G/AG/W/156  
 
2 September 2016  
(16-4692) Page: 1/30 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 14 -15 SEPTEMBER 20161 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
31 August  2016, as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/13.  
 
_____ __________  
 
 
  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligat ions under the WTO.  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
1.1   Australia's Biosecur ity Act of 2015  ................................ ................................ .................  6 
1.1.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81045)  ................................ ................................ .........  6 
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
1.2.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81008)  ................................ .............  6 
1.3   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81054), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81056), and 
the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81009)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.3.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81055) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81001)  ..............  7 
1.3.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81049)  ................................ ................................ .........  8 
1.4   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .............................  8 
1.4.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81046)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.4.2   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 81024) and New  Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81097)  ............  8 
1.4.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81003)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.4.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81057) and United St ates of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81011)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  9 
1.5   Canada's Growing Forward policy framework  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.5.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81047 ) ................................ ................................ .........  9 
1.6   Canada's support for ornamental horticulture industry  ................................ .....................  9 
1.6.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81048)  ................................ ................................ .........  9 
1.7   Canada's compositional standard for cheese  ................................ ................................ ..10 
1.7.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81002)  ................................ ............................. 10 
1.8   Canada's STE notification on dairy products  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.8.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81096) and United  States  of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81010)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
1.9   Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
1.9.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81004), Norway (AG -IMS ID 81051) and 
Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 81052)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 
1.10   Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  ................................ ........................... 11 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS I D 81012)  ................................ .......... 11 
1.11   European Union's agriculture policies  ................................ ................................ .......... 11 
1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81058)  ................................ ................................ .11 
1.11.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81061)  ................................ ................................ ......12 
1.11.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81060)  ................................ ................................ ......12 
1.11.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81005)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.12   India's sugar export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .................... 13 
1.12.1    Question  by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81062)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.12.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81025)  ................................ ....................... 13 
1.13   India's importation of apples  ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.13.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81006)  ................................ ........................... 13 
1.14   India's export assistance programmes  ................................ ................................ ......... 13 
1.14.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81013)  ................................ .......... 13 
1.15   Moldova's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81014)  ................................ .......... 14 
1.16   Pakistan's increase on import duties on milk powder including whey  ............................... 14 
1.16.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81030)  ................................ ....................... 14 
1.17   Pakistan's export subsidy for sugar exports  ................................ ................................ ..14 
1.17.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81028)  ................................ ....................... 14 
1.18   Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs ................................ ................................ ....15 
1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81063)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.18.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81007)  ................................ ........................... 15 
1.19   Tanzania's restri ction on sugar imports  ................................ ................................ ........ 15 
1.19.1    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 81021)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.20   Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising th e use of domestic dairy  ................................ .15 
1.20.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81065)  ................................ ........................... 15 
1.21   Turkey's domestic support policies  ................................ ................................ .............. 15 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 81064)  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.22   U.S. Global Food Security Act  ................................ ................................ ..................... 16 
1.22.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81067)  ................................ ................................ ......16 
1.23   U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Share programme  ................................ .......................... 16 
1.23.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81069)  ................................ ................................ ......16 
1.24   U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  ............................. 17 
1.24.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81070)  ................................ ................................ ......17 
1.25   U.S. increase in sugar TRQ  ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 
1.25.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81068)  ................................ ................................ ......17 
1.26   U.S. purchase of cheese stock  ................................ ................................ .................... 17 
1.26.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81066)  ................................ ................................ .17 
1.27   Vietnam's increase of excise duties for wine and spirits  ................................ ................. 17 
1.27.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81032)  ................................ ....................... 17 
1.28   Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  ................................ ................................ 17 
1.28.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81033)  ................................ ....................... 17 
1.29   China's environmental programmes  ................................ ................................ ............ 18 
1.29.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81050)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.30   China's regional ass istance programmes  ................................ ................................ ......18 
1.30.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81053)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.31   Malaysia's Table ES:2 notification  ................................ ................................ ............... 18 
1.31.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81027)  ................................ ....................... 18 
1.32   Thailand's export of rice from government stocks  ................................ ......................... 18 
1.32.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81031)  ................................ ....................... 18 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.33   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale  ................................ ................................ .......19 
1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81015)  ................................ .......... 19 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  19 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 19 
2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/111, G/AG/N/CAN/112,)  ................................ ........................... 19 
2.1.2    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/55)  ................................ ................................ ................... 19 
2.1.3    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/57)  ................................ ................................ ......... 20 
2.1.4    Tunisia (G/AG/N /TUN/48)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 20 
2.2   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  ................................ .....20 
2.2.1    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/54)  ................................ ................................ ......... 20 
2.2.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/137)  ................................ ................................ ........... 20 
2.2.3    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/55)  ................................ ................................ ......... 20 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 21 
2.3.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/104)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 21 
2.3.2    Colombia (G/AG/ N/COL/51)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 21 
2.3.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/26)  ................................ ................................ ............... 22 
2.3.4    Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/44)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 22 
2.3.5    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/55)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 23 
2.3.6    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 23 
2.3.7    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/108)  ................................ .............................. 24 
2.3.8    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/6)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 26 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ........... 26 
2.4.1    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/54)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 26 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ...27 
2.5.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/103)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 
2.5.2    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/108/CORR.1)  ................................ ................................ ........... 27 
2.6   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE C ONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  ....................... 27 
2.6.1    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/14)  ................................ ................................ ........ 27 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ..........  27 
3.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ............... 27 
3.1.1    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/1)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 
3.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 28 
3.2.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/30)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 28 
3.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 28 
3.3.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/28)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 28 
3.3.2   Fiji (G/AG/N/FJI/13)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .28 
3.3.3    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 29 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  29 
4.1.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 29 
AG-IMS ID 81016: Question by United States of America  ................................ ........................ 29 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.1.2    European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......29 
4.1.3    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 29 
4.1.4    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 29 
 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  Australia's Biosecurity Act of 2015  
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81045)  
Australia has recently implemented a new Biosecurity Act of 2015 (effective June 2016).2 
Could  Australia highlight the key changes and the impact of the new law on agricu lture imports?  
 
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.2.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81008)  
In previous responses by Brazil to questions from the United States, Brazil stated that the Prêmio 
para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) programme was su spended for a reassessment to address 
concerns regarding 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 delivered 
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 i nformation it would provide the data in September 2015. In March and June  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 deve lop a suitable system 
to collate the data?  
 
1.3  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81054), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81056), and 
the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81009)  
a. With regard to the expanded Class 4(m) that was announ ced by the Canadian Milk 
Supply Management Committee (CMSMC), the United States understands that the 
changes to Class 4(m), which were previously effective between 1  May and 
31 July 2016, have now been extended until 31 October 2016.  
i. Can Canada please conf irm that is the case?  
ii. The United States understands that the intent of the changes to Class 4(m) is to 
provide liquid milk protein concentrate (MPC) (up to 85% protein) and liquid skim 
milk to processors at world prices. How exactly are world prices determ ined? 
For example, world prices of which products are considered? Are U.S. prices used?  
iii. Does a processor need to use a certain level or percentage of domestic liquid MPC 
and liquid skim milk to qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment?  
iv. Could a processor use d omestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk and imported fluid 
milk and ingredients still qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment for the domestic 
liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used?  
v. Could a processor who uses domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk, and who also 
uses imported ultra -filtered (UF) milk to meet the minimum percentage of casein 
content derived from fluid milk in the compositional cheese requirements, qualify for 
the Class 4(m) adjustment for the domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used?  
b. Can processors who receive milk under Class 6 or Class 4(m), and whose production 
process results in excess skim milk solids, export that excess? If yes:  
i. Have there been such exports?  
                                                
2 Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/legislation/new -biosecurity -legislation  
(last visited 24/08/2016).  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 7 - 
 
  ii. Do processors need approval from, or need to account to, the milk boards or the 
CDC to export?  
iii. Do the milk boards, the CDC, or the processors actually ship the exports? Who in 
Canada has the authority to export dairy products?  
iv. Are such export sales being made under a particular class in the milk classification 
system?  
c. In response to Australia's questions AG -IMS ID 80003, Canada states, "As milk proteins 
are used in many different applications, including food products, nutraceuticals and 
non-food usages, Canada considers the amended milk class 4(m) will not have any 
significant impa ct on the overall imports of milk proteins." What does Canada's data 
indicate regarding import trends?  
d. Will Class 6 continue after the "agreement in principle" between Dairy Farmers of 
Canada (DFC) and dairy processor associations is in effect?  
e. The Dairy F armers of Canada (DFC) and dairy processor associations announced, in the 
press, a conclusion of an "agreement in principle" that includes the creation of an 
ingredient strategy.  
i. When does Canada expect any changes related to the "agreement in principle" t o go 
into effect? Which authorities will be responsible for ratification of and implementing 
the agreement in principle?  
ii. If prices for dairy ingredients are set at world prices (i.e. lower than Canada's 
domestic prices), are dairy farmers expected to incur  a reduction in revenues?  
iii. If prices for dairy ingredients are set at world prices, will a processor need to use a 
certain level or percentage of the domestic dairy ingredients to qualify to receive 
those ingredients at world prices?  
iv. Will a processor who us es both domestic and imported dairy ingredients be able to 
qualify to receive the domestic dairy ingredients at world price?  
v. Will a processor who uses both domestic and imported dairy ingredients, and who 
uses imported UF milk to meet the minimum percentag e of casein content derived 
from fluid milk in the compositional cheese requirements, be able to qualify to 
receive the domestic dairy ingredients at world price?  
vi. In order to access world -priced milk components, will processors be required to use 
all compo nents of raw milk their purchase?  
f. In Canada's response to U.S.  question AG -IMS ID 80025, Canada states that "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 has been previously".  
i. Does C anada expect that, similarly, any new or modified milk class will include 
a portion of the milk price paid to farmers that will be lower than it had been 
previously?  
ii. Will that lower cost be offset by changes that make other dairy classes at a higher 
price?  
1.3.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81055) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81001)  
New Zealand has been made aware, via media reports, of the conclusion of negotiations between 
dairy farmers and processors to develop a path forward for the Canadian dairy system. 
The agreement reportedly sets in place a nationwide pricing strategy for dairy ingredients that will G/AG/W/156  
 
- 8 - 
 
  permanently replace the interim programme implemented by Canada's Milk Supply Management 
Committee on 29 March 2016.  
 
According to the media, the agreement is due to be submitted for ratification and only the 
highlights of the agreement will be made public after final ratification, with 1  November  2016 
being the anticipated implementation date. New Zealand also understands that the agreement 
includes a propos al for a subsidy permitting surplus domestic skim milk to be priced at world  
prices when used as ingredients and to develop a new strategy for dairy exports. Can Canada:  
 
a. confirm whether it is planning to introduce a new milk class, or update its existing 
national milk class and pricing system?  
b. provide details on the milk classes, including the definitions and information on how 
prices will be set for each class?  
c. confirm when the Canadian government plans to notify these changes to the WTO?  
1.3.3   Question by Indi a (AG -IMS ID 81049)  
There was an earlier announcement by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee to allow 
subsidized skim milk under Class 4(m) to be used as an ingredient for "standardized cheese", 
which will make domestic milk proteins for cheese p rocessing available at reduced prices compared 
to imported milk proteins. Thereafter, there are reports suggesting major changes in the Canadian 
Dairy industry. Specifically, dairy farmers and processors will be able to buy domestic produce at 
reduced rate s (as compared to present rates).3 Could Canada kindly clarify the modalities and 
operation of the new system and the likely impact of the measure on imports?  
 
1.4  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81046)  
Australia's question relates t o Ontario Regulation 232/16 regarding the sale of liquor in 
government stores under the Liquor Control Act. Can Canada please confirm whether new 
regulations to allow the limited sale of wine in grocery stores in Ontario have entered into force?  
 
a. Can Canad a please confirm whether imported wine can be sold by a grocery operator 
under the regulation?  
b. If so, can Canada please specify the conditions under which imported wine can be sold 
by grocery operators?  
c. Can Canada explain the policy considerations or goals  behind any limitations?  
1.4.2   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 81024) and New  Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81097)  
Taking into account the increasing number of restrictions in Canada and its provinces, 
the European Union would like to reiterate its concerns expressed  during the CoA meetings 
in March and June 2016 as well in the Council on Trade in Goods on 14 July 2016 in relation to the 
following issues:  
 
a. Quebec's adoption of Legislation 88 which discriminates against non -local production.  
b. The limit imposed by Ontari o on the sale for non -local production as well as the decision 
on 20 June 2016 introducing a system of variable mark -ups. 
c. British Columbia's restrictions on sales "store within store".  
                                                
3 The Western Producer, New milk class created to reduce cheaper U.S. imports, available at 
http://www.producer.com/2016/06/new -milk-class-created -to-reduce -cheaper -u-s-imports  (last visited 
24/08/2016) . G/AG/W/156  
 
- 9 - 
 
  d. The differentiation introduced by Nova Scotia since 2014 in the taxatio n between 
products of national origin and imported ones.  
e. The European Union would like to know when Canada plans to eliminate these trade 
restrictions on imported products.  
1.4.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81003)  
New Zealand thanks Canada for its respons e in the 80th regular Committee on Agriculture to its 
question on wine sales in Ontario. New Zealand is concerned with how the Ontario Premier's 
Advisory Council's recommendations on wine will affect product from small and mid -sized wineries 
when they are implemented later this year. Can Canada please clarify how the classification of 
small and mid -sized wineries is determined, and in particular, if Canada considers product from 
different sized wineries is not "like" product? Can Canada also please provide an update on when 
the changes that benefit imported products will be implemented?  
 
1.4.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81057) and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81011)  
The United States remains concerned by the wine regulations implemented in British 
Columbia  (BC) that allow for the sales of BC wines on the regular grocery stores shelves, to the 
exclusion of imported products.  
 
a. Please enumerate how many licenses and what types of licenses have been transferred 
to grocery stores in BC. In Canada's respon se to question AG -IMS ID 80008, it states 
that, "there is no known difference in public health considerations between locally 
produced and imported wine and spirits".  
b. If there is no health difference between Canadian and imported wine, can Canada 
explain t he policy considerations or goals for limiting wine on the shelves to only 
domestic product?  
1.5  Canada's Growing Forward policy framework  
1.5.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81047)  
India notes that in 2013 Canada renewed the 2008 Growing Forward (GF) policy framewor k with 
Growing Forward 2 (GF2), extending the framework until 2018. Under the GF2 scheme Canada has 
indicated dedicating $3  billion in cost -shared funding toward non -Business Risk Managem ent 
(BRM) strategic initiatives. The scheme contains a comprehensive,  demand -driven suite of BRM 
programming.4 Could Canada explain the modalities of the scheme and how are they 
implemented?  
 
1.6  Canada's support for ornamental horticulture industry  
1.6.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81048)  
Canada has announced federal support for th e ornamental horticulture industry to grow their 
domestic and international markets.5 Could Canada kindly provide additional details of the 
proposed payments and confirm if they are consistent with Canada's obligations at the WTO.  
                                                
4 Available at http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about -us/key -departmental -initiatives/growing -forward -
2/?id=129478 0620963  (last visited 23/08/2016).  
5 Market Wired, available at http://www.marketwired.com/press -releas e/canadas -ornamental -
horticulture -industry -gets-federal -support -to-grow-their-markets -2151687.htm  (last visited 23/08/2016) . G/AG/W/156  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.7  Canada's compositional st andard for cheese  
1.7.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81002)  
New Zealand thanks Canada for its responses in the 80th regular Committee on Agriculture. 
However, New Zealand remains concerned with the lack of satisfactory responses with regard to 
Canada's dai ry policies.  
 
With reference to Canada's answer, New Zealand notes that its question was not fully addressed. 
While New Zealand agrees that on the face of it the Canadian cheese compositional standards 
"require that a certain percentage of casein content i n standardized cheeses be derived from milk, 
regardless of whether this milk was produced in Canada or not," the answer does not address the 
issue that imported like dairy ingredients are excluded contrary to basic national treatment 
obligations in the Gen eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT  1994). As New Zealand noted in 
its question to Canada during the 80th regular Committee on Agriculture, the Dairy Products 
Regulations accord "less favourable" treatment to like imported dairy ingredients by creati ng 
conditions that de facto require the usage of ingredients sourced from domestic milk. Therefore, 
these regulations act as an import -substitution measure, contrary to Article  III:4 of the 
GATT  1994.  
 
Given that these discriminatory measures are set out i n the Dairy Products Regulations 
SOR/79 -840, New Zealand again asks what steps Canada intends to take to repeal its 
WTO-inconsistent compositional standard for cheese?  
 
1.8  Canada's STE notification on dairy products  
1.8.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81096) and United  States  of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81010)  
In notification G/STR/N/16/CAN, Canada lists on page 2 in I.B. Description of products 
affected  04.05 Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk; dairy spreads. According to 
the Canadian  Dairy Commission  (CDC) annual report for 2013 -2014 ( http://www.cdc -
ccl.gc.ca/CDC/userfiles/file/CDC_AR_web_2014_en.pdf ), the CDC exports skim milk powder, dairy 
blends, milk protein concent rate and "other products" under a surplus removal programme 
(p. 20). 
 
The report also states that "[d]uring the 2013 -14 dairy year, the majority of dairy product exports 
were performed by private companies under permits issued by the CDC. The main role of the CDC 
was to dispose of structural surplus of solids non -fat mainly in the form of skim milk powder or 
blends containing skim milk solids." (p.  25) 
 
a. Please explain why the CDC has only notified "butter and other fats and oils derived from 
milk; dairy spr eads".  
b. Please explain why statistical information was not provided for additional products for 
which the CDC is involved in import and/or export. If this was in error, please clarify 
when Canada will submit an updated notification with complete information . 
1.9  Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81004), Norway (AG -IMS ID 81051) and 
Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 81052)  
New Zealand thanks Canada for its response in the 80th regular Committee on Agriculture to its 
question on propose d changes to Canada's WTO 20,411,866 kg tariff quota for cheese as part of 
the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European  Union 
(EU).  
 
New Zealand remains concerned that the proposed allocation of 800 tonnes of this quota  to the EU 
reduces the quantity of market access available to non -EU WTO Members to 6,140,034 kg and 
appears to be inconsistent with Article I, and Articles XIII:1 and 2 under the GATT.  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 11 - 
 
  a. Can Canada please confirm if it has consulted with, and received agree ment from, 
all other non -EU interested parties that the EU can be allocated 800 tonnes from the 
non-EU reserve of the WTO quota?  
b. What steps is Canada taking to ensure that any changes are consistent with Canada's 
WTO commitments and do not disadvantage oth er WTO members?  
1.10  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81012)  
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its transparency, 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". During the June  2016 
Committee on Agriculture, Costa Rica reported that in it would notify in a few weeks the overall aid 
measure applied in 2015, and it is expected to be less than the annual limit 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 monetary limit for AMS for 2015?  
1.11  European Union's agriculture policies  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81058)  
Australia welcomes the E uropean Union's efforts to adopt more market -oriented agriculture 
policies, including in the dairy sector. Australia notes that the European  Union has announced 
a new EUR  500 million support package for dairy farmers. As part of the package, the 
European  Union announced EUR  350 million of "conditional adjustment aid". Can the 
European  Union:  
 
a. Confirm when the package will come into effect?  
b. Which types of dairy farms or dairy producers will be eligible for funding?  
c. Provide more details on the measures includ ed as part of the package?  
d. Provide more detail on the eligibility criteria used to determine access to funding and the 
amount of funding granted?  
e. Confirm whether funding available to farmers is linked to production?  
f. How does the EU intend to ensure that th ese measures do not distort production and/or 
trade?  
g. Australia notes that member States have the option to match the EUR 350 million with 
their own funding. What disciplines will the EU Commission set on expenditure made by 
member States matching the "cond itional adjustment aid"? Will Member States be free 
to set their own eligibility criteria for the funding, or will the eligibility criteria be 
specified by the Commission?  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.11.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81061)  
According to a European Commission press release  on 18 July 20166, a new support package of 
EUR 500 million has been announced for farmers, particularly in the dairy sector. It extends its 
coverage to a mix of incentives to reduce production, conditional adjustment aid, and other 
technical adjustments. India requests the European Union to provide the following information:  
a. The structure and modalities of the EUR 150 million pay out to incentivise the reduction 
in production of milk.  
b. The criteria to determine the amount of aid under each of the schemes.  
c. The total additional co -funding by each of the member States.  
1.11.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81060)  
India would like to know if additional temporary state aid , referred to in the statements released 
by the European Commission on  14 March 2016 and 18 July 20167, is proposed for the year 2016 -
17 in other sectors, specifically for the meat production sector.  
 
1.11.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81005)  
New Zealand welcomes ongoing efforts by the European Union to reform the Common Agricultural 
Policy (CAP) to make it more market -oriented, and to reduce both the quantum of and the 
distortive nature of domestic support. This process serves not only to reduce the impact of CAP on 
the European Union's trading partners, but also renders the European Union a more competit ive 
producer and exporter. These reforms have been rewarded in recent years through the 
European  Union's emergence as the leading global exporter and producer.  
 
New Zealand is encouraged by the recent announcement that the European Union will grant 
Member States a derogation from the obligation to maintain herd sizes for coupled payments 
in 2017, allowing herds to reduce in situations where market forces might call for it. This highlights 
how in some cases coupled payments isolate farmers from market signal s, and the positive role 
simple reforms can play in helping the sector to respond to supply and demand shocks. 
New Zealand would encourage the European Union to consider more permanent steps it could take 
to decouple support from factors of production.  
 
New Zealand notes also the announcement of a new support package in July that includes the 
possibility of further direct financial assistance to farmers. The September 2015 package provided 
for the possibility of payments directly to producers on the basis o f their past years production.  
 
a. Will there be the possibility for payments in the July 2016 package to also be 
production -linked?  
b. What steps has the European Union taken to ensure payments under the September and 
July financial aid packages are targeted at  real financial hardship?  
c. Has the Commission undertaken any work to assess the effectiveness of the September 
2015 package, and if so what is likely to be different about the parameters of the 
July 2016 package?  
d. What steps has the European Union taken to e nsure payments under the September and 
July financial aid packages are at best minimally trade distorting?  
New Zealand notes that this is the third instalment of dairy support packages and would be 
interested in any modelling or analysis undertaken around their impact on domestic and 
international prices. New Zealand notes that in the current environment, with farmers experiencing 
                                                
6 Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-2563_en.htm  (last visited 24/08/2016) . 
7 European Commission - Press Release, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-
806_en.htm  (last visited 23/08/2016) . G/AG/W/156  
 
- 13 - 
 
  relatively low prices, production levels remain out of sync with the demand in the market place, 
and efforts to ensure a market orientation are important to bringing prices back towards 
a sustainable level. New Zealand encourages continued efforts by the European Union in support of 
the reform effort envisaged i n the Agriculture on Agreement.  
 
1.12  India's sugar export subsidies  
1.12.1   Questio n by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81062)  
Australia thanks India for the answers provided to Australian questions raised at the 
80th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80011), and notes that India has confirmed that the 
Minimum Indicative Export Quota scheme (MIEQ ) has been withdrawn. Australia also notes from 
media reports that India has extended the production subsidy to sugar mills for the 2015 -16 
season. Can India please explain the relationship between the MIEQ and the extended production 
subsidy formula?  
 
1.12.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81025)  
Follow -up to Question AG -IMS ID 80037:  
 
In its reply to question AG -IMS 80037 India indicated that no payments have been made so far, 
and that the scheme was withdrawn on 19 May 2016. Could India inform whether any  sugar 
producers had obtained rights for payments before that date and if so for which quantities and 
amount?  
 
1.13  India's importation of apples  
1.13.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81006)  
New Zealand understands that Visakhapatnam Port and Tuticorin Port remain  closed to apple 
imports since they were originally closed in September 2015. India advised the WTO Council for 
Trade in Goods (CTG) on 14 July that its other ports, where food safety systems are fully 
operational, have been reopened to apple imports.  
 
a. Are the two remaining ports closed to the import of apples due to SPS reasons?  
b. When they will reopen?  
c. When will these closures be notified to the WTO?  
d. How are these closures consistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture which 
states that "Member s shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the kind 
which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties"?  
1.14  India's export assistance programmes  
1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81013)  
The United States ask ed several detailed questions in September 2015 (AG -IMS ID 78007) and 
March 2016 (AG -IMS ID 79002) regarding 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, the 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). During the June 2016 CoA, India confirmed that the 
VKGUY  programme is permanently suspended and that there has been a discount; for 2015/2016, 
the amount was 1441.49 rupees. Fo r 2013/2014 the amount was 3291 rupees. India also 
indicated that its export subsidy notification will be fully compliant with the Agreement on G/AG/W/156  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Agriculture, and that they are compiling data sector and product wise, but matching will take some 
time. 
 
a. The Un ited States thanks India for its previous responses regarding the VKGUY 
programme confirming that it is suspended permanently. During the last Committee on 
Agriculture India indicated that its export subsidy notification would be fully compliant 
with the A greement on Agriculture. The United States would like to seek an update on 
the status of India's export subsidy notification?  
b. Furthermore, will India notify benefits provided under the new MEIS in its export subsidy 
notifications?  
1.15  Moldova's poultry tariffs   
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81014)  
The United States is concerned with Moldova's domestic legislation establishing tariff rates 
(initially  established in Act No. 1380 -XIII "Customs Tariff" from 20 November 1997). Specifically, 
for man y 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 ap plied poultry import duties 
can be and have been in excess of WTO bound rates.  During the June  2016 C ommittee on 
Agriculture,  Moldova responded that they "are aware of the issue and the inconsistencies in 
accession process. In the domestic language there i s no maximum tariff on that line and it has not 
yet been amended. Government of Moldova will propose to amend the legislation and it should be 
approved by end of current year".  
 
a. The United 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.  
b. Would Moldova provide an update on the status of Moldova's effo rts to amend its poultry 
tariff bindings?  
1.16  Pakistan's increase on import duties on milk powder including whey  
1.16.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81030)  
The European Union notes that Pakistan has increased its applied duties on 1 July 2016 from 20% 
to 45%  for milk powders and from 20% to 25% for whey powder. Can Pakistan explain the 
reasons for these increases?  
 
1.17  Pakistan's export subsidy for sugar exports  
1.17.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81028)  
Pakistan has introduced a subsidy for export of sugar – EPD circular Letter No 9 of 2016 
(State  Bank of Pakistan) – whereby a subsidy of 13PKR/kg (=112€/t) is guaranteed by the State 
in case the selling price of the sugar is at least 450 USD/t and the cane producer has been paid a 
minimum price of 180 PKR/40 kg.  
 
a. How would Pakistan explain this policy development in light of the Bali  Ministerial 
commitment to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of 
export subsidies?  
b. When does Pakistan intend to notify this measure to the WTO?  
c. How doe s Pakistan see the conformity of this measure with Article 9:4 of the A greement 
on Agriculture ? G/AG/W/156  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.18  Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs  
1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81063)  
Australia thanks Sri Lanka for the answer provided to Australian questions r aised in the 
78th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 78022), in relation to Sri Lanka's increase in tariffs for 
milk powder. Can Sri Lanka please outline what readjustments have been made in relation to its 
applied rate for milk powder, with respect to it s WTO commitment levels?  
 
1.18.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81007)  
New Zealand is pleased that Sri Lanka continues to work towards bringing its applied tariffs for 
dairy products in line with its WTO bindings of 20%. New Zealand notes that on 23  July Sri  Lanka 
reduced its Customs import duty on the importation of milk powder by approximately 25%, from 
Rs. 225/kg to Rs.  135/kg, which  New Zealand  understands equates to an applied rate of 
approximately 38%. Can Sri Lanka advise the Committee what remaining st eps need to be taken 
in order for it to return its applied tariffs back in line with its WTO ad valorem binding of 20%?  
 
1.19  Tanzania's restriction on sugar imports  
1.19.1   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 81021)  
According to Daily News Newspaper of Tanzania in Februar y 2016, the President of Tanzania had 
ordered authorities to control importation of sugar by revoking import permits, which are usually 
issued to traders to import sugar for domestic consumption. The regime, however, does not affect 
the importation of suga r from a member state of East African Countries (EAC). It is also reported 
that the President directed that sugar import permits be issued by his office and that of the Prime 
Minister.  
 
Thailand has raised the matter for clarification on a number of occasi ons to the delegate of 
Tanzania since May 2016 and to the Informal Meeting of the Import Incensing Committee on 
2 June 2016. However, there has been no response from Tanzania on the matter. While Thailand 
fully acknowledges Tanzania's problems, Thailand vi ews that there may be other alternative 
measures to be explored, which may create less trade distortion. In this regard, Thailand would 
like to ask Tanzania to confirm the validity of the news, and in the case that the measures were 
confirmed, Thailand wou ld like to urge Tanzania to comprehensively consider how the measures 
are in compliance with the WTO Agreements.  
 
1.20  Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising the use of domestic dairy  
1.20.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81065)  
New Zealand would like to regi ster its concern with the regulations issued by the Ministry of Food, 
Agriculture and Livestock, as set out in the Communique on Fundamentals of Support and Practice 
for the Utilisation of Raw Milk.  
 
The regulations appear to create a subsidy directed at t he use of domestic powdered and/or raw 
milk used as raw material in processed export products, which in turn suggests Turkey is 
incentivising the use domestic goods over that of imported goods.  
 
Can Turkey inform the Committee of how such a subsidy is cons istent with its WTO obligations, 
including Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement? If the subsidy is WTO inconsistent, what steps is 
Turkey taking to rectify the situation?  
 
1.21  Turkey's domestic support policies  
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 81064)  
Canada notes that there are reports that the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock announced 
higher levels of domestic support with the objective of increasing production in certain sectors. G/AG/W/156  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Of note is the plan in 2016 to grant 3.2 billion TL (USD 1.1 billion) in  subsidies to livestock 
producers in order to increase the cattle population and subsequ ently increase meat production.  
 
a. Could Turkey provide information regarding how this grant to cattle producers will be 
applied?  
i. Will it be used by the producer to purch ase cattle?  
ii. For producers with an existing herd of cattle what is the amount of the payment 
per head of cattle?  
iii. What other subsidies would be available to these producers? For example, would 
these producers be eligible to receive feed subsidies?  
iv. What is th e projected increase in the number of cattle as a result of this grant?  
v. What is the projected increase in meat production?  
b. What are Turkey's longer term domestic policy objectives related to increasing meat 
production and self -sufficiency? In 2015, the Mi nistry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock 
increased the pulse premium introduced in 2009 from 100TL per tonne to 200TL 
per tonne in 2015. As this premium is directly linked to production it is not surprising 
that the plantings of lentils increased in 2016.  
c. What is the projected increase in production for crop year 2016?  
d. What other subsidies/grants are available to these producers that would support the 
production of lentil? For example, could producers receive fertilizer or fuel subsidies? 
If so, what are t he amounts of these input subsidies?  
e. What are Turkey's longer term objectives for lentil p roduction and self -sufficiency?  
1.22  U.S. Global Food Security Act  
1.22.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81067)  
The United States recently enacted the Global Food Security Act whi ch authorises strategic action 
for providing "foreign assistance to developing countries to reduce global poverty and hunger, 
achieve food and nutrition security, promote inclusive, sustainable, agricultural -led economic 
growth, improve nutritional outcome s, especially for women and children, build resilience among 
vulnerable populations, and for other purposes".8 India would be interested to know what changes 
the new law would bring about to the destination, quantity and type of commodities that the 
United  States exports as food aid and subsidised exports.  
 
1.23  U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Share programme  
1.23.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81069)  
The United States has launched a USD  300 million cost -share assistance programme for 
cotton -ginning.9 For the purpose of c alculating the production that is eligible for payment, could 
the United States clarify the criteria to be used and how it would affect the total domestic 
subsidy?10 
                                                
8 S.1252, availa ble at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1252/text  (last visited 23/08/2016) . 
9 USDA No. 0140.16, available at 
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/06/0140.xml&amp;contentidonly=true  
(last visited 24/08/2016) . 
10 This is important considering that the Working Document No: 8 on Blue Box (December 20 07) 
provides the basic criteria for Blue Box classification. Direct payments under production limiting programmes 
will qualify as a Blue Box subsidy only if: "(i) such payments are based on fixed and unchanging areas and 
yields; or (ii) such payments are m ade on 85 per cent or less of a fixed and unchanging base level of G/AG/W/156  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.24  U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  
1.24.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81070)  
India notes that the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes reduce 
producer risk associated with price variability when current market prices are low relative to 
historical market prices and the programmes have completed on e year. Could the United  States 
clarify whether they have had an influence on production decisions and potentially resulted in 
greater acreage and production than would have occurred in their absence?  
 
1.25  U.S. increase in sugar TRQ  
1.25.1   Question by India (AG -IMS I D 81068)  
India notes that in financial year 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture announced an 
increase in overall sugar allotment quantity and raw cane sugar import access.11 Could the 
United  States elaborate on how the increased tariff -rate qu ota on sugar imports will be distributed 
among supplying countries and the structure of implementation?  
 
1.26  U.S. purchase of cheese stock  
1.26.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81066)  
Australia  understands that USDA is planning on purchasing cheese stocks in the U nited States. 
Could the United States please provide information on:  
 
a. How much cheese USDA plans to purchase?  
b. How will USDA determine the price it pays for any cheese that will be purchased?  
c. Is there a volume limit on how much cheese USDA will purchase?  
d. Are there plans for USDA to purchase any other dairy commodities?  
1.27  Vietnam's increase of excise duties for wine and spirits  
1.27.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81032)  
Vietnam has recently increased its excise duties for wine and spirits: from 10% to 35% in  the case 
of wine and from 15% to 65% the case of spirits. Can Vietnam explain the reasons for this 
increase of excise duties as well as provide a justification for the new methodology?  
 
In addition, the European Union would like to underline the need for transparency and consultation 
of all stakeholders beforehand. The European Union would like to invite Vietnam to review its 
reform after a period of prior consultation with all stakeholders.  
 
1.28  Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  
1.28.1   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 81033)  
The Food Reserve Agency, according to EU information, is responsible for ensuring a food security 
stock of 500,000 tonnes (= 3 month of food consumption). During the 2014/15 marketing year, 
the Food Reserve Agency seems to have bou ght in the order of 1.2 million tonnes, of which part 
seems to have been exported at prices below the price at which it was bought -in. 
 
                                                                                                                                                  
production; or (iii) livestock payments are made on a fixed and unchanging number of head"  
(emphasis  added).  
11 USDA No. 0119.16, available at http://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/usda -increases -fy-2016-us-
sugar -overall -allotment -quantity -and-raw-cane-sugar -import -access  (last visited 23/08/2016) . G/AG/W/156  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Could Zambia indicate the prices at which maize was bought -in during the 2014/15 marketing year 
and the average selling price in the internal market as well as the quantities sold on export 
markets from the Food Reserve Agency stocks?  
 
1.29  China's environmental programmes  
1.29.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81050)  
Since China has not supplied written responses, Australia resubmit s its question AG -IMS ID 79056: 
Can China please inform Members as to the types of programmes that receive funding for 
environmental programmes (under Other General Services) and who are the recipients? How are 
environmental programmes allocated across geo graphic areas?  
 
1.30  China's regional assistance programmes  
1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81053)  
Since China has not supplied written responses, Australia resubmits its question AG -IMS ID 79057: 
China reported an increase in expenditure from 2009 to 2010 o f approximately 15% for regional 
assistance programmes (under Other General Services). This continues a trend from previous 
notifications showing significant increases in expenditure for these programmes (more than double 
from 2005).  
 
a. Can China please expl ain what eligibility requirements are needed to receive payments 
under these programmes?  
b. What types of activities receive funding and can China explain how these activities are 
in accordance with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.31  Malaysia's Table ES :2 notification  
1.31.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81027)  
The European Union would like to reiterate its question AG -IMS ID  80080 for which no answer was 
provided neither orally during the 80th meeting in June 2016 nor in writing in document 
G/AG/W/154.  
 
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 notification does not contain data on the total 
exports of eggs?  
 
1.32  Thailand's export of rice from government sto cks 
1.32.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 81031)  
The European Union would like to reiterate its question AG -IMS ID 80045 for which no answer was 
provided neither orally during the 80th meeting in June 2016 nor in writing in document 
G/AG/W/154.  
 
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 exported 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 sto cks during 2016?  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.33  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale  
1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81015)  
The United States appreciates Turkey's response to its question AG -IMS ID 78008. The 
United  States resubmits the following questions:  
 
a. Could T urkey clarify whether any Members of the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) Board of 
Directors are, or are not, appointed by or employed by the Government of Turkey?  
b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing certificate 
holders ov er 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. The United States appreciates 
Turkey confirming  that that TMO sells domestic wheat to Turkey flour millers. 
Could  Turkey also confirm whether these same domestic flour millers export? Could 
Turkey please provide wheat purchase 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 listed imported and exported through the inward processing system? 
If not, please ela borate 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 imports and wheat flour exports were made under IPR". Please state 
precisely how much o f 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, Turk ey 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 the wheat imports and flour exports over the last three years 
that Turkey can provide , even if not data.  
e. The United States would also like to point out that Turkey has not notified its domestic 
support or export subsidies since 2002. Notifying Turkey's domestic support and export 
subsidies would help clarify many of U.S. questions, and cou ld cut down unnecessary 
back and forth.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.1.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/111, G/AG/N/CAN/112,)  
AG-IMS ID 81034: Question by European Union - Tariff qu ota fill  
Some TRQs present impressive quota fill (more than 110%), e.g. wheat, barley, broiler hatching 
eggs and chicken, or living chicken and meat and processed meat of chicken. Could Canada 
explain how these imports under TRQs are calculated?  
 
2.1.2   Guatemala  (G/AG/N/GTM/55)  
AG-IMS ID 81035: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
Additional autonomous measures on maize and rice lead to over quota fill. Other TRQs are not 
listed as not activated because of better market conditions.  
 
As a matter of tra nsparency, could Guatemala also list in its notification the tariff rate quotas that 
were not activated because of better access conditions, as well as indicate the duty rate applied to 
these products?  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 20 - 
 
  2.1.3   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/57)  
AG-IMS ID 81036: Qu estion by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union takes note of the improvement in market access in oranges and citrus fruit, 
from zero in 2014 to respectively 18% and 22% in 2015. However, these rates remain 
substantially low.  
 
Could  Korea e xplain why the quota fills for these products still remain very low? What measures 
could be envisaged to improve this situation?  
 
2.1.4   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/48)  
AG-IMS ID 81072: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Would Tunisia please explain the significan t under fill for the milk powder and butter tariff quotas?  
AG-IMS ID 81073: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Tunisia has notified low (or 0%) TRQ fill rates for bovine meat and beans in the past 3  years 
(2013 -2015). Could Tunisia provide a reason for  the persistent underfill of these tariff quotas?  
AG-IMS ID 81037: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Some TRQs are constantly underfilled over the three years covered by this notification. Could 
Tunisia provide explanation for the underfill ra tes for meat, dairy products and beans?  
2.2  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARD S (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  
2.2.1   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/54)  
AG-IMS ID 81075: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia notes the Republic of Korea submitted its MA:3 notificat ion to the Committee on  
Agriculture on 8  July 2016, some 53  days after this special safeguard was implemented on 
16 May 2016. This is despite the transparency obligation of Paragraph  7 of Article  5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture to provide such notice "as  far as in advance as may be practicable and 
in any event within 10 days of the implementation of such action". Would the Republic  of Korea 
please explain this delay?  
 
2.2.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/137)  
AG-IMS ID 81074: Question by Australia - Transparency i ssues  
Australia notes Chinese Taipei submitted its MA:3 notification to the Committee of Agriculture on 
26 July 2016, some 29 days after this special safeguard was implemented on 27  June 2016. This is 
despite the transparency obligation of Paragraph  7 of A rticle 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture to 
provide such notice "as far as in advance as may be practicable and in any event within 10 days of 
the implementation of such action". Would Chinese Taipei please explain this delay?  
 
2.2.3   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/K OR/55)  
AG-IMS ID 81076: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
For the calendar year 2015, the Republic of Korea applied volume based safeguards on 4 separate 
cereal products totalling around 149,020.4 kilograms. Canada notes that according to the guidan ce 
on notification requirements and formats adopted by the Committee and contained in G/AG/2 that 
the information on volume based safeguard actions in an MA:5 notification should be derived from 
MA:3 notifications already issued after the implementation of  a safeguard action, in this case 2015.  
 
South Korea has submitted one MA:3 (G/AG/N/KOR/54) covering these cereal products, however 
the period of application in the MA:3 does not cover the entire period of application notified in its 
MA:5 for all products.  Also, the volumes on which the safeguard was applied are different between 
the MA:3 and MA:5.  
 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 21 - 
 
  a. Could South Korea clarify if it plans on submitting any further MA:3 notifications for 
the 2015 period?  
b. How will South Korea better reconcile the information in  its MA:3 and MA:5 notifications 
in the future?  
c. South Korea's MA:3 notification was issued on 8 July 2016 and was for the period 
16 May 2015 to 31  December  2015. Could South Korea please explain how, going 
forward, it will improve its timeliness for issuin g MA:3 notifications?  
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/104)  
AG-IMS ID 81023: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In its most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CAN/104) Canada reports that in 2012 it provided 
a total of CAD  615.253  million in support to the dairy sector – namely to SMP and butter. 
This figure, however, is considerably lower than estimates made by the OECD in its annual 
"OECD -FAO Agricultural Outlook". For the same period, the OECD e stimates Canada's average 
annual producer support to be worth CAD 3.018 billion – almost 5 times the amount notified by 
Canada in its most recent DS:1 notification.  
 
Looking at the figures provided by Canada in their latest DS:1 notification, Canada appear s only to 
be reporting domestic support provided to its dairy sector that is directly provided by the federal 
government, excluding indirect domestic support, or support provided by provincial governments 
such as the price support measures provided by the Ontario provincial government and others.  
 
New Zealand notes that Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture explicitly requires price support 
measures are included in Members' AMS calculations. Based on the above information, can Canada 
provide updated figur es for its DS:1 notification that take into account domestic support provided 
by all levels of government, including the provincial authorities?  
 
2.3.2   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/51)  
AG-IMS ID 81078: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that that support provided under infrastructural services 
related to irrigation and drainage infrastructure fluctuated over the three years notified. However, 
there was a substantial increase from USD  75.182  million in 2 012 to USD  139.235  million in 2013. 
Could Colombia elaborate on the reasons for the increase and the types of projects undertaken?  
AG-IMS ID 81079: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In Supporting Table DS:2, Canad a notes that the support provided under Article 6.2 Special and 
Differential -Development Programme support, in particular the incentives for producers to improve 
their production capacity increased steadily from 2011 to 2013. Could Colombia please provide 
additional information on the types of activities undertaken during the reporting period?  
AG-IMS ID 81022: Question by Thailand - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
During the period of 2011 -2013, Columbia allocated USD 276  million  to USD 419 million as 
investment subsidies generally available to agriculture as incentives for producers to improve  
competitiveness of agriculture and to develop  new production projects that revive the country's 
agriculture activities.  
 
As a developing coun try, Thailand views that it can benefit from the study of such programme as it 
is a good example for competitiveness and production enhancement in the agriculture sector, and 
therefore would like to seek detailed information on activities under such invest ment subsidies 
from Colombia.  
 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 22 - 
 
  2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/26)  
AG-IMS ID 81081: Question by Chile - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Chile has the following questions regarding the EU's notification on domestic support for the 
marketing year 2012/2 013 (document G/AG/N/EU/26):  
 
a. According to the document Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS)12 of July  2015, the annual 
amount of VCS available (at EU level) for the 2015 -2020 period averages 
EUR 209 million (or EUR 309 per hectare) for the fruit and vegetable s ector. Could the 
EU please break down this specific support for the main member States, including 
Greece?  
b. According to the Overview of CAP reform 2014 -2020 EU Commission13 of 
December  2013, average direct support for Greece could stand at EUR 380 per  hectar e 
by 2020. The same document also indicates that EU Members have the opportunity to 
assign part of the direct support to specific fragile areas of production (coupled support). 
The European Commission's report Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS14) of July  2015 
shows that Greece notifies, specifically for fresh nectarines and peaches, support of 
EUR 162 per hectare for VCS support measures for 2020. Chile would be grateful if the 
EU could provide information indicating the direct support, both coupled and uncoupl ed, 
that Greece, and, in particular, if possible, nectarine and peach farmers, would 
ultimately receive.  
c. Could the EU please provide information on other programmes or types of coupled direct 
support that support the various stages of the canned fruit prod uction process, 
specifically in respect of nectarines and peaches, and Greece' s participation in this 
support?  
AG-IMS ID 81080: Question by Chile - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Chile has the following questions regarding the EU's notification on domestic  support for the 
marketing year 2012/2013 (document G/AG/N/EU/26):  
 
a. In document G/AG/N/EU/26, the EU notifies current total aggregate measurement 
of support figures for the specific products nectarines and peaches 
(0.9 and 0.8 million  euros respectively, f or the marketing year 2012/2013), which would 
be related to product market -withdrawal programmes. Chile requests that the EU 
provide disaggregated information on these figures - by programme - for the main 
beneficiary member States, including Greece.  
b. Regar ding the specific direct support granted to Greece for nectarines and peaches, 
Chile requests the EU to provide information on the number of hectares of arable land 
and farmers covered by this support. Could the EU please provide information on the 
percent age of nectarine and peach production receiving support that is subsequently 
destined for the production of canned fruit? 
2.3.4   Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/44)  
AG-IMS ID 81083: Question by Canada - Classification of measures  
In its previous DS:1 notifications, as well as in its DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/HND/40 of 
July 2014), Honduras notifies the Competitiveness and Sustainable Rural Development Project in 
the Northern Zone of Honduras (Northern Horizons) under Article 6.2 "Special and Differential 
Treatment -Development  Programs". In its most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/HND/44), 
Honduras notifies the same programme under the Green Box (training services).  
 
                                                
12 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/voluntary -coupled -support -
note_en.pdf .  
13 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy -perspectives/policy -briefs/05_en.pdf . 
14 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/voluntary -coupled -support -
note_en.pdf .  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 23 - 
 
  a. Could Honduras please explain the changes to the Northern Horizons programme that 
resulted in the change in cla ssification?  
b. Could Honduras please explain how this programme meets the criteria of Annex  2, 
paragraph 2c?  
2.3.5   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/55)  
AG-IMS ID 81084: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Israel for the answer provided to Austral ian questions raised in the 
80th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80020), and welcomes Israel's openness and 
transparency on the issue of breaching its Total AMS commitment level in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 
2014 (G/AG/N/ISR/55). Australia remains concerned about the nature of this breach, and asks 
Israel to provide:  
 
a. An update on what policy changes will be undertaken to ensure its trade -distorting 
domestic support is delivered within Israel's AMS commitments.  
b. An update on the "concrete results" which it ref erred to in its previous answer 
(AG-IMS ID 80020).  
c. A timeframe for when Israel's Current Total AMS is expected to fall below the Total AMS 
commitment again.  
2.3.6   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 81088: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible produc tion  
In reporting year 2015, in its Supporting Table DS:5, Tunisia notified much smaller eligible 
production than in its previous notification for durum wheat (8,500 tonnes in 2014 and 
3,500  tonnes in 2015) and barley (4,500 tonnes in 2014 and 1,000 in 20 15). Can Tunisia explain 
why there is such variance between eligible production from 2014 to 2015?  
AG-IMS ID 81086: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation  
In Tunisia's response to a previous question on external reference prices, it noted it was 
investigating possible alternative options for notifying domestic support.  
 
a. Could Tunisia provide an update on the progress of this investigation?  
Australia also notes that Tunisia has continued to modify external reference prices in its most 
recent DS :1 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/49). 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 ext ernal reference price without 
modification and alterations, and also amend the domestic support calculations accordingly so they 
show the amount of market price support. Specifically:  
 
b. What would the level of the fixed external reference price be without a ny modifications?  
c. What would the level of market price support be without any modifications?  
AG-IMS ID 81087: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
In this notification, and in previous notifications, Tunisia continues to make adjustments to th e 
external reference prices for durum wheat, common wheat, barley and milk. Canada has noted in 
previous meetings that when a Member is in breach of its domestic support commitment it should 
notify unadjusted data to the Committee for review and considerat ion. The Member should also 
explain the steps it will undertake to correct the situation. In response to a question from the 
European  Union (AG -IMS ID 80072), Tunisia shared figures from the Central Bank of Tunisia that 
showed that annual rates of inflatio n in 2014 and 2015 were both 4.9%.  
 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 24 - 
 
  In its 2014 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/47), Tunisia adjusted its fixed external reference prices 
upwards by almost 10% from the prices notified in its 2013 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/45). 
In its 2015 notification (G/AG/N/TUN /49), Tunisia adjusted its fixed external reference prices by 
over 21% from the prices listed in its 2014 notification, despite the same reported level of 
inflation.  
 
a. Could Tunisia explain why the increase in the fixed external reference price between 
2014 and 2015 is more than double the increase between 2013 and 2014, when its own 
reported annual level of inflation is 4.9% for both years?  
b. Could Tunisia provide the full methodology and calculations it has used in each year it 
has adjusted the fixed externa l reference price?  
c. Could Tunisia describe what steps it will undertake to address the situation so that in the 
future it will no longer adjust the external reference prices?  
2.3.7   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/108)  
AG-IMS ID 81089: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. On 13 August 2012, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the USDA's 
intent to purchase up to USD 170 million of pork, lamb, chicken and catfish for federal 
food nutrition assistance programmes. Secretary Vilsack said that, "these purchases will 
assist pork, catfish, chicken and lamb producers who are currently struggling due to 
challenging market conditions and the high cost of feed resulting from the widespread 
drought. The purchases will help mitigate fu rther downward prices, stabilize market 
conditions, and provide high quality, nutritious food to recipients of USDA's nutrition 
programs".  
i. Can the U.S. confirm that any or all of this USD  170 million commitment was spent 
in fiscal year  2013 and if it compr ises part of the notified USD  747 million Section  32 
Program funding directed toward domestic food aid?  
ii. Given that the stated aim of these meat purchases is to assist livestock producers, 
and to "mitigate further downward prices [and] stabilize market cond itions", could 
the United States explain how this support conforms to the provision in Annex  2, 
paragraph 1(b) that support … "shall not have the effect of providing price support to 
producers"?  
b. According to a Congressional Research Service Report from 18  November  2014, 
USD 200 million was used in FY 2013 for "emergency removals" of surplus commodities 
and provided as a "bonus" to schools (over and above their "entitled" amounts) and to 
other designated domestic food assistance programs under the USDA's Sec tion 32 
Program (named from Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (P.L.74 -320, 
as amended; 7 U.S.C. 612c). The report also states that Section 32 purchases are 
intended to fulfil two requirements (under other federal laws): "(1) provide commodities 
to the National School Lunch Program and other domestic food assistance programmes; 
and (2) support farm prices (by buying and diverting additional "bonus" commodities to 
these food programmes)".  
i. Could the U.S. state whether Section 32 expenditure for "emergen cy removals" 
in FY 2013 are included as part of its domestic food aid expenditures in ST/DS:1 and 
explain how purchases intended to support farm prices comply with the provision of 
Annex 2, paragraph 1(b) that support … "shall not have the effect of provid ing price 
support to producers "? 
AG-IMS ID 81039: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In Supporting Table DS:4, does the figure in the line Livestock 3) VoP  include any of the amounts 
mentioned in the same table under "b eef cattle and calves", chickens, dairy, deer (in captivity), 
equine, hogs and pigs or sheep and lambs?  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 25 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 81038: Question by European Union - General services: other  
Risk Management Agency – Standard Reinsurance  
 
Could USA explain why this measure has gone from zero in 2012 to USD  2.9 billion in 2013? 
Which  risk is covered by these measures and how is the underwriting gain calculated?  
 
AG-IMS ID 81040: Question by European Union - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through in vestment aids  
Could the United States explain more in detail how the Farm Credit Program works?  
 
a. The European Union would be interested in getting more information on how the subsidy 
element included in the notification is calculated.  
b. In the operation of t he loans under the programme, how does the United States ensure 
the payment is limited to the amount required to compensate for the structural 
disadvantage?  
AG-IMS ID 81090: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Regarding Supporting Table DS: 6 (ST/DS:6):  
 
a. Footnote 2 of ST/DS:6 explains that several programmes, including the Livestock Forage 
Disaster Program (LFP) were terminated at the end of FY2011, under provisions of the 
2008 Farm Bill, then extended through FY2013 under the American Taxpay er Relief Act 
of 2012 but not funded. The programmes were then restored in the 2014 Farm Act and 
cover losses beginning 1  October  2011.  
i. Could the United States explain how over USD 1.6 billion of payments under the LFP 
in 2013 were provided when the progra mme was not funded in FY2013?  
ii. The U.S. 2014 Farm Act restored the four supplemental disaster programmes listed 
in the footnote and those programmes cover eligible losses beginning from 
October  2011. Could the United States describe how payments from 2011 t o 2014 
were/are administered to recipients? I.e. were back -payments covering 2011 -2014 
paid in a lump sum to producers in 2014 or later?  
b. The United States notes that species -specific payment data for the Livestock Forage 
Disaster Program (LFP) or for the E mergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and 
Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) is not available. As a result, ST/DS:4 includes 
aggregated measure of support figures for "livestock", with a corresponding de minimis  
calculation, as well as aggregated meas ures of support for products which are eligible for 
payments under the LFP programme. As such, with species -specific data, we expect that 
the calculated AMS figures for alpacas, beef cattle and calves, chickens, deer, hogs and 
pigs, turkeys and other poult ry, etc. could be much higher.  
i. Although the United States notes that species -specific data is not available, the 
United States notified payments under the ELAP for beef cattle and calves under 
ST/DS:6. Could the United States please explain how species -specific data is 
available for certain payments within ELAP for beef cattle and calves, but not for 
other payments under the programme or for other species, such as hogs and 
chickens?  
ii. Could the United States explain how species -specific data is available for insurance 
premium subsidy payments (ST/DS:7), but not for payments made under LFP and 
ELAP?  
iii. With the data presented, it is impossible to know whether most or all of the 
payments made under the LFP in 2013 (equal to USD 1.6 billion) were given to 
producers of a single specific species. This figure is greater than the value of 
production reported for several of the species eligible for payments under the LFP G/AG/W/156  
 
- 26 - 
 
  and ELAP. Could the United States explain whether it intends to notify species 
specific data for these  payments to increase transparency and be consistent 
with the constituent data and methodology criteria under Article  1 (h) (ii) of the 
Agreement  on Agriculture?  
2.3.8   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/6)  
AG-IMS ID 81091: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:4, Canada notes that in 2013, Viet Nam reported "Total  AMS" 
(Column  5 - Calculated AMS, before de minimis ) equalling VND 20,499.6 billion. In 2009, 
the corresponding figure was VND  9,971.7  billion. This represents a significant (more than double) 
increase in support in less than five years. Could Viet Nam provide more detail about the policies 
and programmes being pursued and the domestic changes that have led to such an increase?  
AG-IMS ID 81044: Question by Europe an Union - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Can Vietnam explain more in detail the quantities of rice bought into 
the national food reserve and whether any quantities of rice stocked is sold directly or indirectly on  
the export markets?  
AG-IMS ID 81094: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In Supporting Table DS:1, as part of its payments for relief of natural disasters, for which 
payments more than doubled from 2009 to 2013 , Viet Nam reported a pilot agriculture insurance 
programme that was in effect from 2011 -2013.  
 
a. Does Viet Nam plan to submit a DS:2 notification to explain this pilot programme and 
any other new programmes for which it considers to be exempt un der Annex 2  and/or 
Article 6.2?  
b. Could Viet Nam explain how the insurance pilot programme works, and how it complies 
with the cr iteria of Annex 2, paragraph 8?  
AG-IMS ID 81095: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:7, Viet N am reports "variety support" for rice, corn, vegetables, 
coffee, pepper, cashew nuts, tea, buffalo, cow, pig, and poultry. The notification states that mainly 
low income and poor farmers benefit from these programmes. Could Viet Nam provide more detail 
about the "variety support" referenced in Supporting Table DS:7 and explain whether there is 
a different programme for each product or if there is an overarching programme th at covers all of 
the products?  
AG-IMS ID 81043: Question by European Union - Other pr oduct -specific AMS/EMS  
Regarding rice support in Supporting Table DS:7, could Vietnam give further details about direct 
support according to decree 42, such as which type of measures, support price level and quantity 
eligible?  
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPP ORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.4.1   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/54)  
AG-IMS ID 81093: Question by Canada - Direct pay ments: decoupled income support  
Israel notified a measure called "support to encourage Israeli workers in Agriculture" as exempt 
from reduction commitments based on the criteria outlined in Annex 2, paragraph 6 (decoupled 
income support). The description notes that this is a "…  payment program for producers employing 
Israeli workers" . 
 
a. Does every employer who was eligible to employ foreign workers in 2012 receive 
a payment? If  not, what is the criteria to receive payments?  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 27 - 
 
  b. Could Israel explain how a labour -related payment to an agricultural producer does n ot 
affect production or income?  
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.5.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/103)  
AG-IMS ID 81029: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States appreciates Australia's  ES notification and would like to ask a clarification 
question. The quantity for wine listed under Table ES:2 for calendar year 2014 is in  tonnes. 
Could  Australia clarify if this is sup posed to be measured in liters?  
 
2.5.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/108/CORR.1)  
AG-IMS ID 81042: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
a. Would Canada please explain its reasons for correcting export subsidy  data on butter 
in its export subsidies notificatio ns 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 publicly available, and  will Canada share its sources?  
2.6  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.6.1   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/14)  
AG-IMS ID 81020: Question by United States of America - Quantity and concessionality 
of food aid  
a. In the 3rd section of the NF:1 Notification, the Russia Federa tion reported contribution to 
the WFP fund for the implementation of school feeding programmes in Armenia, 
Kyrgyz  Republic and Tajikistan. Can the Russia Federation clarify if the contributions 
were made in additio n to those reported in Table 1?  
b. Of all foo d aid, can the Russia Federation specify the value of the quantity provided 
made in-kind, cash or food vouchers?  
c. If in-kind food aid was provided, can the Russia Federation presents a breakdown by 
commod ity and by recipient countries?  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICA TIONS  
3.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  
3.1.1   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/1)  
AG-IMS ID 81071: Question by Canada - Allocation of licences to importing entities  
Canada notes that it has not received a written respons e from Kazakhstan for Canada's question 
from AG -IMS ID 80079 on its MA:1 notification (G/AG/N/KAZ/1). Canada's qu estion is again 
provided below:  
 
Canada welcomes the detailed notification from Kazakhstan regarding the administration of its 
tariff rate quot as. 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 45% of the allocation quantity will als o be available to new entrants?  
 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
3.2.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/30)  
AG-IMS ID 81026: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States notes that there continues to be significant TR Q under -fill for grains, specifically 
wheat, corn, and rice. The United States is concerned that issues affecting TRQ administration may 
be the cause for chronic TRQ under -fill. The United States is re -submitting questions c. and d. from 
the March 2016 CoA  session ( AG-IMS ID 79006 and 80093) since they were not addressed in 
China's response. Please also provide details on the market conditions for these commodities 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 
percent of STE TRQ imports under initial TRQ allocations by MT?  
3.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1 ) 
3.3.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/28)  
AG-IMS ID 81077: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Since China has not supplied written responses, Australia resubmit s its question AG -IMS ID 79055:  
 
China reported in its notification for the ca lendar years 2009 and 2010 (G/AG/N/CHN/28) a 
10% increase in expenditure under public stockholding. Australia notes the European Union had 
also sought further detail at the 77th and 78th Committees on Agriculture.  
 
a. Can China explain how expenditure under t his programme is determined and what is the 
method by which wheat, corn, rice, vegetable oils and suga r are procured and 
distributed?  
b. What is the price that these products are procured at and how much production is 
procured?  
c. What is the total p roduction of  these commodities?  
d. What is the explanation for the increase in public stockholding exp enditure between 
2009 and 2010?  
3.3.2   Fiji (G/AG/N/FJI/13)  
AG-IMS ID 81082: Question by Canada - General services: other  
Canada notes that it has not received a written respon se from Fiji for Canada's question from 
AG-IMS ID 80075 on its DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/FJI/13). Canada's qu estion is again provided 
below:  
 
Canada welcomes Fiji's DS:1 notification covering years 2010 -2015. Could Fiji provide more 
information on the "inc ome security" aspect of the "Export Promotion" programme that is listed for 
each of the years notified? In particular, how does the Government of Fiji provide a farmer with 
income security and what is the bas is for a payment?  
 G/AG/W/156  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.3.3   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 81085: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's question raised at the 
80th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80023).  Can Tunisia please provide a written answer to 
AG-IMS 80023?  
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 81016: Questio n by United States of America  
When can the United States expect China to provide more recent domestic support notifications to 
bring it s WTO notifications up to date?  
 
4.1.2   European Union  
AG-IMS ID 81041: Question by Russian Federation  
The last MA:2 notification submitted by the European Union contained information concerning 
import under tariff quotas during the marketing year 2012/2013 and the cal endar year 2013 
(G/AG/N/EU/24). Could the European Union provide the reasons for delay in MA:2 notifications 
submission for 2014 and 2015? When does the European Union plan  to notify information 
concerning its import under tariff quotas during the last mar keting and calendar years in 
accordance with procedures described in the Notification Requirements and Formats (G/AG/2)?  
 
4.1.3   Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 8101 7: Question by European Union  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 80082:  
 
Thailand's latest Domestic Support notifi cation concerns 2008. In its reply to question AG -IMS 
ID 80082, Thailand informed Members that the question had been transmitted to authorities in 
Bangkok. Could Thailand indicate when more up -to-date notification s will be forwarded to the 
WTO?  
 
4.1.4   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 81092: Question by Australia  
Australia is concerned that Turkey has not submitted an export subsidy notification since 2001, or 
a domestic support notification since 2002. In response to the U.S . question (AG -IMS ID 80057) 
and the EU's question (AG -IMS ID 80084) Turkey responded that it had "started a work 
programme to notify its agriculture domestic support programme on a gradual basis  …" 
Australia  asks Turkey to provide:  
 
a. an update on the progress of the work programme.  
b. an update on when Turkey wi ll submit its  domestic support notification.  
c. an update on when Turkey will submit i ts export subsidy notification.  
AG-IMS ID 81018: Que stion by Canada  
Canada remains concerned with Turkey's lack of timely export subsidy and domestic support 
notifications. Turkey's most recent notifications related to implementation year 2000 for export 
subsidies and 2001 for domestic support. In previous meetings, Turkey has indicated that work 
was underway on its outstanding notifications. Could Turkey please provide the C ommittee with 
a specific timeline as to when it intends to complete and subm it these missing notifications?  G/AG/W/156  
 
- 30 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 81019: Questio n by United States of America  
Turkey remains seriously overdue in notifying its domestic support and export subsidies. 
When  does Turkey plan to submit its domestic support an d export subsidy notifications?  
 
__________