution and sale of basic food basket products to 
recipients, since these include the Cuban population as a whole. The measure covers the basic 
food basket itself, medical diets and improved diets for children and the elderly.  
Cuba would point out that this measure has no trade -distorting effects and that the products in 
question are not for export.  
AG-IMS ID 80071: Questio n by Canada - Direct payments: S tructural adjustment 
assistance provided thro ugh investment aids  
Cuba 's notified payments made to improve rural structures and for the purchase of 
equipment, machinery, etc. under "Structural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids " increased from 216.3 million pesos in 2014 to over 1 billion pesos 
pesos in 2015.  
a. What are the reasons for the large increase in expenditure for this programme?  
b. Could Cuba elaborate on the structural disadvant ages that are being 
addressed?  
Answer by Cuba  
a. As has already been clarified, the supposed increas e in payments was due to an error in 
the DS:1 notification . According to the information provided, there was no increase in 
expenditure under this heading, in line with the figures reported in previous years.  
b. These are subsidies for the construction, repla cement, maintenance and repair of 
warehouses, facilities and equipment in order to maintain the necessary storage capacity 
throughout the country for products which constitute the population's basic food basket.  
Furthermore, through a government programme,  this expenditure guarantees the purchase of 
machinery to promote pastures and various kinds of fodder suited to the tropical climate, helping 
farmers to improve their production of meat and milk in order to feed the population . Through the 
transfer of tec hnology relating to comprehensive feeding systems, it also guarantees the 
sustenance of livestock in general, especially cattle, pigs and poultry, and soil improvement for 
this purpose.  
2.4.4   Fiji (G/AG/N/FJI/13)  
AG-IMS ID 80075: Question by Canada - General ser vices: Other 
Canada welcomes Fiji 's DS:1 notification covering years 2010 -2015. Could Fiji provide 
more information on the "income security " aspect of the "Export Promotion " programme 
that is listed for each of the years notified? In particular, how does t he government of 
Fiji provide a farmer with income security and what is the basis for a payment?  
Answer by Fiji 
Fiji undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 35 - 
 
  2.4.5   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/15)  
AG-IMS ID 80019: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (inc luding Table DS:2)  
In relation to Georgia's latest DS:1 notification, can Georgia please provide more 
information regarding two programmes, which have been notified as Green Box 
programmes:  
 
a. With respect to the "Agro Insurance" programme, can Georgia detai l the 
covered events under related insurance programmes? To what extent will 
production losses be covered by the related insurance programmes?  
b. With respect to the "Preferential Agro -credits" programme, can Georgia explain 
the context of the term "preferent ial" in the title of the programme? To what or 
whom is the preference, or concession, applied? What are the defined eligibility 
criteria in relation to the programme? What kind of structural disadvantage is 
the programme designed to address?  
Answer by Geo rgia 
a. The a gricultural insurance programme "Agro Insurance" was put into force on 
1 September 2014 . The purpose of the programme is to  develop the insurance market in 
agricultural sector, promote agricultural activities, retain the income for individuals wi th 
the occupation of mentioned activities and reduce agricultural risks.  
The program me is implemented by non -commercial legal entity Agricultural Project 
Management Agency. To implement projects, t he Agency signs contracts with relevant 
insurance companies  licensed under the rules envisaged by the legislation of Georgia. 
The Agency also carries out insurance premium subsidies and thei r monitoring based on 
the above -mentioned contracts.  
The following insurance risks will be covered by the mentioned insurance  program me: 
 Hail 
 Excess ive rainfall  
 Storm  
 Autumn Frost (Only citrus crops) during the period 1 September - 30 November.  
A program me beneficiary can insure land parcel s up to 5 hectares. Each insurer of the 
land parcel (in case of cereals  30 hectares) will receive 70%  co-financing for each crop 
envisaged under the program me and 50% in  the case of vine. In case of registering  land 
parcel in the Public Registry or insuring with the existing cadastral code , co-financing will 
be increased by  10%.  
The p rogram me covers cereals, vegetables, leguminous crops, melons, vine, fruits, 
berries, nuts, subtropical cultures and citruses.  
b. The term "preferential " refers to special preferences given to programme beneficiaries in 
terms of partial co -finance of interest by govern ment. Below are the limits of agro loan 
interest rates for commercial banks per category:  
Fixed assets:   • Georgian Lari ( GEL) 20,000 – USD 30,000 – not more than 15%  
• USD 30,001 – USD 100,000 – not more than 14%  
• USD 100,001 – USD 200,000 – not more tha n 13%  
• USD 200,001 – USD 600,000 – not more than 12% . 
Program "Produce in Georgia " – agricultural component:  
• USD 600,000 – USD 1,000,000 – not more than 12%  
• USD 1,000,000 – USD 2,000,000 – not more than 11% . G/AG/W/154  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Preferential agro -leasing:  
• USD 12,000 - USD 600,000 - not more than 15% . 
Out of the above -mentioned ranges, the government finances  a maximum of 11% for 
fixed assets, a maximum of 10% for the agricultural components under programme 
"Produce in Georgia " and a maximum of 12% for agro leasing.  
Under  the "Preferential agro credit " project, credits will be granted to beneficiaries by 
commercial banks and financial institutions participating in the project according to 
predefined conditions.  
Under the Fixed Assets component, loans will be given for fina ncing new agricultural 
enterprises and extending existing ones for the following purposes:  
c. Arrangement and maintenance of existing facilities, greenhouses, fish tanks and ponds;  
d. Arrangement and maintenance of new facilities, greenhouses, fish tanks and pon ds; 
e. purchasing, installing and repairing technological lines, climate control equipment and 
tools, freezing devices, power generators, milking equipment, feed preparation 
equipment and others;  
f. Purchasing, installing and repairing storage chambers, shelves,  tanks and other 
technological equipment for storage;  
g. Making water wells and connection s to water, electricity and natural gas supply pipelines 
and sewage system s; 
h. Produc tion of the following materials:  
a. wooden, cardboard and plastic boxes for storing an d transporting vegetables, fruit 
and berries;  
b. glass and clay bottles, corks for alcoholic beverages;  
c. aseptic and plastic containers and lids made of glass, tin and cardboard for the 
products produced by conservation and processing enterprises;  
i. Purcha sing and repairing special equipment and trailers (loaders, manure carriers, feed 
selecting and supplying equipment and others) required for the operation of the 
enterprise;  
j. Purchasing breeding and highly efficient livestock, birds, fish, animals with valu able fur 
and bee families. In case of the cattle and sheep and goats the Agency shall develop the 
buying and selling procedures;  and 
k. Planning, caring for  and restoring perennial plants . 
The programme is designed to improve the processes of primary agricult ural production, 
processing, storage and sale by providing farmers and entrepreneurs engaged in agriculture with 
cheap, long -term and preferential funds.  
AG-IMS ID 80043: Question by the United States - General services: I nfrastructural 
services  
In support ing table 1, under General Services paragraph 2 (g), Georgia lists two 
programmes totalling  approximately GEL 70 million. Will Georgia provide more detail as 
to what specifically is covered by the Agricultural Support Programme?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Answer by Georgia  
Agricultur e Support Program  
Under  the a griculture support program me, a number of irrigation channels have  been 
rehabilitated. As a result of  these  infrastructural projects,  water supply has been improved. This is 
the pre -condition for development and increase of agr icultural production.  
Modernization of Amelioration System  
The Modernization of Amelioration System in Georgia has been implemented by LTD Georgian 
Amelioration which is a subordinated body of the Ministry of Agriculture of Georg ia. The following 
activit ies were  fulfilled under this program me, particularly: rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage 
systems, purchasing of amelioration machinery and transport facilities, etc.  
Achieved results:  
1  Effective and economic use of water resources;  
2  Improvement of w ater provision of irrigation lands;  
3  Increase of drainages and irrigated plots of lands;  and 
4  Development of ame lioration infrastructure . 
The m ain contributors in this field are IFAD and World Bank.  
AG-IMS ID 80083: Question by Canada - Direct payments: Payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
Georgia first notified a measure called "Agro Insurance " under "Relief from natural 
disasters (paragraph 8, Annex 2) " in its 2014 notification. This measure continues for its 
2015 notification.  
a. Could Georgia please p rovide more information on this measure?  
b. Specifically, could Georgia please provide the criteria for applicants to receive 
payments under this measure? What crops are covered under the measure?  
c. Could Georgia please advise when a DS:2 notification will be provided for this 
programme?  
Answer by Georgia  
The a gricultural insurance programme "Agro Insurance " started on 1  September 2014. Its purpose 
is to develop the insurance market in agricultural sector, promote agricultural activities, retain the 
income for  individuals with the occupation of mentioned activities and reduce agricultural risks.  
The programme is implemented by non -commercial legal entity Agricultural Project Management 
Agency which is a subordinated body of Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia.  To implement projects, 
the Agency signs contracts with relevant insurance companies licensed under the rules envisaged 
by the legislation of Georgia.   
The following insurance risks will be covered by the above -mentioned insurance programme:  
 Hail 
 Excess ive rainfall  
 Storm  
 Autumn Frost (only citrus crops) during the peri od 1 September - 30 November.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Programme benefic iaries  can insure the land parcel up to 5 hectares. Each insurer of the land 
parcel (in case of cereals 30 hectares) will receive 70% co-financing  for each crop envisaged under 
the program me and 50% in  the case of vine s. In case of registering  a land parcel in the Public 
Registry or insuring with the existing cadastral code , co-financing will be increased by  10%.  
The programme covers cereals, vegeta bles, leguminous crops, melons, vine s, fruits, berries, nuts, 
subtropical cultures and citruses.  
2.4.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/C orr.1) 
AG-IMS ID 80044: Question by the United States  - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The United States wishe s to follow -up on the response to AG -IMS 78035, that "the 
original data source [for establishing India 's FERP] is as indicated in India 's AGST 
document. The calculations can be confirmed using widely available standard sources of 
trade statistics ". However , as noted in the original question, using widely standard 
sources of trade statistics, the United States has not been able to confirm India 's FERP 
calculation of USD 240 per metric tonne for wheat. The U.S. calculations show that 
wheat prices during the 1 986-88 period ranged from USD  100-160 per metric tonne. 
Therefore the United States respectfully would like additional clarification.  Please 
specifically cite sources for these trade statistics.  
Answer by India  
Please refer to the response provided by Indi a in the previous meeting.  
Follow -up: The United States looked forward to any additional clarification that India could provide.   
2.4.7   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/55)  
AG-IMS ID 80064: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The Europe an Union wishes to commend the clarity with which Israel has presented its 
latest DS:1 notification.  
 
a. What measures does Israel intend to implement to bring its support in line with 
its domestic support commitments?  
b. Could Israel explain more in the detail  the method and figures used in the 
calculation made for the adjustment of the administered price for milk?  
c. Could Israel identify the specific provision for the definition of the raw milk in 
the legislation?  
There is a relatively large increase (from 2012  to 2013) in the notification of "General 
Services", (iii) General Ministry of Agriculture Operations, in the programme named 
"Provision of overall management of the Ministry of Agriculture including specialized 
administrative service".  
 
d. What are the reaso ns behind this relatively large increase (+ 300%), and what 
measures are included under this heading?  
Answer by Israel  
a. Israel is now looking into reforming its support measures in agriculture to  put in place  
more direct and less distortive measures. Intens ive internal and external consultations 
are being made with relevant governmental ministries and other local stakeholders as 
well as with the OECD and the E uropean Union. In 2016, pilot attempts in direct support G/AG/W/154  
 
- 39 - 
 
  have been made in some agricultural sectors , and these will be studied and analysed for 
further advancements towards direct support. Hopefully, some concrete results will be 
decided in the next fiscal year.  
b. The adjustment of the administered price for milk was calculated based on the changes 
in the quality of milk produced in Israel, as manifested in the protein and fat contents. In 
consultation with the Milk Board, the quality improvement was calculated using the 
following coefficients, protein: 58.5%, fat: 31.5%, and water: 10.0%.  
The following table details the changes in quality relative to the base period (average 1986 -88).  
Year  Protein  Fat Quality  
 improvement  
avg. 86 -88 2.98%  3.18%   
2011 3.29%  3.69%  11.08%  
2012 3.29%  3.69%  11.08%  
2013 3.32%  3.72%  11.98%  
2014 3.32%  3.72%  11.98%  
c. "Raw mi lk" is defined in the legislation as "a liquid, other than colostrum, derived from  
milking of livestock, that has not  been processed, including packaging ".  
d. The main rea son for this large increase in " Provision of overall management of the 
Ministry of Agri culture including spe cialized administrative service"  is a technical change 
in the format of the budget report, placing all salary items under "overall management" 
as opposed to the previous format, placing them under each unit's activities. Israel  
believe s this change reflects better the nature of the support.  
AG-IMS ID 80020: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia notes with concern that Israel has breached its Total AMS commitment level in 
2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 (G/AG/N/ISR/55). The breaches are linked to market 
(administered) price support programmes in the dairy and egg sectors.  
Australia welcomes Israel 's openness and transparency on this issue.  
Can Israel please describe what policy changes will be undertaken to ensure its t rade-
distorting domestic support is delivered within Israel 's AMS commitments? Can Israel 
also provide the Committee on Agriculture with an indication as to when the necessary 
reforms will be undertaken, and when Israel 's Current Total AMS is expected to f all 
below the Total AMS commitment again?  
Answer by Israel  
Israel is now looking into reforming its support measures in agriculture to put in place more direct 
and less distortive measures. Intensive internal and external consultations are being made with 
relevant governmental ministries and other local stakeholders as well as with the OECD and the 
European Union. In 2016, pilot attempts in direct support have been made in some agricultural 
sectors, and these will be studied and analysed for further advance ments towards direct support. 
Hopefully, some concrete results will be decided  in the next fiscal year.  
AG-IMS ID 80087: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada would like to express its appreciation for Israel 's commitment to transparency 
and its explanatory note regarding its most recent notification. Canada is very 
concerned that Israel has exceeded its Total AMS commitment for 2011 to 2014. Canada 
is encouraged that Israel reports that steps are underway to bring its domestic support 
back into compliance with its WTO domestic support commitment.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 40 - 
 
  a. Could Israel please describe in greater detail its proposed alternate model to 
provide support to the agricultural sector?  
b. What is the status of the development of this alternate model in Israel 's 
domestic process?  
c. Could Israel give a timeframe for when it expects to be in compliance with its 
total AMS commitments?  
Answer by Israel  
a. Israel is now looking into reforming its support measures in agriculture to put in place 
more direct and less dist ortive measures. Intensive internal and external consultations 
are being made with relevant governmental ministries and other local stakeholders as 
well as with the OECD and the E uropean Union. In 2016, pilot attempts in direct support 
have been made in so me agricultural sectors, and these will be studied and analysed for 
further advancements toward direct support.  
b. Hopefully, some concrete results will be decided in the next fiscal year.  
c. Israel is well aware of its international commitments and is now loo king into reforming 
its support measures in agriculture to put in place more direct and less distortive 
measures to bring its total AMS within its commitments. However, it is not possible at 
this stage to give a specific time -frame.  
AG-IMS ID 80066: Quest ion by Ukraine - Scheduled commitment level  
As notified the current total AMS was higher than the total final bound AMS in the 
period  2011 -2014. Quite positively, Israel provides a very helpful statement and data 
regarding the policy background for this ex cess use of domestic agricultural support. 
Moreover, Israel provides a clear positive statement of proposed new policy orientations 
to ensure such AMS  breaches do not continue. Israel notes that AMS measures mainly 
concern two products: table eggs and raw milk and that two factors impacted the AMS 
level:  
 
 rising feed cost caused by higher prices of imported feed ingredients;  
 adjustments for quality differences of raw milk produced in period of review 
and in the base period.  
Could Israel please elaborate the  degree to which the appreciation of the local currency 
to the US  dollar during the period 2011 -2014 influenced the current total AMS either 
separately or as part of the two above -noted factors?  
Answer by Israel  
The changes in the Shekel/USD  exchange rate during the period 2011 -2014 were not significant 
and in fact, the 2014 exchange rate was similar to the 2011 rate:  
 
YEAR  Shekels/USD  
2011 3.58 
2012 3.86 
2013 3.61 
2014 3.58 
 
A more significant influence was the rise of the consumer price index (3% in 2011, and 2% in 
2012 and 2013). The inflation rate, represented in the form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), 
had increased at a much faster rate than the domestic currency depreciated. The following chart 
shows the accumulated changes in CPI and in NIS -US$ exchange rate since the reference period. G/AG/W/154  
 
- 41 - 
 
  In this context, it is worthwhile to mention that the increase in nominal terms as a result of 
inflation, is not a real increase in the value of the support . 
 
Inflation and US$ Exchange Rates in Israel  
 
Data s ource: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2015  
AG-IMS ID 80103 :3  Question by New Zealand - Market price support  
New Zealand welcomes Israel's recent DS:1 notification and commitment to 
transparency with respect to its AMS outlays for the calendar years 2011 to 2014.  
 
a. New Zealand notes that Israel's notified "administered price" for milk has been 
adjusted. Given Annex 3, paragraph 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture  (AoA) 
only provides that the "fixed reference price" may be adjusted for quality 
difference s, could Israel explain the legal basis for the adjustment of its 
notified "applied administered price " for milk?  
b. Given only an adjusted administered price for milk has been provided in Israel's 
notification, for transparency and comparison purposes, what  was the 
unadjusted applied administered price for milk for years 2011 -2014?  
c. New Zealand notes Israel's reference to ongoing reforms and would appreciate 
if Israel could provide details on the planned reforms, including expected 
timeframes for bringing do mestic support payments in line with AMS 
commitments?  
Answer by Israel  
 
a. The fixed reference price is based on the average milk prices in New Zealand in 1986 -88 
(i.e. "the basic agricultural product concerned in a net importing country in the base 
period")  and was comparable to the milk produced in Israel during this base period. The 
milk produced in Israel during 2011 -12 and 2013 -14 is a different product  in terms of  
quality. Paragraph 9, Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) recognizes this and 
provides that the "fixed reference price" may be adjusted for quality differences. 
However, in previous meetings of the Committee on Agriculture there appeared to be a 
general disinclination in making any adjustments to the "fixed reference price". 
Therefore  it seemed appropriate to leave the fixed reference price as is, and in the spirit 
                                               
3 Change from AG -IMS ID 80015 to 80103. This question was previously raised under Article 18.6. 
New Zealand requested at the meeting to move this question t o questions regarding Israel's notification 
G/AG/N/ISR/55. To make this change in the AG -IMS database a resubmission of the question is required which 
generates a new AG -IMS ID.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 42 - 
 
  of the Agreement, to adjust for quality differences the applied administered price vis -à-
vis the fixed reference price.  
b. The unadjusted applied administered price for milk ( USD/tonne) d uring the period 2011 -
2014 was listed in the following table:  
Year  Unadjusted applied administered  
 price for milk  USD/tonne  
2011 588.45  
2012 556.20  
2013 618.55  
2014 600.05  
 
c. Israel is now looking into reforming its support measures in agri culture to put in place 
more direct and less distortive measures. Intensive internal and external consultations 
are being made with relevant governmental ministries and other local stakeholders as 
well as with the OECD and the European Union. In 2016, pilo t attempts in direct support 
were made in some agricultural sectors, and these will be studied and analysed for 
further advancements towards direct support. Hopefully, some concrete results will be 
decided in the next fiscal year.  
AG-IMS ID 80097: Questio n by Peru - Market price support  
In relation to Israel 's domestic support notifications for the year 2014, Peru would like 
to know if Israel could provide further information on production quotas and guaranteed 
minimum prices (Supporting Table DS:5).  
Answe r by Israel  
The production quotas for eggs and milk are determined according to consumption estimates. The 
minimum guaranteed prices for both products are determined by the average production costs 
multiplied by efficiency coefficients. The milk production  costs are determined by a bi -annual 
survey while the egg production costs are determined by input indices.  
The programme supports producers of cereals, such as wheat, barley and oats. The programme 
relates to income insurance which combines price hedging and yield losses due to natural risks. 
Governmental participation in income insurance for cereals was classified under the Amber Box 
due to the yield quantity component in the insurance policy.  
AG-IMS ID 80098: Question by Peru – Other  product -specific sup port 
In relation to Israel 's domestic support notifications for the year 2014, Peru would like 
further information on the cereal insurance programme (Supporting Table DS:6).  
Answer by Israel  
The programme supports producers of cereals, such as wheat, barle y and oats. The programme 
relates to income insurance which combines price hedging and yield losses due to natural risks. 
Governmental participation in income insurance for cereals was classified under the Amber Box 
due to the yield quantity component in t he insurance policy.  
Follow -up: Australia, Canada, the European Union, New Zealand, Ukraine and the United State s 
expressed concern regarding Israel's breach of its AMS limit but commended Israel's transparent 
and open approach to this issue as reflected i n its notifications and the prompt replies it provided. 
New Zealand also expressed appreciation of Israel's bilateral engagement and its efforts to bring 
the AMS outlays back within the WTO commitments. New Zealand further encouraged Israel to 
maintain tra nsparency and  to keep the Committee informed of progress. On the issue of Israel's 
adjustment of administered price for quality differences in milk, New Zealand highlighted the fact 
that paragraph 9 of Annex 3 in the Agreement on Agriculture only provided for adjustments of the G/AG/W/154  
 
- 43 - 
 
  fixed reference price for quality differences. New Zealand noted its broader reservations about 
making  changes to fixed reference prices, despite the provision allowed in a specific context . As 
such, New Zealand strongly encouraged I srael to reconsider this in making adjustments for quality 
differences and sought further explanation of how the reported increases in milk protein and fat 
content translated into adjustments to the fixed reference price. Australia supported the questions 
raised by New Zealand and the European Union on this issue.  
2.4.8   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/39)  
AG-IMS ID 80069: Question by  the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Could Panama indicate the Value of Production for each of the products listed i n 
Supporting Table DS:6 of the notification?  
Answer by Panama  
The value of production for 2015 of the products listed in  Supporting  Table 6 are as follows:  
 
- Rice: 137,805,150 balboas  
- Maize: 54,621,250 balboas  
- Milk: 102,234,000 balboas . 
AG-IMS ID 80088: Que stion by Canada - General services: Training services  
Canada notes that the description of measures described as "subsistence farming and 
sustainable agriculture programmes, including crop promotion, use of accessible 
technology and environmental protectio n" and claimed as "training services, 
paragraph  2(c)" includes "income improvement programmes and rural employment 
creation programmes".  
 
a. Could Panama provide a description of the income improvement and rural 
employment creation programme?  
b. Could Panama ex plain how these two programmes meet the criteria of 
paragraph  2(c), Annex 2, Agreement on Agriculture related to training 
services?  
Answer by Panama  
a. The subsistence farming and sustainable agriculture programme, including crop 
promotion, use of accessible technology and environmental protection is divided into 
small sub programmes such as: cultivation for the development of rural indigenous 
communities, united families agro -ecological orchards, rural development through 
agro-tourism, participatory developme nt and rural modernization, implementation of 
territorial rural development strategies, strengthening of environmental management, 
etc. All of these sub programmes have one thing in common: they target rural families in 
a community framework and focus on t erritorial development and environmental 
management. It is hoped that the establishment of small -scale community farming and 
the organization of training events for the farmers involved will help to improve revenue 
and create jobs.  
b. The implementation of th e above sub programmes will mainly  involve the training of 
families and communities through different training services. For example, with respect 
to agro -tourism, communities will be trained in catering to tourists and in the services 
they can offer to to urists.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 44 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 80089: Question by Canada - Direct payments: Structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
The description of activities under the Agricultural competitiveness programme listed as 
conforming with Annex 2, paragraph 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture includes a 
number of different measures , including "risk management through insurance ". Could 
Panama describe the risk management through insurance portion of this programme, 
and outline how it conforms to the criteria of p aragraph 11, Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture?  
Answer by Panama  
"Risk management through insurance": The support granted amounts to 50 % of the cost of the 
agricultural insurance taken out and effectively paid for by the producer. Since a gricultural  
insurance is not very widespread among Panama's producers, on numerous occasions the  State 
has had to step in where production has been hit by disasters attributable to specific factors that 
could have been covered by insurance. This portion of the suppor t programme is intended to 
encourage producers to use agricultural insurance as a necessary part of the cost structure.  
AG-IMS ID 80067: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: S tructural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
Could Panama explain in more detail what type of investments are included in the 
incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and other crops. Is it is an 
annual payment to the crops concerned? (See also the EU question on the DS:2 
notification G/ AG/N/PAN/38 AG -IMS ID 80076).  
Answer by Panama  
The type of investment that producers would be expected to make in order to receive support 
would be:  
 
- Investment in infrastructure for different types of irrigation systems, including civil works 
and the equi pment necessary to make the irrigation systems operational;  
 
- Investment in equipment (tractors, seeders, etc.) specifically for the cultivation stage of 
agricultural production;  
 
- Investments to cover operational costs, such as the preparation of land for v arious different 
crops (grading, etc.).  
 
The support is not strictly for the totality of the investment made, but rather to ensure that 
producers receive and can recover a part of their investment in structural adjustment through 
these investment support m easures.  
 
Panama  repeat s that the support refers to a one -off payment for each occasion to which the 
incentive applies, so that the producer may receive the support in different years. For example, 
producers may receive the bonus for each additional hectar e under crops in 2016 if they have in 
fact increased their planted area; but this does not mean that if they increase that area again in 
2017, they are not entitled to receive the bonus with respect to the additional area under crops for 
that year.  
AG-IMS ID 80090: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada notes that previous DS:1 notifications from Panama have reported product 
specific non -exempt direct payments for industrial tomatoes. Panama's notification for 
2015 reports non -exempt dir ect payments for rice, maize, and milk.  
 
a. Could Panama explain the shift in focus for its direct payments in 2015?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 45 - 
 
  b. Could Panama please explain how it determines the volume of the production 
eligible for price support for rice, maize and milk?  
Answer by Pa nama  
a. In the case of tomatoes, in previous years the support was based solely on price, but in 
2015 this was not the case . For 2015, price support was included for three products: 
maize, rice and milk. This had to do with factors such as the drought and oth er climatic 
factors that reduced the output of those crops.  
b. The volume eligible for price support is based on the volume purchased by the 
enterprises (industries) from the producers.  
AG-IMS ID 80021: Question by Australia - Classification of measures  
Panam a has notified a new programme termed the "Incentive programme for the 
domestic production of grain and other crops" as a Green Box measure in its latest 
domestic support notification (G/AG/PAN/39). Australia notes that programmes 
notified as Green Box mea sures must meet the fundamental requirement that they have 
"no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production" (Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture).  
 
Could Panama please explain how the programme qualifies for the Green Box, gi ven that 
the programme appears to be designed to encourage the production of a number of 
specific products, including rice, maize, sorghum, soya, and a number of horticultural 
crops?  
Answer by Panama  
The programme is not ultimately designed to increase pro duction: the support consists of a 
package essentially designed for the structural adjustment of investment in Panama's main staple 
crops where ancestral technology (such as slash and burn) is barely used, to ensure greater use of 
certified seeds and more competitive technology such as irrigation.  
2.4.9   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/13)  
AG-IMS ID 80046: Question by the United States  - Direct payments: Decoupled income 
support  
Beginning on 1 January 2013, the Russian Federation implemented a new "decoupled 
suppo rt" programme to benefit grain producers. The programme was part of the State 
Program for the Development of Agriculture and Regulation of Agricultural Commodities 
Markets in 2013 -2020 (Government Resolution No.  717 of 14 July 2012), as amended in 
2014 (Go vernment Resolution No.  315 of 15 April 2014). Beginning with the 2013 DS:1 
notification (G/AG/N/RUS/9), the Russian Federation included USD  1.2 billion in 
decoupled income support (combined federal and sub -federal amount) under the 
category of decoupled i ncome support (point (d)) in supporting table DS:1. In its 2014's 
notification (G/AG/N/RUS/13), the Russian Federation notified a total of USD 907 
million under this category.   
 
a. Would the Russian Federation please provide details on how payments are 
made un der this programme? In particular, can the Russian Federation explain 
how this measure meets the criteria in paragraph 6 (b) of Annex 2 that the 
amount of such payments in any given year shall not be related to, or based on, 
the type or volume of production  undertaken by the producer in any year after 
the base period?  
b. Moreover, would the Russian Federation confirm that the programme meets the 
requirements of paragraph 6 (e) that no production is required in order to 
receive such payments?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 46 - 
 
  c. When will the Russia n Federation provide a DS:2 notification for this 
programme?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
The decoupled support in the area of crop production is developed to maintain the complex of 
agricultural technologies,  which improve s the level of ecological sustain ability of agricultural 
production and preserve s the soils ' potential.  
The calculation of decoupled support volume is provided notwithstanding the production or  
external or domestic prices. In the payment calculation  the Russian Federation  takes into acco unt 
the income indicator of all agricultural producers,  which are determined by the objective conditions 
of farm management. In order to access the state support an entity must satisfy the definition  of 
agricultural producer and hav e dispos able land for so wing. Correspondingly, the form of the 
decoupled support has not changed in compar ison with the 2013 notification. I n other words, it 
was applied in strict conformity with the WTO law , including the provisions of 6( e) of the Annex 2 
to the Agreement on Agr iculture. For the purpose of transparency Russia  is working on preparation 
of additional information of the legal basis for the implementation of this measure and it will be 
presented when it is ready.  
AG-IMS ID 80091: Question by Canada - Direct payments:  Payments under 
environmental programmes  
Canada notes that in 2014, the Russian Federation notified payments at both the federal 
and sub -federal level under "environmental programmes ".  
a. Could the Russian Federation please provide more information on the 
programmes and their respective expenditures?  
b. Could the Russian Federation please explain how these programmes meet the 
criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
The payments mentioned in Canada 's quest ion are provided in order to prevent negative nature 
and technical impact on the environment.  This is achieved  primarily by implementing specific 
measures aimed at rational use of natural resources for agriculture, as well as  by preventing the 
occurrence o f the calamities  that are  potentially hazardous for the environment. The following 
measures ar e being  taken in this context:  
1. Establishment of  sanitation protection zones and waste treatment system s, which 
prevent pollution of soils, surface and ground -waters, drainage areas and air pollution as 
a result of agriculture production.  
2. Setting out conditions to apply drainage and water offtake systems to protect agricultural 
lands from floods (water oversaturation), including: drain cleaning from vegetation, 
sludge and sedimentation, ice clogging destruction and removal , by-pass canals 
construction.  
3. Prevention of uncontrolled plant and animal propagation (to the extent not appropriate 
for ecosystems), including measures to control wolf population s to preserve r eindeer and 
other populations, as well as control of wild -growing hemp t hat contaminates arable 
areas.  
State support is provided to agricultural producers on a programme basis based on the volume of 
expenses for the implementation of such measures (there is a requirement to spend these 
payments only according to the mentioned targets  and only within the territories that are affected 
by the relevant natural or industry factors).  
Follow -up: The United States looked forward to the Russian Federation's DS:2 no tification.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 47 - 
 
  2.4.10   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/47)  
AG-IMS ID 80022: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia requests written responses from  its questions (AG -IMS ID 79065 and 79064) 
raised in relation to G/AG/N/TUN/45 at the 79th Com mittee of Agriculture.  Australia 
notes that Tunisia did not attend the meeting and  it has received no response of any 
kind to  its questions.  
Australia also notes that Tunisia has continued to modify external reference prices in its 
latest DS:1 notificatio n G/AG/N/TUN/47. There is no legal basis in the Agreement of 
Agriculture for modifying the fixed external reference price in this way. Accordingly, 
Australia asks that Tunisia resubmit its domestic support notification to show the fixed 
external reference price without modification and alterations, and also amend the 
domestic support calculations accordingly so they show the amount of market price 
support.  
Answer by Tunisia  
Calculation of AMS without taking into account devaluation of currency and rate of inflation is 
pointless and may produce incorrect and overvalued data on the support granted. However, 
Tunisia is currently investigating possible options for not ifying its domestic support.  
AG-IMS ID 80072: Question by  the European Union - Transparency iss ues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Could Tunisia indicate the annual inflation and exchange  rates (since 1986 -88) used in 
the calculation and their source?  
Answer by Tunisia  
The rate of inflation and exchange rate in Tunisia are published in the Central Bank of T unisia 's 
annual report. Tunisia has  taken the rates for the period 1988 -2015 from that report which are 
reproduced in the following table:  
 
Year  Annual rate of inflation  Exchange rate  
US$/Dinar  
1988 7.2 0.8543  
1989 7.7 0.9946  
1990 6.5 0.8602  
1991 7.8 0.9459  
1992 5.5 0.8844  
1993 4.0 1.0057  
1994 4.7 1.0133  
1995 6.3 0.9458  
1996 3.7 0.9747  
1997 3.7 1.1029  
1998 3.1 1.1374  
1999 2.7 1.1884  
2000 2.9 1.3716  
2001 2.0 1.4390  
2002 2.7 1.4212  
2003 2.7 1.2877  
2004 3.6 1.2456  
2005 2.1 1.2981  
2006 4.5 1.3294 
2007 3.2 1.2799  
2008 5.0 1.2309  
2009 3.7 1.3494  
2010 4.4 1.4326  
2011 3.5 1.4079  
2012 4.8 1.5618  
2013 5.8 1.6253  
2014 4.9 1.7001  
2015 4.9 1.9623  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 48 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 80023: Question by Australia - Direct payments: Structural adjustment 
assistance provid ed through investment aids  
In its latest DS:1 notification Tunisia has notified expenditures of 19.5 million dinars 
under "Budgetary funds to support small farmers ". Can Tunisia please provide more 
information about this structural adjustment programme, in  particular, the eligibility 
criteria and the structural disadvantages in question?  
Answer by Tunisia  
Tunisia undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 80092: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada would like to express i ts appreciation for Tunisia 's timely DS: 1 notification for 
2014. Tunisia in this notification, and in previous notifications, continues to unilaterally 
make inflation -related adjustments to the external reference prices for wheat, barley 
and milk. Article  18.4 states that "In the review process Members shall give due 
consideration to the influence of excessive inflation on the ability of any Member to 
abide by its domestic support commitments. " Canada 's view is that the Committee on 
Agriculture should be a ble to review an unadjusted domestic support notification and 
consider the particular circumstances of a Member facing difficulty with its domestic 
support commitment. Canada would like to refer to a 2014 communication from Canada 
in 2014 (RD/AG/18, RD/AG/ 18/Add1/Rev.1) for a more detailed review on the 
application of Article 18.4.  
a. Could Tunisia please explain the criteria used when determining that 
"excessive inflation " has occurred?  
b. Could Tunisia elaborate as to how its unilateral adjustment to the exte rnal 
reference price is consistent with Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. Could Tunisia elaborate on its plans on how it will bring its domestic support 
into conformity with its commitment?  
Answer by Tunisia  
a. The Agreement on Agriculture does not specify what is considered to be excessive 
inflation. Dwelling on trying to find the meaning behind this expression will probably lead 
to debates which do not necessarily focus on the specific meaning and purpose of 
Article  18.4 of the Agreement on Agr iculture. In  Tunisia 's view the Article alludes to a 
level of inflation, among other things, which if not taken into account in the calculation of 
the AMS could cause a Member to exceed its domestic support commitment.  
b. Tunisia considers that its level of a gricultural domestic support is consistent with the 
provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture and its WTO commitments.  
c. For the calculation of  AMS, the Agreement on Agriculture refers to a "fixed external 
reference price ", which "shall be based on the year s 1986 to 1988 and shall generally be 
the average f.o.b. unit value for the basic agricultural product concerned in a net 
importing country in the base period ". 
For the calculation of its AMS Tunisia uses the fixed external reference price, which is the av erage 
c.i.f. unit  value in the base period (1986 -1988), as a basis for calculating its domestic support, as 
stipulated in Annex 3 t o the Agreement on Agriculture.  
The adjustment takes into account excessive changes in the exchange rate and the rate of 
inflation. Tunisia considers the rates of inflation recorded between 1988 and 2014 to be excessive, 
which justifies an adjustment of the f ixed external reference prices.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Indeed, Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture stipulates that "in the review proces s 
Members shall give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability 
of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments ". 
Tunisia 's understanding is that the term "Members ", as employed in Article 18.4, also  includ es 
Tunisia.  
AG-IMS ID 80047: Question by the United States  - Excessive rates of inflation  
For the reporting period of 2014, Tunisia has adjusted the reference prices for durum 
wheat, soft wheat, barley and milk to take account of inflation and exchange rat e 
movements.  
Would Tunisia please explain why inflation adjustments are required for its fixed 
external reference prices?  
In response to a question from the European Union in September 2015, Tunisia stated 
that adjustments for inflation were made on the b asis of Article 18.4 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture (AoA).  However, Article 18.4 states, "In the review process Members 
shall give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability 
of any Member to abide by its domestic sup port commitments. " Therefore, the 
United  States  as Members  should give due consideration to excessive rates of inflation, 
but in its view, this does not mean that a Member can unilaterally determine that it has 
excessive rates of inflation and then make ad justments as reflected in their 
notifications.  
It is the U.S. view that when a Member is in breach of their domestic spending 
commitments, it should notify and explain what steps will be taken to correct the 
situation. The United States would further note that since the early 1980s, Tunisia 's 
inflation rate has not exceeded 10%, and whether Members should consider this  
"excessive inflation " is not clear.  The United States would recommend that Tunisia refer 
to RD/AG/18 in which Canada discusses the use of Ar ticle 18.4 . 
Answer by Tunisia  
For the calculation of the AMS, the Agreement on Agriculture refers to a "fixed external reference 
price", which "shall be based on the years 1986 to 1988 and shall generally be the average f.o.b. 
unit value for the basic agri cultural product concerned in a net importing country in the base 
period ". 
In accordance with these provisions, and for the calculation of its AMS, Tunisia uses the fixed 
external reference price, which is the average c.i.f. unit  value in the base period ( 1986-1988), as a 
basis for calculating its domestic support.  
The adjustment takes into account excessive changes in the exchange rate and the rate of 
inflation. Tunisia considers the rates of inflation recorded between 1988 and 2014 to be excessive, 
which justifies an adjustment of the fixed external reference prices.  
Indeed, Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture stipulates that "in the review process 
Members shall give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability  
of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments ". 
Tunisia 's understanding is that the term "Members ", as employed in Article 18.4, also includes 
Tunisia.  
Therefore, Tunisia considers that its level of agricultural domestic support conforms to t he 
provisions of the Agreement on Agric ulture and its WTO commitments.   G/AG/W/154  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Follow -up: Argentina, Australia, Canada and the United States expressed the view that unilaterally 
adjusting the fixed external reference price was not consistent with Article 18.4 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture. Australia and Canada noted interest in receiving more information regarding the 
alternative options Tunisia was exploring. The European Union noted its concern related to 
Tunisia's change of the fixed external reference price and highlighted the importance of the 
Committee developing  a common position on this matter. Canada, Norway and New Zealand 
requested Tunisia to also provide the data in order for the Committee to better evaluate the 
circumstances. New Zealand and the United States considered that Members should first make the 
necessary reforms to address any breaches in their commitments.    
2.5  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.5.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/100)  
AG-IMS ID 80086: Question by Canada - General services: Extension and advisory 
services  
Canada notes that Australia has reported "Caring for our Country - Innovation Grants " 
as exempt from reduction commitments consistent with Annex 2, paragraph 2(d) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture regarding extension and advisor y services. In the detailed 
description of the measure, Australia states that funding is available to several groups, 
including landowners. The description also states that, "… this will include farmers, 
fishers, foresters and other businesses. " Moreover, a fact sheet available at 
landcareonline.com.au  (http://www.landcareonline.com.au/wp -content/uploads/2013
/06/fact -sheet -for-Innovation -Grants.pd f), a national network of thousands of locally -
based community groups, lists farmers and agribusiness as eligible programme 
applicants. Given that Annex 2, paragraph 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that 
general services shall not involve direct p ayments to producers or processors, can 
Australia confirm that these innovation grants were not provided directly to producers?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
The aim of the Caring for our Country – Innovation Grants Programme was to increase the uptake 
of innovat ive production, resource management, information collection, extension and supply 
chain management practices and processes that will improve the productivity and sustainability of 
resource based industries.  
 
Funding was targeted at industry associations, farming systems groups, natural resource 
management groups and Landcare groups that could deliver benefits to the broader community 
and communicate the outcomes to assist with adoption of the innovation in the future.  
 
Australia  can confirm that no indivi dual producers or processors were provided funding through 
these grants. A full list of the successful grantees is available at www.agriculture.gov.au/ag -farm-
food/innovation/grant s. 
 
Please note that the Caring for our Country – Innovation Grants Programme projects commenced 
in early 2014 and are all due for completion by June 2016.  
 
2.5.2   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/38)  
AG-IMS ID 80074: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Panama has notified the "Incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and 
other crops " as adhering to the criteria laid out in Annex 2, paragraph 11 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and therefore exempt from counting towards the current to tal 
aggregated measurement of support.  
 
a. Could Panama outline the eligibility criteria for such payments, and outline the 
structural disadvantages that these producers are facing?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 51 - 
 
  b. Could Panama explain how an incentive programme intended to increase the 
production of certain specific crops conforms to the stipulation laid out in 
paragraph 11(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture stating: "The amount of such 
payments in any given year shall not be related to or based on, the type or 
volume of production underta ken by the producer in any year after the base 
period  ..."?  
Answer by Panama  
 
a. The eligibility criteria for the payments are as follows:  
- General: to be registered in the relevant outreach agencies of the Ministry of 
Agricultural Development and to have de clared the area subject to the programme; to 
have used seeds certified by the National Seed Committee.  
 
- Specific: to have achieved yields higher than those specified and to have added to the 
number of hectares under the crop in question.  
 
- Structural disa dvantages:  
 
 The use of farming practices that are often ancestral, such as slash and burn, apart 
from damaging the environment, leads to yields that are so low that producers are 
not even able to recover their production costs.  
 
 Little or no utilisation of certified seeds also results in yields so low that producers are 
unable to recover their production costs.  
 
 For many crops and for certain producers, the technology differs considerably from 
one producer group to another and one region to another, and above all in 
comparison to other countries. For example: slash and burn technology (minimum 
yield), mechanization (medium yield) and irrigation (high yield) in the case of rice.  
 
b. The programme is not ultimately designed to increase production: the support consists 
of a package essentially designed for the structural adjustment of investment in 
Panama's main staple crops where ancestral technology (such as slash and burn) is 
barely used, to ensure greater use of certified seeds and more competitive technolog y 
such as irrigation.  
AG-IMS ID 80076: Question by the European Union - Classification of measures  
a. Could Panama explain whether this subsidy is a one -off measure or an annual 
payment?  
b. Could Panama explain in more detail why this support should be categoris ed as 
Green Box rather than Amber Box support since it is paid per "harvested 
quintal" or "each additional hectare under crops" and therefore seems to be 
linked directly to the level of production?  
Answer by Panama  
 
a. The support refers to a one -off payment  for each occasion to which the incentive applies, 
so that the producer may receive the support in different years. For example, producers 
may receive the bonus for each additional hectare under crops in 2016 if they have in 
fact increased their planted ar ea; but this does not mean that if they increase that area 
again in 2017, they are not entitled to receive the bonus with respect to the additional 
area under crops for that year.  
b. Panama has  included the support in Annex 2, paragraph 11 (structural adjustm ent 
assistance provided through investment aid). This support is a package essentially 
designed for the structural adjustment of investment in Panama's main staple crops.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 52 - 
 
  2.6  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 ) 
2.6.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/108, G/AG/ N/CAN/108/C orr.1) 
AG-IMS ID 80078: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
Canada notified the use of export subsidies for the product category "butter " in its 
notification covering the 2012/13 and 2013/14 marketing years. For the 2014/15 
mark eting year, Canada does not notify export subsidies for butter. The European Union 
welcomes such a policy shift and asks Canada to confirm that, in line with the Bali 
commitments, no export subsidies to butter would be reintroduced before the date of 
elimi nation of export subsidies for dairy products at the end of 2020.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada is currently experiencing a shortage of butter on its market. It remains possible that 
Canada may use export subsidies for butter before the end of 2020, within the  limits established 
by the WTO Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
AG-IMS ID 80055: Question by the United States - Transparency issues  
a. Would Canada please explain its reasons for correcting export subsidy data on 
butter in its export subsidies notifications for  2012/2013 and 2013/2014?  
b. Would Canada explain how it calculates export data for dairy notified in export 
subsidy notifications? Is this data publically available, and will Canada share its 
sources?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada made an error in the informati on for butter in its original export subsidy notification for 
2012-2013 and 2013 -2014. This information was subsequently rectified in the relevant 
Corrigendum. Canada 's dairy export subsidies are provided through the milk class 5(d). Under this 
class, milk  components are made available at internationally competitive prices for the export of 
dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission issues export permits for subsidized dairy 
products accordingly and reports them for the purposes of th e subsidized exports  in Table ES:1and 
supporting Table ES:1  of Canada 's notification. The supporting data is of a commercially 
confidential nature and is therefore not available. For  the total exports reported in T able ES:2, 
Canada uses official export data from Statistics Ca nada.  
 
2.6.2   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/36)  
AG-IMS ID 80080: Question by the European Union - Quantity of total exports  
According to document G/AG/W/123, Malaysia is a significant exporter of the product 
category "eggs ". Could Malaysia explain why its Table  ES:2 noti fication does not contain 
data on the total exports of eggs?  
 
Answer by Malaysia  
 
Malaysia  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  
3.1.1   U.S. soybean programmes - Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 79095)  
a. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, could the United States provide the total amount of 
disbursements for soybean producers under each of the following programmes 
and/or buy -up options: Marketing Loans (ML), Crop Insurance (CIP), G/AG/W/154  
 
- 53 - 
 
  Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC), Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Supplemental 
Coverage Option (SCO)? If complete data for FY 2015 is not still available, 
Brazil would appreciate to receive the most up -to-date information.  
b. For FY 2015, could the United States provide the total amount of premium 
subsidies for soybean production disbursed under each of the following 
programmes or buy -up options: CIP, ARC, PLC, and SCO? If complete data for 
FY 2015 is not still available, Brazil would  appreciate to receive the most up to -
date information.  
c. For FY 2015, could the United States provide information on the coverage of 
each of the following programmes and/or buy -up options: CIP, ARC, PLC, and 
SCO, in terms of both soybean producers and soybe an planted acreage? If 
complete data for FY 2015 is not still available, Brazil would appreciate to 
receive the most up -to-date information.  
d. For FY 2016, could the United States provide information on the projected 
outlays under each of following programs and/or buy -up options: ML, CIP, ARC, 
PLC, and SCO?  
Answer by  the United States  
 
a. The requested information is not available at this time. Data for marketing years 2014 
and 2015 will be provided in the U.S. DS:1 notification for years 2014 and 2015, which 
will be submitted to t he WTO at the appropriate time. For the most up to date 
information available on these program mes, please see the U.S. domestic support 
notification for 2013.  
b. The requested information is not available at this time. Data for marketing years 2014 
and 2015 will be provided in the U.S. DS:1 notification for years 2014 and 2015, which 
will be submitted to the WTO at the appropriate time. For the most up to date 
information available on these programmes, please see the U.S. domestic support 
notification for 2013.  
c. The requested information is not available at this time. Data for marketing years 2014 
and 2015 will be provided in the U.S. DS:1 notification for years 2014 and 2015, which 
will be submitted to the WTO at the appropriate time. For the most up to date 
information available on these programmes, please see the U.S. domestic support 
notification for 2013.  
d. The United States does not provide estimated outlays for any of its program mes. Data 
for marketing year 2016 will be provided in the  U.S. DS:1 notification for 2016, which 
will be submitted to the WTO at the appropriate time. For the most up to date 
information available on these program mes, please see the U.S. domestic support 
notification for 2013.  
Follow -up: Brazil looked forward t o U.S. notifications for years 2014 and 2015.   
3.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
3.2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
3.2.1.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/30)  
AG-IMS ID 80070: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada is f ollowing up on its question to China from the 79th meeting of the Committee 
(AG-IMS ID 79068) in regards to fill rates for wheat between 2013 and 2014, as well as 
export quotas on wheat. China's answer to Canada's questions referenced AG -IMS ID 
79006. Howe ver, the contents of this response from China referred to corn and rice but G/AG/W/154  
 
- 54 - 
 
  did not include information on wheat. Canada's questions from AG -IMS ID 79068 are 
again provided below.  
 
Canada welcomes the improvements in the fill rate for wheat in 2013, reach ing 54% 
which is the highest fill rate for wheat since 2004. However, in 2014 the fill rate for 
wheat dropped to 31.2%. Canada recalls comments from the United States during the 
78th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 78004), that with high  
domestic prices and falling world prices, China continues to significantly under -fill its 
tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Canada would also like to note that China has notified an 
export quota and licensing administration for wheat under its notification of qu antitative 
restrictions to the Committee on Market Access (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/3) citing food 
security reasons under Article s XI, XX of GATT 1994.  
 
a. Could China please explain the drop in fill rate for wheat between 2013 and 
2014?  
b. Given that world wheat import prices are low, China's exports to the world are 
minimal, and the fill rate for its import quota is low, could China please explain 
how an export quota and licensing administration for wheat addresses its food 
security concerns?  
Answer by China  
 
a. After a T RQ is allocated and issued to the applicants, enterprises with TRQ will decide by 
themselves when and how much they should import based on market conditions. Since 
Chinese consumers have their unique preferences and consu mption habits, demand for 
import ed wheat is mainly concentrated on two specialties: high -gluten wheat for making 
breads and low -gluten wheat for making cakes. As for the wheat for making steamed 
bread or noodles, the demand is generally satisfied by domestic supply. The demand for 
import s is limited, and is often stable in quantity.  
b. Export quotas and licenses for agricultural products are important instruments of China's 
food security policy and it is necessary for China to reserve the rights to regulate and 
control exports through these me asures. But it does not mean that these measures are 
strictly implemented every year. In fact, Chinese government does not apply strict 
restrictions on wheat export s when food supply is secured. In recent years, wheat export 
volumes were very low because l ow prices and other factors have great impact on 
enterprises' export intent. It should be noted that as agricultural products in the 
international market often face drastic price fluctuations, the present low price of 
agricultural products may only be a pe riodic phenomenon. The possibility of upturn or 
even soaring of prices cannot be ruled out, and if this so happens, China may face 
export pressure. In such case, China needs to apply export quotas and licenses to 
ensure food security.  
AG-IMS ID 80093: Ques tion by the United States  - Tariff quota fill  
The United States notes that there continues to be significant TRQ under -fill for grains, 
specifically wheat, corn, and rice. The United States is concerned that issues affecting 
TRQ administration may be the c ause for chronic TRQ under -fill. The United States is re -
submitting questions c. and d. from the March 2016 CoA session (AG -IMS 79006) since 
they were not addressed in China's response. Please also provide details on the market 
conditions for these commodi ties in these years (2013 and 2014), including:  
 
a. The percent of private sector TRQ re -allocations by MT; and, the percent of STE 
sector TRQ re -allocations by MT?  
b. The percent of private sector TRQ imports under initial TRQ allocations by MT; 
and, the percen t of STE TRQ imports under initial TRQ allocations by MT?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
Since China's accession to the WTO, the pertinent authorities have made the allocation and 
reallocation of TRQ in accordance with the "Interim rules on the Administration of Tariff Rate Quota 
for Agricultural Products". The amount of import is decided by the quota holders based on their 
observation and judgment of the market.  
 
As for wheat, since Chinese consumers have their unique preferences and consuming habits, 
demand for import ed wheat is mainly concentrated on two varieties: high -gluten wheat for making 
breads and low -gluten wheat for making cakes. As for the wheat for making steamed bread or 
noodles, the demand is generally satisfied by domestic supply. The demand for import i s limited 
and is often stable in quantity. Therefore, enterprises decide how much they would like to import.  
 
As for rice, the TRQ for rice is divided into two parts, long -grain rice (or indica rice) and short -
grain rice (or japonica rice). The fill rates  for long -grain rice is relatively high, since the long -grain 
rice produced in Southeast Asia caters for the tastes of Chinese consumers and is competitive in 
terms of price. The short -grain rice is mainly supplied by domestic production, which is 
suppleme nted by the short grain rice  imported  from Southeast Asia. Rice produced in other 
regions does not cater for the taste of Chinese consumers. The short -grain rice produced by Japan 
and Korea is similar to the rice produced in China, however, the prices are much higher  and 
therefore, the volume of import s is very limited.  
 
As for corn, in recent years, since enterprises are concerned that certain new variety of corn does 
not suit the demand s of the Chinese market, they tend to choose the suppliers without  new 
varieties. This caused the volatility in the fill rates.  
 
3.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
3.3.1   China  (G/AG/N/CHN/28)  
AG-IMS ID 80038: Question by the United States  - Direct payments: Payments under 
environmental programmes  
Since China has not suppl ied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG -IMS ID 78065.  
The United States notes that China's notification of environment programme 
expenditures has increased over time. China, in response to AG -IMS ID 59032, stated 
that it was impossible to determine whether the payments under the various 
programmes notified under these programmes are dependent on the fulfilment of 
specific criteria, a requirement outlined in paragraph 12(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Further, China st ated that all the support at the time was used solely for 
compensation to the farming households affected by the afforestation and reforestation 
programme.  
a. Is this notification still accurate in that all support is still for afforestation and 
reforestation  programmes?  
b. Is China now able to provide the details of such criteria? In particular, what 
exactly are the payments compensating farmers for with regards to 
afforestation and reforestation?  
c. If China is still unable to provide the specific criteria, on wha t basis is China 
able to notify this programme under paragraph 12?  
Answer by China  
Please refer to  China's reply to question AG -IMS ID 79012. Chinese experts are studying the case 
and the reply will be provided as soon as possible. As for more details on t hese programmes, 
please refer to "Notice on Expanding the Coverage of the New Round of Converting Farmland into 
Forest" ( http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2016 -02/05/content_5039662.htm ). G/AG/W/154  
 
- 56 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 80041: Question by the United States  - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG -IMS ID 78069.  
As has been previously noted by multiple Members, China's inclusion of negative market 
price support in the summation of product -specific AMS in Supporting Table DS:7 is a 
serious concern and should be reported as a zero for purposes of summation. The 
United  States would note that the intent of negative support in the AMS is to account for 
"specific agricultural levies or fees paid by producers" per Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
a. Please state the intended objective of China's price support programmes. 
Please clarify how these objectives are in line with providing a negative level of 
support as purported by China in its notification.  
b. China has previously indicated that it refers to the "rules of the WTO 
Secretariat" as a basis for notifying in this way. Please provide the relevant 
Secretariat documentation and speci fic rules that China believes permits this.  
The United States appreciates the transparency provided by China in noting the various 
programmes notified in Supporting Table DS:7. The United States suggests China notify 
these programmes on a disaggregated bas is. 
c. Please provide a breakdown of the product -specific programmes notified in the 
footnotes with their respective outlays by commodity.  
Answer by China  
China does not  have the intention to circumvent the obligation by including negative support in the 
summ ation of product specific AMS. Since 2012, the minimum procurement prices for rice and 
wheat have been higher than the administered price, which means that the problem of negative 
support will not happen again. China notes that questions regarding negative  support have been 
raised in the meeting several times, although for different reasons. Up till now, it seems that no 
consensus has been reached on this issue. China therefore proposes that a technical discussion to 
be held at the regular meeting, so as to  come up with a solution to this problem, and due 
adjustment can be made to the guidelines for DS notification, reflecting the results of such 
discussion.  
Follow -up: The United States sought  additional details  from China . 
3.3.2   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/ 7, G/AG/N/ARE/8)  
AG-IMS ID 80050: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The United States resubmits its question AG -IMS 79019 from the September 2015 
meeting.  
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/7:  
a. Under sub -headings "Pest and diseas e control" and "extension advisory 
services" the United Arab Emirates notified two values of support for each year; 
however, it is unclear from the notification the difference between the two 
values. Please explain what each value represents.  
b. It is noted t hat compared to G/AG/N/ARE/5 for the years 2000 and 2001, the 
United Arab Emirates introduced in 2002 a number of new programmes that are 
considered exempt under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, G/AG/W/154  
 
- 57 - 
 
  United Arab Emirates introduced one new programme in 2003 under 
subheading "Inspection ". When does the United Arab Emirates plan on 
submitting its DS:2 notifications for these new programmes?  
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/8:  
c. Why is there a significant increase in monetary value for pest/disease control 
and extension/advisory service support measures from the previous calendar 
years?  
d. Why was the inspection support measure not reported for calendar year 2014?  
e. Is the United  Arab  Emirates no longer using this support measure or has it been 
replaced by anothe r support measure? Why?  
Answer by United Arab Emirates  
United Arab Emirates  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 80051: Question by the United States - General services: Infrastructural 
services  
The United States resubmits its questio n AG -IMS 79018 from the September 2015 
meeting.  
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/8:  
a. How does the new infrastructure support measure meet the policy -specific 
criteria in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, such as the eligibility 
criteria to receive the payment, the conditions applying to the payments, or the 
rules governing the amount of the payment?  
b. When will the Table DS:2 notification for the new infrastructure support 
measure be submitted?  
Answer by United Arab Emirates  
United Arab Emirates  undertook to pro vide an answer at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 80053: Question by the United States - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
The United States resubmits its question AG -IMS 79020 from the September 2015 
meeting.  
Regarding G/AG/N/AR E/7: 
a. It is noted that all measures notified under the criteria of Article  6.2 were 
eliminated in 2006. What was the basis for the elimination of these measures 
and did the United Arab Emirates introduce any other measures as part of this 
reform? If so, wha t?  
b. How did the United Arab Emirates define low -income or resource -poor 
producers at the time these measures were operational?  
Answer by United Arab Emirates  
United Arab Emirates  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 58 - 
 
  3.3.3   United States (G/AG/N/USA/9 3) 
AG-IMS ID 76046: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
Follow -up question to AG -IMS ID 75112:  
India had sought to know the per unit rate charged for electricity used to transport 
irrigation water and the power rates charged for industrial, agricu ltural and residential 
users of electricity. However, the response from the United States does not provide the 
information sought by India. United States is again requested to provide the specific 
information sought by India.  
Answer by the United States  
Because of the number of institutional participants in the distribution of water from Federal 
irrigation projects, compiling the relevant data is complex and will require additional time. The 
United States is currently compiling the relevant information an d will provide a more complete 
response once the information is compiled.  
 
Data provided as a reply to question  AG-IMS ID  79088.  
 
Power Marketing Agency  FY2015 Wholesale  
Electricity Rate (Mills)  FY2015 Wholesale  
Electricity Rate  
(USD/kWh)  
Bonneville  35.07 0.03507  
Western (Parker Davis)  9.44 0.00944  
Western (Boulder Hoover)  16.28  0.01628  
Western (Loveland)  41.42  0.04142  
Western (Billings)  33.25  0.03325  
Western (Sacramento)  55.50  0.05550  
Western (Salt Lake City)  29.42  0.02942  
AG-IMS ID 75112: Questio n by I ndia - Non-product -specific AMS  
In its notification G/AG/N/USA/93, the United States has specified an amount of USD 
188.725 million as non -product specific subsidy for Irrigation Bureau Reclamation 
Projects.  
a. Could the United States provide details o f how obligations of irrigators for 
repayment of costs of construction water projects are calculated?  
b. Could the United States provide details of the amounts of financial assistance 
provided to irrigators by shifting the repayment of part or all of their 
obligations to other beneficiaries of water projects ("irrigation assistance")?  
c. Could the United States provide details of financial assistance provided as a 
"charge off" that relieves irrigators of portions of their repayment obligations 
by enacting speci fic legislations?  
d. Could the United States provide details of irrigation assistance and charge offs 
on repayment of costs allocated to irrigation for all the eligible projects as of 
2011 or the latest year for which the details are available?  
e. Could the Un ited States provide details of the percentage of irrigation costs 
repaid by irrigation assistance and relieved by charge offs for 2011 or the latest 
year for which the details are available?  
f. Could the United States provide justification for not including the financial 
assistance provided as an "irrigation assistance" and "charge off" in its Non -
Product -Specific AMS?  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 59 - 
 
  g. Could the United States clarify whether the amount of non -product specific 
support under Bureau of Reclamation includes the financial assista nce that 
irrigators receive under the Small Reclamation Project Act and the Distribution 
System Loans Act? Could the United States provide details and amounts of 
financial assistance provided to irrigators under these two acts as of 2011 or 
the latest year  for which the details are available?  
h. Could the United States provide details of the per unit rate charged for 
electricity used to transport irrigation water and the power rates charged for 
industrial, agricultural and residential users of electricity? If  the rate charged 
for electricity used to transport irrigation water is lower than that charged for 
other users of electricity, how does the United States justify exclusion of this 
subsidy from calculation of non -product specific AMS?  
i. Could the United Sta tes provide the following details in respect of water 
supplied to farms in the Wetlands Water District: (a) price charged to farms in 
Wetlands for each acre -foot of water; (b) quantity of water supplied annually to 
farms in Wetlands Water District during 2 005-2011; and (c) price charged to 
other users for the water supplied?  
Answer by the United States  
a. Reclamation projects often serve multiple purposes, meaning that Congress has 
authorized them to provide water and/or facilities for more than one type of u se. The 
typical project purposes are irrigation, municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, 
hydropower, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and flood control. The basic 
objective of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (BoR) repayment policies is the reco very of 
project construction and operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs. For a 
multipurpose project, this is accomplished by first allocating these costs among project 
purposes and then securing contracts with actual beneficiaries for repaym ent of the 
reimbursable costs.  
A variety of methods have been used to determine the costs associated with a particular 
project purpose. The most common method, over the past 50 years, is to determine: (1) 
the specific costs of features serving a single pro ject purpose ( e.g., a canal serving 
irrigation water users only), and (2) then allocate (distribute) to each project purpose 
the costs serving more than one project purpose ( e.g., a dam serving irrigation, M&I, 
flood control, etc.) based on the remaining b enefits of each purpose after that purpose's 
specific costs have been deducted from its total benefits. A project purpose's total cost is 
the sum of the specific and allocated costs. Generally, the net result is that project 
purposes with higher economic b enefits, such as M&I uses, are allocated a greater share 
of the costs on a per acre -foot basis than a project purpose with lower economic 
benefits.  
The most widely used cost allocation method is the "separable costs/remaining benefits" 
method (SCRB or "scr ub" method), which allows all project purposes to share equitably 
in the advantages of multipurpose construction, and prevents any purpose from being 
justified based on the benefits of another purpose.  
What follows is a simplified version of the SCRB metho d. In its most basic terms, the 
method determines what portion of a project's total cost is separable to one purpose by 
estimating what the project would cost without that purpose, and subtracting that 
number from the total cost. The costs that can be subt racted in this way are that 
purpose's separable costs. The method's other basic category is remaining joint costs, 
which consist of those costs remaining after the separable costs for all purposes have 
been subtracted from total costs. Joint costs are thos e which serve more than one, and 
often several, purposes or objectives, for example, a dam which provides storage 
capacity for multiple purposes.  
These remaining joint costs are then allocated proportionately to each project purpose 
based on its share of t he total national economic development benefits estimated for the G/AG/W/154  
 
- 60 - 
 
  project, to the extent that the resulting sum of separable costs and allocated remaining 
joint costs are within that purpose's capitalized benefits; thus, if a purpose's benefits are 
suffici ent to cover only its own separable costs, then no remaining joint costs are 
allocated to it. This keeps allocated costs commensurate with a purpose's project -
generated benefits. For agriculture, benefits may include the value of reductions in 
production c osts and in associated costs; reduction in damage costs from floods, 
erosion, sedimentation, inadequate drainage, or inadequate water supply; the value of 
increased production of crops; and the economic efficiency of increasing the production 
of crops in t he project area. Other project purposes for which benefits are calculated 
may include municipal and industrial water supply, urban flood damage reduction, 
hydropower, transportation (inland and deep draft navigation), recreation, and 
commercial fishing.  
Further detail on cost allocation methods can be found in Reclamation Manual Directive 
and Standard  PEC 02 -01, "Cost Allocations", on BoR's internet site:  
http://www.usbr.gov/recman . 
b. BoR estimates the total value of  scheduled irrigation assistance at about USD 3 billion. 
However, BoR has determined that the value of irrigation assistance has long been built 
into the value of farmland served by these projects. Any benefit provided by irrigation 
assistance was realized  by the original land owners as the value of that benefit was 
capitalized when these lands were sold. Most BoR project lands have changed ownership 
since their initial development, and the current landowners have paid the capitalized 
value for the land, wh ich has already captured and eliminated the assistance provided to 
original project landowners.  
c. The total value of "charge offs" provided to irrigators by Congress is estimated at USD 
255 million. However, the change in repayment assessment provided by ch arge offs has 
generally been in response to a change in the benefits provided to irrigation from those 
originally projected when the reclamation project repayment allocations were set. (See 
response to question a above for an explanation of the methods for  allocating repayment 
obligations.) Reduction in benefits may occur for a variety of reasons. For example, 
some land within the project may prove to be impossible to irrigate or anticipated 
irrigation use of constructed projects may not have materialized.  
d. See responses to questions b and c above.  
e. See responses to questions b and c above.  
f. See responses to questions b and c above.  
g. Water projects funded by the Distribution System Loans Act (DSLA) and the Small 
Reclamation Project Act (SRPA) operate in the sam e way as other BoR water projects. 
Thus, the only assistance related to these programmes would be the value of interest 
foregone on repayment obligations. There are currently no loans outstanding under 
DSLA. Only some of the loans under SRPA provide for in terest -free repayment. In 2014 
the outstanding balance for interest -free loans under SRPA would yield interest foregone 
of USD 100,269.22.  
h. BoR project power use rates are "cost -based", which means that they are set to repay 
the associated operation and mai ntenance costs plus replacements and any associated 
capital investment without interest.  
i. BoR charges to individual water districts are set to cover all operating and maintenance 
(O&M) and capital costs. BoR does not set water rates within water districts. Water 
district rates generally include additional charges to cover costs of district O&M and 
capital costs for district delivery infrastructure. Differences in water rates between 
agricultural and municipal and industrial users reflect differences in the c ost of water 
delivery. Factors such as water quality, timing and reliability of deliveries, and 
size/location of deliveries may enter into actual costs, resulting in different rates for 
different types of users.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 61 - 
 
  Water rates and annual water supplies in the  Westlands Water District can be found at : 
http://wwd.ca.gov/wp -content/uploads/2014/10/waterrates20140415.pdf  and 
http://wwd.ca.gov/wp -content/uploads/2014/06/Water -Supply -Charts.pdf . 
Water rates and annual deliveries by BoR to the Westlands Water District for 2005 -2011 were:  
Westlands Water District - Agricultural Water rates (per ac/ft) and deliveries  
Water Year (Mar 1 to Feb 28)  
 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Water rates  31.63 34.07 35.22 34.93 34.82 36.05 39.68 
Deliveries  670,856  46,657  709,896  275,944  21,675  257,367  693,629  
All deliveries were for San Luis canal only.  
Rates charged by the BoR Central Valley Project for water deliveries to the Westlands Water 
District and all water districts under contract area are available at: 
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpwaterrates/ratebooks/index.html . (See schedules A -1 and B -2.) 
3.4  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CON TEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
3.4.1   United States (G/AG/N/USA/105)  
AG-IMS ID 79028: Question by  the European Union - Quantity and concessionality of 
food aid  
The European Union notices that for certain products, such as beans, emergency food 
product me al replacements, potatoes, rice, soy fortified cornmeal, wheat and wheat soy 
blends, the United States notifies larger amounts of in -kind food aid to least developed 
and net food -importing developing countries for fiscal year 2013 than what has 
previously been notified to all destinations (see G/AG/W/125/Rev.3/Add.3, dated 
27 July 2015).  What are the reasons behind these discrepancies?  
 
Answer by the United States  
 
The discrepancies between G/AG/W/125/Rev.3/Add.3 and G/AG/N/USA/105 are due to a switch to 
a new data system through which the United States reports its data. The United States will provide 
updated figures to the Secretariat for formal distribution in a revised version of G/AG/N/USA/105. 
Please see the attached table for revised figures.  
Food Aid Commodity Table: 2013 Tonnage  
Commodity  Overall 2013 
Contributions  LDC and NFIDC 
Contributions  
Beans  17,320  11,740  
Bulgur  19,070  19,070  
Corn 15,920  15,920  
Cornmeal  33,080  33,080  
Corn-Soy Blend  90,880  87,220  
Lentils  27,070  25,520  
Nonfat Dry Milk  - - 
Peas 105,100  101,960  
Potatoes  1,620  800 
Rice 93,630  82,180  
Salmon  100 0 
Sorghum  301,090  296,690  
Soy Flour  - - 
Soy Fortified Bulger  12,660  12,660  
Soy Fortified Cornmeal  770 770 
Soy Protein Products  - - 
Soybean Meal  51,600  33,600  
Soybeans  - - 
Vegetable Oils  109,962  99,372  
Wheat  540,030  492,650  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 62 - 
 
  Commodity  Overall 2013 
Contributions  LDC and NFIDC 
Contributions  
Wheat Flour  25,440  24,980  
Wheat -Soy Blend  3,890  3,890  
Emergency Food Product Meal 
Replacement  3,080  3,080  
COMMODITY TOTALS  1,452,312  1,345,182  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1  Argentina  
AG-IMS ID 80081: Question  by the European Union  
Argentina 's latest domestic support notification concerns 2006.  Could Argentina indicate 
when more up -to-date notifications will be forwarded to WTO?  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
Argentina  repeats that Argentina 's most recent notification on domestic support does not 
correspond to 2006 but to marketing year 2008/2009 and covers the period December  2008 to 
November  2009.  
 
The Ministry of Agroindustry is currently collecting from the various areas and decentralized bodies 
all the information needed to meet the notification requirements, and its data collection task will 
soon be completed. The relevant notifications will then be submitted to the WTO Secretariat.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand shared the concern about overdue notifications and stressed  the 
importance for all Members to submit timely and complete notifications, particular ly major 
agricultural exporters such as Argentina. Canada echoed New Zealand's comments. Brazil and the 
United States encouraged Argentina to bring its notifications up to date.  
 
4.2  China  
AG-IMS ID 80054: Questio n by the United States  
When can the United States expect China to provide more recent notifications to bring 
its WTO notifications up to date?  
 
Answer by China  
 
China attaches great importance to the principle of transparency, as it is among the fundamental 
principles of this organization . China has carefully studied the Secretariat report on the compliance 
with notification obligations, and  China would like to highlight  two conclusions.  First, overdue 
notification  is a common problem for most Members, including major developed ones. Second, 
China maintains a relatively good record in compliance with notifications obligations.  China will try 
its best to prepare the notification and submit it as soon as possible.  
 
Follow-up: The United States urged China to update its notifications as soon as possible.  
 
4.3  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 80082: Question by the European Union  
Thailand 's latest domestic suppo rt notification concerns 2008. Could Thailand indicate 
when more up -to-date notifications will be forwarded to WTO?  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand has conveyed the concerns and questions to the relevant authorities in Bangkok. As soon 
as information is received from the capital Thailand will bring to the WTO the up -to-date 
information.  G/AG/W/154  
 
- 63 - 
 
   
Follow -up: The European Union and the Philippines underlined the importance and the necessity of 
notifications in the Committee. The United States strongly encouraged Thailand to submit its 
outstanding notifications as soon as possible. Given Tha iland's membership in the ASEAN, the 
Philippines noted its particular interest in having updates on Thailand's rice policies since the 
introduction of the Paddy Pledging Scheme in 2011. The Philippines encouraged Thailand to make 
more effort in meeting its  notification obligations.   
 
4.4  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 8008 4: Question by  the European Union  
The European Union is deeply disappointed by the reply to its question asked in the 
March  2016 Committee meeting. Turkey has now given the same reply for several years, 
namely that notifications are being prepared in Ankara. Further, during Turkey's latest 
Trade Policy Review in reply to European question No. 31, Turkey stated: "Turkey will 
comply with its notification requirements by the next meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture which will be held on 7 -8 June". (See document WT/TPR/S 331). The 
continued lack of notifications is deeply troubling.  
 
The European Union wishes to know when Turkey intends to present its missing 
notifications to the WTO.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The work of preparing Turkey 's export subsidy notifications could not be completed for this 
meeting, but Turkey expects to be able to submit them soon. Turkey has also started a work 
programme to notify its agriculture domestic support programmes on a grad ual basis but some 
additional time is needed for that.  
AG-IMS ID 80057: Questio n by the United States  
Turkey remains seriously overdue in notifying its domestic support and export subsidies. 
When does Turkey plan to submit its domestic support and export  subsidy notifications?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The work of preparing Turkey 's export subsidy notifications could not be completed for this 
meeting, but Turkey expects to be able to submit them soon. Turkey has also started a work 
programme to notify its agric ulture domestic support programmes on a gradual basis but some 
additional time is needed for that.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and the United States looked forward to Turkey's export subsidy 
and domestic support notifications.  
 
__________