G/AG/W/170  
 
12 December 2017  
(17-6834) Page: 1/66 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CO MMITTEE  
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 17 -18 OCTOBER 20171 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the ques tions 
raised in document G/AG/W/168  as well as follow -up comments made during the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following quest ions were not provided before 7 December  2017: 
 
AG-IMS ID  Answer by  Question by  Notification Reference  Repeat 
question  
85017  Cuba United States  of 
America  G/AG/N/CUB/54   
85098, 85089,  
851002 India Canada  G/AG/N/IND/11   
85021, 85029, 
85022 , 850182 India United States of 
America  G/AG/N/IND/11   
85026  Jordan  New Zealand  G/AG/N/JOR/19, G/AG/N/JOR/20   
85001  Mali European Union   G/AG/N/MLI/8, 
G/AG/N/MLI/8/REV.1   
85027  Mali United States  of 
America  G/AG/N/MLI/8, 
G/AG/N/MLI/8/REV.1  83091, 
84096  
85028  Mali United States  of 
America  G/AG/N/MLI/8, 
G/AG/N/MLI/8/REV.1   
85076  Senegal  Canada  G/AG/N/SEN/6   
85072, 850503 Turkey  Canada  G/AG/N/TUR/15   
850323 Turkey  United States  of 
America  G/AG/N/TUR/15   
85058  United  States  of 
America  Canada  G/AG/N/USA/109   
85037  Nigeria  European  Union  IV. Overdue Notifications   
 
_______________  
 
                                                
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 obligations under the WTO.  
2 India answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.   
3 Turkey answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 
18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 
1.1   Argentina's Reintegros programme  ................................ ................................ ................  5 
1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85034)  ................................ ..........................  5 
1.2   Canada's new programmes on dairy sector  ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
1.2.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85010)  ................................ ..............................  7 
1.3   European Union intervention stocks of skim milk power  ................................ ....................  7 
1.3.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85059)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.4   India's quantitative restrictions  ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
1.4.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85060)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.5   Indonesia's new regulation on milk  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85013)  ................................ .............  8 
1.6   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  9 
1.6.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 85069)  ................................ ................................ ........  9 
1.7   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  ................................ ............................ 11 
1.7.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85036)  ................................ ......................... 11 
1.8   Brazil's Reintegra programme  ................................ ................................ ...................... 12 
1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85035)  ................................ ......................... 12 
1.9   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ .......... 13 
1.9.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 85049)  ................................ ................................ ....13 
1.10   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ............ 13 
1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85051)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.10.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85052)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.10.3    Question by Austr alia (AG -IMS ID 85053)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.10.4    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85054)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.10.5    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85055)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.10.6    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85056)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.10.7    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85002)  ................................ ........................... 16 
1.10.8    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85003)  ................................ ........................... 16 
1.10.9    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85004)  ................................ ........................... 17 
1.10.10    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85005)  ................................ ......................... 17 
1.10.11    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85006)  ................................ ......................... 17 
1.10.12    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85008 ) ................................ ......................... 18 
1.10.13    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85011)  ................................ ......... 18 
1.11   Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese and domestic support  ................................ ........... 24 
1.11.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85009)  ................................ ........................... 24 
1.12   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
1.12.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85057)  ................................ ........................... 25 
1.12.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85012)  ................................ .......... 25 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.13   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 26 
1.13.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85064)  ................................ ................................ ...26 
1.14   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ .............................. 26 
1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85071)  ................................ ................................ .26 
1.15   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  ................................ ................................ .....27 
1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 8 5039)  ................................ ....................... 27 
1.16   U.S. dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....27 
1.16.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85079)  ................................ ................................ ...27 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICAT IONS  ....................  32 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 32 
2.1.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/30)  ................................ ................................ ............... 32 
2.1.2    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/3)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 32 
2.1.3    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/39)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 33 
2.1.4    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/92)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 34 
2.1.5    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/80)  ................................ ................................ ................... 35 
2.2   SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  ................................ ............................ 36 
2.2.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/152)  ................................ ................................ ........... 36 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 36 
2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 
2.3.2    Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/26)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 
2.3.3    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 
2.3.4    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/59)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 
2.3.5    Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/54)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 39 
2.3.6    India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 39 
2.3.7    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/60, G/AG/N/ISR/61)  ................................ ................................ ....50 
2.3.8    Jamaica (G/AG/N/JAM/16)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 53 
2.3.9    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/191, G/AG/N/JPN/219)  ................................ ................................ 53 
2.3.10    Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19, G/AG/N/JOR/20)  ................................ ................................ 54 
2.3.11    Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8, G/AG/N/MLI/8/REV.1)  ................................ .............................. 54 
2.3.12    Senegal (G/AG/N/SEN/6)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 55 
2.3.13    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/15, G/AG/N/TUR/16)  ................................ ............................... 56 
2.3.14    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/26)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 60 
2.3.15    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109) ................................ ............................. 60 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ........... 60 
2.4.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/220)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 60 
2.4.2    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/16)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 61 
2.5   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  ....................... 64 
2.5.1    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/89)  ................................ ................................ .................. 64 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  64 
3.1   Kyrgyz Republic  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 64 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.2   Nigeria  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 64 
4   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  65 
4.1   New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 65 
4.2   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ............................. 65 
 
 
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1  Argentina's Reintegros programme  
1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 85034)  
The European Union  seeks information on the Argentinean Reintegros programme and 
would like to submit the following questions to Argentina:  
 
a. The decree 1341/2016 mentions that the purpose of reintroduction of 
Reintegros is to promote expo rts of processed ag goods – the list attached to 
the decree also contains non -processed products (e.g. beef). EU understands 
that the list includes all products that can benefit from Reintegros upon their 
exportation as final products, and not as inputs to  any other product. Could 
Argentina confirm? What is the reason for including only these products and 
not the whole agricultural sector?  
b. The rates are uniform within a sector and in many cases the same across 
different sectors and hence they seem to not to be individually calculated on a 
case by case basis (i.e. per transaction). Could Argentina explain how these 
rates are established?  
c. Argentina lists the following taxes that can be the basis for reintegros: stamps, 
banks credits and debits, fuels, gross income, municipal taxes, whereas 
footnote 58 in item g) in Annex I of ASCM (illustrative list of export subsidies) 
lists "indirect taxes":  sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, 
transfer, inventory and equipment taxes, border taxes and all taxes other than 
direct taxes and import charges. "Direct taxes" include interests. Could 
Argentina explain why bank credits and debits a re included in the list of 
indirect taxes?  
d. Does Argentina apply the system of Reintegros for exports for all third 
countries?  
e. Could Argentina explain why are imported inputs totally excluded from the 
calculation of Reintegros (deducted from FOB value of e xports)?  
f. Could Argentina explain what is the formula for the calculation of a particular 
tax rate and how Argentina ensures that the value of Reintegros is not in 
excess of those levied in respect of the production and distribution of like 
products when so ld for domestic consumption?  
g. Could Argentina provide some details of the use of the programme: which 
sectors are profiting the most from this measure and to which destination and 
how Argentina expects the programme use to evolve in the future?  
h. h. The syste m of Reintegros was set at zero rate before the abovementioned 
decree. What is the reason for the reintroduction of the measures and what is 
the expected duration of it? When were the exporters benefitting from 
Reintegros the last time before the current r eintroduction of Reintegros? How 
the application of Reintegros economically affected the Argentinean exports in 
the past?  
i. Is the information on the amount of reimbursed taxes publicly available for a 
given sector? Is there a maximum budget allocated to th is measure? Will 
Argentina be able to provide information on the amount reimbursed to 
exporters of agricultural goods to a particular destination, i.e. to the EU? Is 
such information being collected?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Answer by Argentina  
 
a. First of all, as Argentina  said at the 84th Session of the Comm ittee on Agriculture  (COA) 
last June, Decree 1341/2016 did not reinstall a Reintegros (drawback) system, but 
rather updated the rates applied under that system. This update took account of the 
indirect internal taxes subsumed in  various agro industrial products that Argentina 
exports. Secondly, the Reintegros system is not limited to processed agricultural 
products, but applies to a wide range of expor table goods (identified at the 8 -digit level) 
such as some meats, dairy produce , vegetables, fruit, herbal teas, rice, etc. Finally, 
Argentina confirms that Decree 1341/2016 applies to final products that can benefit from 
Reintegros upon exportation.  
b. For each product, Argentina calculated the value of indirect taxes levied during it s 
production and distribution. However, it is important to bear in mind that a number of 
tax limitations have meant that in many cases, the rates have had to be established 
below the values that would have resulted from the calculations made, and hence, fo r 
certain products, the amounts refunded had to be less than the amounts paid as indirect 
taxes. This explains the "uniformity" noted by the EU in certain cases. Argentina  repeat s 
that in ALL cases the rates have been established at levels which make it po ssible to 
refund an amount that is LOWER than the indirect taxes levied. This rule is always 
observed, even where, for the reasons provided, in some cases certain rates have been 
made uniform.  
c. The tax on bank credits and debits is an indirect tax which af fects transactions of the 
economy. Its effective burden depends on the transactions. Although the legal rate may 
be the same, the differences in production processes mean that the effective rate (the 
tax in value added terms) may be very different. The tax  was introduced by Law 25413 
in 2001. It is levied on credits and debits in the holders' current bank accounts, the 
general rate being 0.6% for debits and 0.6% for credits. There is also a levy of 1.2% on 
all movements and transfers of funds using organize d payment systems that replace the 
use of current bank accounts. It should be noted that there are certain rate differentials, 
exemptions that apply to specific operations, and partial assessment as advance 
payment of other taxes. Thus, the refunded tax is  the tax on banking transactions and 
not a tax on interest.  
d. The system of Reintegros applies to all exports of specific products regardless of the 
country of destination.  
e. The methodology applied to the calculation of Reintegros for specific exports under  
Decree 1341/16 does not discriminate according to the origin of the inputs used during 
the processing of the product.  
f. The methodology applied takes account of the different transactions that the product 
undergoes and the resulting sum of indirect interna l taxes, adjusted by the tax 
limitations. By using this methodology, we ensure that the value of the indirect taxes 
refunded in no event exceeds the amount of taxes levied in respect of the production 
and distribution of like products when sold for domesti c consumption.  
g. As mentioned, the Reintegros regime in Argentina does not discriminate according to the 
destination of the product. As to how the programme will evolve, Argentina  expect s it to 
develop in line wit h the tax situation in the agri food sector and the Argentine 
government's tax limitations.  
h. As Argentina  mentioned at the 84th Committee on Agriculture, Article 825 of Law  22.415 
(Customs Code) defines the export drawback (Reintegros) system as the scheme under 
which all or part of internal taxes p aid on goods exported for consumption or services 
supplied in respect of such goods are refunded. The various refund rates were set by 
Decree 1011/91, published in the Official Journal on 3 1 May 1991. Accordingly, 
Decree  1341/2016 did not "reinstall" a dra wback system, but rather updated the refund 
amounts.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 7 - 
 
  i. During 2017 (January August), Argentina exported US $3,753,660,323.24 worth of 
agri food products to the EU. During that same period, the total amount of refunds was 
US$86,967,197.58, i.e. 2.32% of the t otal value of agri food exports to the EU.  
Follow -up: Ukraine and the United States noted their  interest in the question.  
1.2  Canada's new programmes on dairy sector  
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85010)  
The Canadian Federal Government Budget 2017 includes investment of CAD$350 million 
in two new programmes to support the competitiveness of the dairy sector. The two 
programmes are:  
  
 CAD$250 million over five years (beginning 2017 -18) for a Dairy Farm Investment 
Program that provides targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers 
improve their productivity through upgrades to their technology and systems.  
 CAD$100 million over f our years (beginning 2017 -18) for a Dairy Processing 
Investment Fund to help dairy processors modernise operations, improve 
efficiency and productivity, and diversify product to pursue new market 
opportunities.  
Based on publically available information, t hese programmes appear to be domestic 
support measures designed to directly help dairy processors, and which are intended to 
be exempt from reduction commitments.  
 
a. Can Canada provide more detail about the nature of each programme, to enable 
WTO  Members to  understand whether the programmes have nil, or at most 
minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production?  
b. New Zealand understands that the timing of adoption of the measures is 
dependent on the effective date that CETA will come into force, howe ver the 
Federal Government has already included the investment in its 2017 Budget. 
Noting that Members are required to notify such measures as far as practicable 
in advance of being adopted, can Canada please advise when the two new 
programmes will be noti fied via DS:2 to the WTO?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Detailed information on these two program mes is available on Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada 's 
website here: http://www.a gr.gc.ca/eng/programs -for-the-dairy-sector/?id=1494345318736 . 
These program mes will be classified and notified in due course.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand asked Canada to provide  further details concerning part a of its question . 
New Zealand was particularly i nterested in  whether the programmes were non or at most minimal 
trade distorting and what Canada had done to ensure their programmes met that objective.  
 
1.3  European Union  intervention stocks of skim milk power  
1.3.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85059)  
Canada notes that the European Union commission ha s 375,000 MT of skim milk 
power  (SMP) in intervention stocks as of July 2017, which it has yet to sell. What are the 
plans for the European Union to release this product onto the market in a way that does 
not dist ort either domestic or world prices?  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Answer by the European Union  
 
The European Union  will follow its legal rules for sales of products bought into i ntervention, which 
require that "Disposal of products bought in under public intervention shall take place  in such a 
way as to:  
 
a. avoid any disturbance of the market;  
b. ensure equal access to goods an d equal treatment of purchasers;  and 
c. be in compliance with the commitments resulting from [the E U's] international 
agreements…. " 
These provisions can be found in Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - see: http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1308 . 
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted that there m ay be unintended consequences to the market when  a 
Member  disposed stock  procured with price intervention , particularly when  this Member was the 
largest single vendor of the product concerned.  The European Union noted the need for  careful 
evaluation of the effect of price intervention to the market and observed  that the EU was not the 
only producer in the market.  
 
1.4  India's quantitative restrictions  
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85060)  
India 's Ministry of Commerce and Industry an nounced a  quantitative restriction on 
21 August 2017 of 300,000 tonnes annually for beans of the species Vigna mungo 
Hepper or Vigna radiata Wilczek 
(http://dgft.gov.in/Exim /2000/NOT/NOT17/Notification%20No.22(e).pdf ).  
 
a. What were the circumstances behind the imposition of the quantitative 
restriction and has India notified the quantitative restriction to the WTO? If so, 
to which committee?  
b. Has India applied quantitative res trictions to any other agricultural 
commodities?  
Answer by India 
 
India will submit the notification and relevant information to the appropriate C ommittee in due 
course.  
 
Follow -up: Australia asked India to clarify which Committee would be the appropriate  forum to 
discuss this quantitative restriction (QR) and the justification for imposing it. In Australia's view, it 
would be suitable to discuss it in this Committee since th e QR was not covered by the 
SPS Agreement and it concerned agricultural products. Given shipments contracted before the 
implementation of the QR had also been  denied entry to Indian ports, Australia noted its systemic 
and commercial concern.  
1.5  Indonesia's new regulation on milk  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85013)  
Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture recently issued a regulation (Ministe r of Agriculture 
Regulation No.  26, 2017, on "Milk Supply and Distribution ") that requires local milk 
processors to procure local milk, and requires dairy product importers to fund ac tivities 
to promote milk consumption. In addition, the regulation requires that both entities 
invest in the local dairy sector at the farm level. The penalty for failing to comply with 
this regulation includes withholding import recommendations for dairy p roducts.  
  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 9 - 
 
  a. Please explain how this regulation will be implemented, specifically how much 
local milk processors must procure or how much they must invest to comply 
with the regulation.  
b. Please explain how this regulation is consistent with Indonesia 's 
WTO  obligations, including those related to local content requirements.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
The regulation was issued recently and technical regulations to implement it are not yet 
established. However for the interest of transparency Indone sia would like to  inform the 
US delegation that the regulation aims to ensure the availability and quality of the fresh milk 
required by milk processing industry, so as to reinvigorate the business environment for the 
product concerned. The regulation will be implemented t o create partnerships between business 
and small local dairy cattle owners. These partnerships will give local dairy cattle owners greater 
access to market investment opportunities and improve their skills and knowledge.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union, New Zealand and Switzerland shared an interest in this subject. 
The European Union noted its concern about the local content and investment requirements.  
1.6  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.6.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 85069)  
Direct Export Subs idies - Sugar  
 
Please provide information on eventual direct payments, allocated through export 
quotas by the Pakistani Government , for the export of sugar by Pakistan.  
  
a. How long have any direct payments for export been provided to farmers?  
b. What is the methodology for the allocation of export quotas to specific 
producers in each crop season?  
c. What is the value, per tonne, of the direct payments made by the Pakistani 
Government related to sugar exports, for the current crop season and for the 
last four crop seasons?  
d. Does the Pakistani Government intend to present updated notifications or 
include in the coming notifications subsidies relative to sugar exports?  
e. Could the legislation that provided the basis for these payments be made 
available?  
f. What is the legal basis, under the Agreement on Agriculture, for eventual direct 
payments for the export of sugar made by Pakistan  
Inland Freight Subsidies for Exports - Sugar  
  
Please provide information on eventual payments for inland freight costs pr ovided by 
the Pakistani Government for the export of sugar by Pakistan.  
  
g. How long have any payments related to the cost of inland freight for exports of 
sugar been provided to farmers?  
h. Are the payments related to the cost of inland freight for exports o f sugar 
allocated for every exporting producer?  
i. What is the value, per tonne, of the payments related to the cost of inland 
freight for exports of sugar, for the current crop season and for the last four 
crop seasons?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 10 - 
 
  j. Does the Pakistani Government intend  to present updated notifications or 
include in the coming notifications subsidies relative to payments related to the 
cost of inland freight for sugar exports?  
k. Could the legislation that provided the basis for these payments be made 
available?  
l. What is t he legal basis, under the Agreement on Agriculture, for eventual 
payments related to the cost of inland freight for sugar exports made by 
Pakistan?  
Domestic Support Programs – Sugar  
  
m. How are eventual payments related to exports or to the cost of inland freight 
for sugar exports associated with eventual minimum price policies put in place 
by the Pakistani Government ?  
n. According to market sources, Pakistan has accumulated a large amount of 
sugar stocks. Could the Pakistani Government please inform if these stocks 
could be directed to foreign markets, with the aid of any eventual incentives for 
exports?  
Answer by Pakistan  
 
Direct Export Subsidies - Sugar  
 
a. No direct payments have been made for sugar exports  to the farmers by the Federal 
government.  
b. There are no specific quotas allocated for export to any producer.  
c. The Government of Pakistan is providing support to the sugar producers for export of 
sugar to cover only inland freight charges. The details are given in answer of question 
No. 9.  
d. Recognizing it s commitments as a responsible M ember of the World Trade 
Organiza tion (WTO), the Government of Pakistan intends to update the notifications 
regarding inland freight support in due course.  
e. State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) notifies the quantity of sugar to be exported and the 
subsequent support provided to the sugar producer s in pursuance of the decision of 
Economic Coordination C ommittee of the Federal Cabinet  a principal federal institution 
and consultative forum for the matters concerning state 's economy.  
f. The Government of Pakistan is providing support to th e sugar produc ers under 
Article 9.4 read with 9.1 (e) of Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) to cover the inland freight 
charges for export shipments.  
Inland Freight Subsidies for Exports - Sugar  
 
g. No payments related to the cost of inland freight for export of sugar have be en made to 
farmers by the Federal g overnment.  
h. The Government of Pakistan provides support related to cost of inland freight to all sugar 
producers on export of sugar.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 11 - 
 
  i. The Government of Pakistan has provided inland freight support to the sugar producers 
for export of sugar for the period under question as under:  
Period  Rate of Support  Eligible Quantity  
(Million Metric Tonnes)  PKR/Tonne  US$ Equivalent/Tonne  
2012-13 No payments have been made.  
2013-14 No payments have been made.  
2014-15 10,000  96.00  0.650  
2015-16 13,000  125.00  0.50 
2016-17 No payments have been made so far.  
j. Recognizing it s commitments as a responsible M ember of the World Trade 
Organization  (WTO), the G overnment of Pakistan intends to update the notifications 
regarding inland freight support for export of sugar which will be made available in due 
course.  
k. The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) notifies the inland freight support provided to the 
sugar producers  in pursuance of the decision of Economic Coordination Committee of the 
Federal Cabinet - a principal federal institution and consultative forum for the matters 
concerning state 's economy.  
l. The Government of Pakistan is providing support to th e sugar producers under 
article  9.4 read with 9.1 (e) of Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) to cover only inland 
freight charges for export shipments.  
Domestic Support Programs – Sugar  
 
m. The Government of Pakistan does not maintain minimum price policies to the extent  of 
sugar.  
n. In the crop year 2016 -17, total national sugar production was 7.2 MMT (approximately). 
Total annual national consumption was around 5.95 MMT,  the remaining quantity of 
1.25 MMT is available for exports, for which inland freight support has been  allowed only 
to export of 0.5 MMT of sugar. Apart from that no support/subsidy is being prov ided to 
export of sugar by the Government of Pakistan.  
Follow -up: The European Union flagged interest in this policy, particularly its potential influence to 
the sugar market.  
1.7  Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85036)  
The European Union  has learned from various sources that the Russia n Federation  
intends to apply a discount of 10.3% on railway tariffs for exporte d grains originating in 
Voronezh, Orel, Tambov, Orenburg, Saratov, Novosibirsk and Omsk regions. The total 
value of the discount  would be around 3  billion  RUB (43.4m EUR) according to the 
estimations of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture and it concerns w heat, rye, oats, 
barley, corn, rice, buckwheat, beans, peas, beans and other grains. The measure would 
be effective from 1 October  2017 until 30 June 2018.  
 
How would the Russia n Federation  see this measure complying with Article 9(e) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition?  
 
Answer by  the Russian Federation  
 
This measure  has certainly nothing to do with export subsidy and is not intended to somehow 
prioritize or favo ur export over domestic consumption. Moreover, its scope and purpose are of G/AG/W/170  
 
- 12 - 
 
  limited geographical and product coverage and, therefore, will have modest effect upon the 
agricultural sector. It is being developed as a temporary instrument and is aimed at secur ing 
against yields losses in regions with inadequate logistics and transportation shortages. The EU 's 
list as provided in its inquiry illustrates it as well, indicating only few regions under consideration 
for receiving special transportation conditions. This instrument is applied both to domestic and 
foreign transporters of cereals and is not of discrim inatory nature.  
 
Follow -up: Australia, Ukraine and the United States supported the question.  
 
1.8  Brazil's Reintegra programme  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85035)  
In the context of the 75th CoA meeting, Brazil explained that its Reintegra programme i s 
designed to offset the costs to exporting companies arising from residual indirect taxes 
accumulated throughout the production chain which could not be reimbursed by the 
traditional methods. Furthermore, Brazil stated that the 3% rate was defined respect ing 
the maximum amount required to prevent the restitution of residual indirect taxes 
exceeding the amount levied in respect of like products sold for domestic consumption.  
 
a. Could Brazil specify which are the taxes, together with the tax rates, levied in 
respect of like products sold for domestic consumption?  
b. Could Brazil also provide some practical examples on the calculation of total 
amount of taxes reimbursed on exported products, compared to the amounts 
levied on products sold domestically, in order to  verify that the former won't 
exceed the latter?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Reintegra provides for the remission of the prior -stage cumulative indirect taxes levied 
on inputs that are consumed in the production of the exported product, as expressly 
authorized under  footnote 1 and Annex II of the SCM Agreement, among which:  
 PIS/PASEP (Programa de Integração Social – Social Integration 
Programme/Programa de Formação do Patrimônio do Servidor Público – Civil Service 
Asset Formation Programme): 0.65% or 1.65%, levied on  the turnover;  
 COFINS (Contribuição para o Financiamento da Seguridade Social – Contribution to 
Social Security Financing): 3% or 7. 6%, levied on the turnover;  
 ISS (Imposto sobre Serviços – Tax on Services): rates depends on the Municipality 
where the ser vice is provided - between 2% and 5%, levied on the operation 
amount;  
 ICMS (Imposto sobre a Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços - Tax on Circulation of 
Goods and Transportation and Communication Services), rate depends on the State 
where the operation ta kes place – around 17%, levied on the operation amount.  
b. The calculation of total amount of taxes reimbursed is dependent on a number of 
variables, including:  
i. if the company is subject to the non -cumulative tax system or the cumulative tax 
system for fede ral taxes;  
ii. the tax rate applied for the specific traded product on a Federal level;  
iii. the tax rate applied for the specific traded product of a State level;  
iv. the State Member where the operation is accounted for; and  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 13 - 
 
  v. the Municipality where the operation is accounted for.  
In that sense, it is very difficult to provide practical examples on the calculation of total  
amount of taxes on exported products. Brazil recalls, however that the current rate of 
reimbursement (2% of t he revenue of exports ) is always inferior to the duties or taxes 
borne by the like product when destined for domestic consumption.  
Follow -up: The United States noted interest in the question and may follow it up.  
1.9  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.9.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 85049)  
Ukraine has closely followed a long series of Members questions to Brazil regarding the 
PEP/PEPRO programmes. Ukraine also took special note of recent Brazilian policy 
changes, which expanded the coverage for this prog ramme. Devaluation of the Real may 
account for part of the strong increase in Brazil's current exports of products covered by 
PEP/PEPPRO. It does not appear, however, that the devalued Real fully account for and 
represent recent strong additional exports.  Ukraine kindly requests Brazil to provide 
meaningful insight as to how PEP/PEPRO is connected with or supports the recent 
strong export performance of these products in general and for corn in particular.  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
The Brazilian agricultural poli cy has remain ed basically unchanged during the last two decades. 
The recent increase in Brazilian support to corn is related to the low level of price observed during 
the last months. The PEP/PEPRO payments are provided when the market price is lower than 
minimum price established by the g overnment. The increase in corn exports is fundamentally 
related to the increase of Brazilian production. The 2016/17 corn crop year is the highest 
production in history (97.7 million ton nes). In the last ten years, the pr oduction more than 
doubled. Therefore, the Brazilian export performance is not related to the 
program mes PEP/PEPPRO.  
 
Follow -up: The United States noted that nearly 10 million tonnes of wheat and corn  had be en 
supported under the PEP and PEPRO programme in the past 12 months, which could  have an 
impact on international grain market.  
 
1.10  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85051)  
Following Australia's questions on Canada 's milk ingredient class at the 84th Committee 
on Agricultur e, Australia understands that some elements of the National Ingredients 
Strategy continue to be under discussion.  
  
a. Can Canada confirm if all provinces have now completed the regulatory 
processes necessary to implement Class 7?  
b. Can Canada list any provin ces which have not implemented Class 7?  
c. Can Canada confirm if any elements of the National Ingredient Strategy remain 
under discussion by the provincial milk marketing boards? If yes, what are 
those elements?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Some provinces are still in  the process of implementing milk class 7 through their 
respective regulatory processes.  
b. See above.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 14 - 
 
  c. Provincial milk marketing boards are co mposed of dairy producers. The Government of 
Canada is not privy to private industry discussions. Canada understands that elements of 
the National Ingredient Strategy continue to be under discussion. Some of these 
elements include milk class 7 auditing, tracking, and reporting rules/guidelines.  
1.10.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85052)  
In responding to Australia's questions at the 83rd and the 84th Committee on Agriculture, 
Canada avoided providing any assurance that the new ingredient Class 7 is consistent 
with Canada 's WTO  obligations. Australia a sks:  
  
a. Will the Record of Decisions be made publically available?  
b. If the Record of Decisions is not made publically available, what assurance can 
Canada provide Members that the new milk Class 7 is consistent with Canada's 
WTO obligations?  
Answer by Canada 
 
a. Records of decisions made between private entities are not required to be made 
available publically. It is the prerogative of those entities to decide whether or not to 
make their records of decisions public.  
b. Canada abides by its international obliga tions, which have had a significant impact on 
the Canadian dairy industry. It is now trying to adapt to an evolving economic 
environment, in full knowledge of these rights and obligations.  
1.10.3   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85053)  
At the 83rd and 84th Commi ttee on Agriculture the United States and New Zealand asked 
questions (AG -IMS ID 83039 and AG -IMS ID 84025) about the rules for Class 7 eligibility 
of whole milk powder. Canada responded that the rules were still being negotiated 
between dairy producers an d processors, and that the public availability of the 
information was yet to be determined. Can Canada please provide an update on:  
 
a. When and how the rules will be established?  
b. Where this information will be made publically available?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada cannot provide timelines for when and how the rules will be established, as they 
are still being negotiated between dairy producers and processors.  
b. Canada cannot confirm where, or if, this information will be made public.  
1.10.4   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85054)  
The following questions relate to the use and disposal of Class 7 milk and excess skim 
milk:  
  
a. Milk priced under Class 7 accounted for a high (between 23% and 44%) share 
of liquid milk, proteins and other solids in the th ree months of Febru ary to 
April  2017. Have  there been any policy or market changes that will alter the 
trajectory in the remaining months of 2017?  
b. How will skim milk priced under Class 7 be disposed of if there is insufficient 
domestic market demand to accommodate it?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
a. The implementation of milk class 7 requires several adjustments for milk marketing 
boards to accurately report usage of milk billed at this price class. The period of February 
through April 2017 may not be illustrative of actual use of mi lk class 7. That being said, 
it is a business decision of a dairy processor to use, and report the use, of milk class 7. 
Canada cannot speculate on these business decisions.  
b. Canada does not understand what is meant by the term "disposed of " in the questio n 
posed by New Zealand and Australia. All milk billed at class 7 prices would already be 
used by a processor, since processors are billed retroactively for the use of their milk. 
Milk is not "disposed " of under milk class 7. As milk is a perishable good, t here are some 
instances of milk spoilage and losses at the farm or at a processing plant; however this 
is unrelated to milk class 7.  
1.10.5   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85055)  
Statistics Canada reports that exports of SMP were 11,227  MT for July 2017 (compared 
to 4,244  MT for July 2016) and 42,110  MT for the year to July 2017 (compared to 
10,725  MT for the year to July 2016). Could Canada explain:  
 
a. Why have exports of SMP increased so significantly in 2017 compared to 
previous years?  
b. Milk allocated t o Milk Class 5(D) Export Subsidy Commitment Class dropped by 
73% in April 2017 compared to April 2016. Please explain the decrease and 
how it might relate to the increase in SMP exports.  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada notes that its exports of skim milk powder fluctuate from month to month. 
Canada 's exports of skim milk powder are determined by market conditions, with the 
exception of any exports under milk class 5(d), which are subject to set limits under 
Canada 's WTO export subsidy commitments.  
b. Since 1st February 2017, the demand for skim milk components under milk class 5(d) 
has diminished.  
1.10.6   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85056)  
Canada's response to Australia's question at the 84th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS 
ID 84012) advised that information on milk utilisation and sales for all milk classes is 
available on the Canadian Dairy Information Centre website: 
http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e. php?s1=dff -fcil&amp;s2=msp -lpl&amp;s3=mps -
vlv&amp;menupos=1.1.7 . Prior to 24 August 2017, Agricultural Industry Market 
Information System (AIMIS) data for "Milk Utilization and Sales in Canada" was 
displayed for February -April 2017, i.e. the period after C lass 7 was implemented, 
however no data was made available on this website for the period May -July 2017. 
Australia understands that on 24 August 2017, AIMIS "Milk Utilization and Sales in 
Canada" data for February, March and April 2017 was removed. Austral ia understands 
that on 28 August 2017 the following message was on the website: "Dairy sales data 
from February 2017 onward are not comparable to past data. For this reason, sales data 
are not available post January 2017. An updated reporting system is bei ng developed to 
better meet client needs. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and thank 
you for your patience".  
 
a. Can Canada please explain why the implementation of Class 7 would result in 
dairy sales data no longer being comparable to past data?  
b. Is data on the production volumes of Class 7 milk available elsewhere?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 16 - 
 
  c. Can Canada please advise when the updated reporting system will be available?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The information was removed as it was inaccurate and not comparable to past data. It 
mistakenly over -inflated the use of milk class 7 in the production of class  7 dairy 
products and ingredients in Canada.  
b. The Government of Canada does not publish milk utilization elsewhere.  
c. Canada is currently working towards updating the reporting system in order to be as 
transparent as possible. Canada does not have a timeline for when the reporting system 
will be available again.  
1.10.7   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85002)  
Following New Zea land's questions at the 84th Committee on Agriculture New Zealand 
understands that some elements of the National Ingredients Strategy continue to be 
under discussion.  
 
a. Can Canada confirm if all provinces have now completed the regulatory 
processes nece ssary to implement Class 7?  
b. Can Canada list any provinces which have not implemented Class 7?  
c. Can Canada confirm if any elements of the National Ingredient Strategy remain 
under discussion by the provincial milk marketing boards? If yes, then what are 
these?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Some provinces are still in the process of implementing milk class 7 through their 
respective regulatory processes.  
b. See above.  
c. Provincial milk marketing boards are co mposed of dairy producers. The Government of 
Canada is not  privy to private industry discussions. Canada understands that elements of 
the National Ingredient Strategy continue to be under discussion. Some of these 
elements include milk class 7 auditing, tracking, and reporting rules/guidelines.  
1.10.8   Question by New Z ealand (AG -IMS ID 85003)  
In responding to New Zealand 's questions at the 83rd and the 84th Committee on 
Agriculture, Canada avoided providing any assurance that the new ingredient Class  7 is 
consistent with Canada 's WTO obligations. New Zealand asks again:   
 
a. Will the Record of Decisions be made publically available?  
b. If the Record of Decisions is not made publically available, what assurance can 
Canada provide Members that the new milk Class 7 is consistent with Canada's 
WTO obligations?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Records of decisions made between private entities are not required to be made 
available publically. It is the prerogative of those entities to decide whether or not to 
make their records of decisions public.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 17 - 
 
  b. Canada abides by its international obligations , which have had a significant impact on 
the Canadian dairy industry. It is now trying to adapt to an evolving economic 
environment, in full knowledge of these rights and obligations.  
1.10.9   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85004)  
At the 83rd and 84th Committee on Agriculture the United States and New Zealand asked 
questions (AG -IMS ID 83039 and AG-IMS ID 84025) about the rules for Class 7 eligibility 
of whole milk powder. Canada responded that the rules were still being negotiated 
between dairy produc ers and processors, and that the public availability of the 
information was yet to be determined. Can Canada please provide an update on:  
 
a. When and how the rules will be established?  
b. Where this information will be made publically available?  
Answer by Canada 
 
a. Canada cannot provide timelines for when and how the rules will be established, as they 
are still being negotiated between dairy producers and processors.  
b. Canada cannot confirm where, or if, this information will be made public.  
1.10.10   Question by New Zea land (AG -IMS ID 85005)  
The following questions relate to the use and disposal of Class 7 milk and excess skim 
milk:  
 
a. Milk priced under Class 7 accounted for a high (between 23% and 44%) share 
of liquid milk, proteins and other solids in the th ree months o f February to 
April  2017. Has there been any policy or market changes that will alter the 
trajectory in the remaining months of 2017?  
b. How will skim milk priced under Class 7 be disposed of if there is insufficient 
domestic market demand to accommodate it?   
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The implementation of milk class 7 requires several adjustments for milk marketing 
boards to accurately report usage of milk billed at this price class. The period of February 
through April 2017 may not be illustrative of actual use of milk class 7. That being said, 
it is a business decision of a dairy processor to use, and report the use, of milk class 7. 
Canada cannot speculate on these business decisions.  
b. Canada does not understand what is meant by the term 'disposed of ' in the quest ion 
posed by New Zealand and Australia. All milk billed at class 7 prices would already be 
used by a processor, since processors are billed retroactively for the use of their milk. 
Milk is not "disposed " of under milk class 7. As milk is a perishable good,  there are some 
instances of milk spoilage and losses at the farm or at a processing plant; however this 
is unrelated to milk class 7.  
1.10.11   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85006)  
Statistics Canada reports that exports of SMP were 11,227  MT for July 2017 (co mpared 
to 4,244  MT for July 2016) and 42,110  MT for the year to July 2017 (compared to 
10,725  MT for the year to Ju ly 2016). Could Canada explain:  
 
a. Why have exports of SMP increased so significantly in 2017 compared to 
previous years?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 18 - 
 
  b. Milk allocated to Mi lk Class 5(D) Export Subs idy Commitment Class dropped 
by 73% in April 2017 compared to April 2016. Please explain the decrease and 
how it might relate to the increase in SMP exports.  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada notes that its exports of skim milk powder fluctuate from month to month. 
Canada 's exports of skim milk powder are determined by market conditions, with the 
exception of any exports under milk class 5(d), which are subject to set limits under 
Canada 's WTO export subsidy commitments.  
b. Since 1 Februa ry 2017, the demand for skim milk components under milk class 5(d) has 
diminished.  
1.10.12   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85008)  
Canada's response to New Zealand's question at the 84th Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 84030) advised that information on mil k utilisation and sales for all milk 
classes is available on the Canadian Dairy Information Centre website: 
http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_ e.php?s1=dff -fcil&amp;s2=msp -lpl&amp;s3=mps -
vlv&amp;menupos=1.1.7 . Prior to 24 August 2017, Agricultural Industry Market 
Information System (AIMIS) data for "Milk Utilization and Sales in Canada" was 
displayed for February -April  2017, i.e. the period after  Class 7 was implemented, 
however no data was made available on this website for the period May -July 2017. New 
Zealand notes that on 24  August  2017, AIMIS "Milk Utilization and Sales in Canada" data 
for February, March and April  2017 was removed. Ne w Zeala nd also notes that on 
28 August 2017 the following message was on the website: "Dairy sales data from 
February 2017 onward are not comparable to past data. For this reason, sales data are 
not available post January 2017. An updated reporting system is bein g developed to 
better meet client needs. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause an d thank 
you for your patience."  
 
a. Can Canada please explain why the implementation of Class 7 would result in 
dairy sales data no longer being comparable to past da ta?  
b. Is data on the production volumes of Class 7 milk available elsewhere?  
c. Can Canada please advise when the updated reporting system will be available?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The information was removed as it was inaccurate and not comparable to past data. It 
mistakenly over -inflated the use of milk class 7 in the production of class 7 dairy 
products and ingredients in Canada.  
b. The Government of Canada does not publish milk utilization elsewhere.  
c. Canada is currently working towards updating the reporting sy stem in order to be as 
transparent as possible. Canada does not have a timeline for when the reporting system 
will be available again.  
1.10.13   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85011)  
Canada Dairy -Milk Classes  
 
a. In Canada 's answer to the U.S. question (AGIMS 84107), Canada states that 
"some elements of the National Ingredient Strategy continue to be under 
discussion.  Certain elements under discussion include milk class 7 complete 
auditing, tracking, and reporting rules/guid elines, and further details relating 
to billing ratios. "  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 19 - 
 
  i. When are these elements final or when will they be?  
ii. How will this information be made publically available?  
iii. What specific details relating to billing ratios or other items are still under 
discussion  and when will those details be finalized?  
iv. Please explain in detail any elements that have been finalized so far relating 
to milk Class 7 auditing, tracking, reporting rules/guidelines, and billing 
ratios.  
b. In Canada 's answer to the U.S. question (AGIMS 84107), Canada notes that 
some, but not all, Canadian provinces have publically notified Orders from milk 
marketing boards on new milk pricing through their respective Royal Gazette 
process.  
i. Have the remaining provinces publically notified Orders?  
ii. Have all  Canadian provinces amended provincial regulations to reflect 
changes implemented by the National Ingredient Strategy?  For example, 
has Ontario amended DFO Milk Pricing Regulation of the Milk Act, 
R.S.O.1990 to reflect changes implemented by the National I ngredient 
Strategy?   
 If not, which provinces have not amended regulations that implement 
the National Ingredient Strategy?  
 If not, when will these provinces amend regulations that implement the 
National Ingredient Strategy?   
c. Canada states in AGIMS ID 83039  that "The rules for whole milk powder are 
subject to discussions amongst industry stakeholders. When and where this 
information will be made public is to be determined. " Similarly, Canada 
responded in AGIMS ID 83039 that "industry discussions on the futur e 
parameters for transactions between milk buyers involving class 7 ingredients 
in liquid form are not yet concluded. "  
i. Have the rules for whole milk powder or Class 7 ingredients in liquid form, 
including eligibility requirements, been established?  
 If so,  where is this information publically available?   
 If not, when does Canada expect these to be available?  
 Please explain the rules for whole milk powder.  
 Please explain the rules for transactions between milk buyers involving 
class 7 ingredients in liquid f orm.  
d. The United States notes that Canadian processors have purchased butterfat at 
newly implemented Class 7 prices.   
i. If the rules for whole milk powder are still under discussion amongst 
industry stakeholders, how were these quantities of butterfat determi ned to 
be eligible for Class 7 prices?  
ii. Please provide the quantity of butterfat for which processors have received 
Class 7 prices each month since February 2017.  
iii. Please explain for what end uses such butterfat was used.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 20 - 
 
  e. In Canada 's answer to the U.S. quest ion regarding Cla ss 7 pricing formulas 
(AGIMS  84107), Canada states that "[a] processor margin is also deducted in 
the calculation of milk class 7 ". 
i. Please provide and explain the exact formula or methodology that is used to 
set the manufacturing cost allo wance (also known as "processor margin "). 
ii. How much is the processor margin for milk class 7?  Has this processor 
margin changed over time, and if so, by how much?  
iii. Where is this formula or methodology publically available?  
iv. Please provide and explain the exact formula or methodology that is used to 
calculate the processor margin that is used to set  component prices of 
subclasses  5(a), 5(b), and 5(c).   
v. How much are the current processor margins that are used to set 
component prices of subclasses 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c)?  Have these margins 
changed over time, and if so, by how much?  
f. In Canada 's answer to the U.S. question regarding Class 7 pricing formulas 
(AGIMS  84107), Canada states that "[t]he prices under milk class 7 for 
butterfat, protein, and other solids are determined based on world prices. "  
i. Please provide the source from which Canada is obtaining these world 
prices.  
ii. Please provide the world prices (in USD or Canadian Dollars) that Canada 
has used each month to set the prices under milk class 7 for butte rfat, 
protein, and other solids.  
g. Recognizing that the provincial milk marketing boards set milk prices, some of 
which are calculated by the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), please provide a 
complete list of milk subclasses (e.g., 5(a)) for which the CDC acts as an 
administrator to calculate the class price.  
h. Canada recognizes in AGIMS 84107 that classes 5(a), (b), and (c) are based on 
world prices.  Are there any other class or subclass prices based on world 
prices?  If so, which classes or subclasses?  
i. Has t he CDC completed and implemented the National Registration System 
and/or the Provincial Billing Mechanism Certification Program?  
i. If yes, please describe how this system and program will operate.  
ii. If no, when will this system and program be finalized and imp lemented?  
iii. What measures or guidance harmonizes billing and audits across provinces?  
j. In the example provided in AGIMS 84107 question "j", where Class 2(a) has a 
within - class end -use price adjustment of "70% of Protein priced at Class 2(a) 
price and 30% of protein priced at Class 7 Price ", would a processor be eligible 
for any proteins at Class 7 prices if:  
i. 10% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements 
for a minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were 
from impo rted ultra filtered  (UF) milk and the remaining proteins used in the 
product were Canadian -sourced proteins that are eligible for Class 7 
prices?  If so, what percentage of Canadian -sourced proteins would be 
eligible for Class 7 prices?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 21 - 
 
  ii. 30% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements 
for a minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were 
from imported UF milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were 
Canadian -sourced proteins that are eligible for Class 7 pri ces? If so, what 
percentage of Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class  7 
prices?  
iii. 50% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements 
for a minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were 
from imported UF milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were 
Canadian -sourced proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices?  If so, what 
percentage of Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class 7 
prices?  
k. In AGIMS 84107, Canada states that "[i]t is the business decision of a 
processor to use, and report the use, of milk class 7. " 
i. Please confirm that processors are required to report the specific end use of 
Class  7 components  (i.e., which of the eligible 
components/ingredients/products the components were made into) to the 
Canadian Dairy Commission, or any other federal or provincial government 
body, in order to calculate the amount of such proteins that will be charged 
at Class 7 prices.  
ii. Please provide a breakdown by month of how much protein i s being  used 
(i.e. reported) to process Class 7 ingredients into other dairy products, and 
how much protein is being used to process Class 7 protein ingredients that 
are being sold on the marketplace.  
iii. Of the Class 7 -priced protein that is being sold on the market place (i.e., NOT 
being further processed in dairy products), what percentage each month is 
exported and what percentage remains on the domestic market?  
l. Has Class 4(m) been revoked in each Canadian province?   
i. If so, which ones?  
ii. If not, where do provinces ge t Class 4(m) prices since they are no longer 
published on the CDC website?  
iii. Has Class 6 been revoked in Ontario? Please provide a copy of the 
documentation or measures revoking Class (m).  
m. The United States notes that Canada 's exports of skim milk powder (0 40210) 
was over 8  million kilograms in May 2017 and approximately 11 million 
kilograms in June  2017 (an 879 % increase from the same month the previous 
year).   
i. Please report the monthly volumes and value of skim milk powder that was 
exported to each country  since February 2017.  
ii. Please report the monthly volumes and value of skim milk powder that was 
sold domestically in Canada since February 2017.  
iii. How does Canada explain this increase in exports?  
n. The United States appreciates Canada 's response that the Canad ian Dairy 
Commission does not announce the level of butter and skim milk powder that is 
eligible to receive the applied administered price.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 22 - 
 
  While we disagree with Canada 's position that the milk to produce butter sold 
through classes 5a, 5b, 5c, and for ex ports, and skim milk powder sold through 
classes 5a, 5b, 5c, and 4m and exports, does not benefit from the applied 
administered price and is therefore excluded from eligible production, we ask 
Canada:  
i. How market price support and eligible production will be calculated after 
the introduction of Class 7, which covers milk used to produce skim milk 
powder.  
ii. If all skim milk powder produced under Class 7 or that is exported will be 
excluded from eligible pr oduction? We note that very little milk is utilized in 
classes 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and 4m since Class 7 's introduction, while at the 
same time Canada 's exports of skim milk powder have sharply increased.  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada is not in a position to disclos e specific details of private industry discussions. 
Elements of the National Ingredient Strategy continue to be under discussion and 
Canada cannot provide any timelines for when all elements would be finalized. Canada 
cannot confirm where, or if, this info rmation will be made public.  
b. Some provinces are still in the process of implementing milk class 7 through their 
respective regulatory processes.  
c. Canada cannot provide timelines for when and how the rules will be established, as they 
are still being negot iated between dairy producers and processors. Canada is not in a 
position to disclose any details of private industry discussions. Canada also cannot 
confirm where, or if, this information will be made public.  
d.  
i. Canada can't comment on information the Unit ed States received from Canadian 
private entities such as processors. Canada notes that there may be amounts of 
butterfat, however small, in dairy ingredients such as skim milk powder.  
ii. This information in not available publically.  
iii. See above.  
e. Canada re -iterates that a processor margin is deducted in the calculation of milk class 7. 
How this processor margin for milk classes is calculated is not publically available. Much 
like a "make allowance " in the United States, which is deducted from milk class prices, in 
Canada, a "processor margin " covers the cost of transforming milk into butter and skim 
milk powder and a return on investment for the processors. The processor margin has 
not changed for u se in milk class 7.  
f. The source of these statistics is not publically available.  
g. The Canadian Dairy Commission act s as an administrator to calculate the prices for the 
special milk classes listed on the CDC milk ingredients website: 5(a), (b) and (c). The  
CDC also acts as an administrator to calculate milk class 7 prices, which is also listed on 
the milk ingredients website.  
h. Canada re -iterates its answer to a previous question. Milk classes 5 (a), (b), (c), (d) and 
class 7 are based on world prices.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 23 - 
 
  i.  
i. The Canadian Dairy Commission is currently working towards developing the 
National Registration System and the Provincial Billing Mechanism Certification 
Program. There is no definitive timeline for its implementation.  
ii. See above .  
iii. The National Audit Standard s harmonizes auditing standards across provinces. This 
manual was required to be updated to include the National Registration System and 
the Provincial Billing Mechanism Certification Program in order to ensure consistency 
across provinces in coordination of audits, as well as proper reporting, among other 
things.  
j. The eligibility for a processor to be billed at milk class 7 prices is not determined by the 
source, either imported or domestic, of dairy ingredients. Under milk class 7, all sources 
of milk pro tein count towards the amount of protein that can be derived from ingredients 
at the class 7 price. Canada would like to re -iterate that milk prices are administered by 
provincial milk marketing boards. They are administered independently from Canadian 
regulations on cheese compositional standards. Under Canada 's cheese compositional 
standards, only milk can account for the milk portion of cheese. Any other substance, 
including milk protein concentrates, cannot account for the milk portion of cheese, 
regard less of its price or source.  
k.  
i. For all milk classes, processors are billed according to the applicable milk class based 
on the milk 's end use.  
ii. This information is not available.  
iii. Canada does not collect information on the portion of sales and utilization of each 
milk class that is exported (except milk class 5(d), which is contingent on export). 
Dairy products or ingredients exported that were billed under milk class 7, or any 
milk class other than milk class 5(d), can be sold by any eligible processor on the 
domestic or export markets, and do not require export permits.  
l. Some provinces are still in the process of implementing milk class 7 through their 
respective regulatory processes.  
m.  
i. Canada 's exports of skim milk powder on a monthly basis in CAD$ can be retrieved 
on the Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database on the Statistics Canada 
website: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/trade/ data According to statistics Canada, in 
metric tonnes, the following exports from Canada to all countries for each month 
of 2017 since February were as follows:  
February: 2,181 ; 
March: 4,311 ; 
April: 2,555 ; 
May: 8,050 ; 
June: 10,960 ; 
July: 11,228 ; 
August: 8 ,002. 
ii. According to Statistics Canada, monthly volumes in metric tonnes of total supply 
(beginning stocks + production + imports) for skim milk powder since February 2017 
were as follows:  
February: 82,592 ; 
March: 83,633 ; G/AG/W/170  
 
- 24 - 
 
  April: 80,763 ; 
May: 75,935 ; 
June: 73 ,169; 
July: 69,260 . 
iii. Canada notes that its exports of skim milk powder fluctuate from month to month. 
Canada 's exports of skim milk powder are determined by market conditions, with the 
exception of any exports under milk class 5(d), which are subject to set  limits under 
Canada 's WTO export subsidy commitments.  
n. Canada has no updates to provide on support price calculations for skim milk powder. 
Canada will notify its market price support based on eligible production in its domestic 
support notification for t he year  2017 in due time.  
Follow -up: The European Union and New Zealand noted that some responses were incomplete and 
asked Canada to be more transparent and to provide full responses. For instance, without 
information on Records of Decisions made between  private entities, New Zealand could not be 
convinced that Canada had complied with its WTO obligations. The European Union asked  Canada 
to provide the rules for  milk c lass 7 e ligibility i n view that class 7 was already implemented in 
many provinces . Austr alia and the European Union voiced concern about the new  milk class 7 's 
potential effect s on the market as regards import su bstitution and on the export market. Mexico 
registered continued concern.   
1.11  Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese and domestic suppor t 
1.11.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85009)  
Can Canada provide an update on:  
 
a. the implementation of the Canada -EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement (CETA) regarding the reallocation of 800 MT of the WTO cheese TRQ 
to the EU?  
b. The allocation of the $350 million in domestic support that was announced in 
anticipation of CETA?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. As Members  are aware, under CETA Canada will shift 800 ,000 kilogram s of its 
20,411,866  kilograms WTO TRQ for cheese to the Eur opean Union. The entire 
800,000  kilogram s shift will occur in the first year of the Agreement. As previously 
stated, upon completion of the 800,000  kilograms shift, Canada will submit a new 
MA:1 notification as per its  WTO commitments.  
b. As noted in New Zealand 's question to Canada under AG -IMS ID 85010, a total of 
CAD$350 million will be provided under two new programmes to support the 
competitiveness of the dairy sector. The two programmes are: CAD$250  million over five 
years (beginning in 2017 -18) for a Dairy Fa rm Investment Program that provides 
targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers improve their productivity through 
upgrades to their technology and systems. CAD$100 mil lion over four years 
(beginning  in 2017 -18) for a Dairy Processing Investment Fund to help dairy processors 
modernise operations, improve efficiency and productivity, and diversify product to 
pursue new market opportunities.  
Follow -up: New Zealand noted its continued interest in understanding the basis for which Canada 
reallocated part of its WTO cheese TRQ to the EU. The United States expressed interest in the 
question.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.12  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.12.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85057)  
New Zealand reiterates its concerns with Canada 's wine regulations, including the 
introduction of the "store within a store" model in British Columbia which excludes 
imported wines from being sold on regular grocery store shelves.  
 
a. Can Canada provide an update on how many grocery stores in British Columbia, 
since 1  April  2015, have been licenced to  sell wine under the 'store within a 
store' model?  
b. Can Canada provide data on the total volume (in litres) and the total value of 
wine sales in British Columbia grocery store s for the 12 -month period to 
30 September 2017, including a breakdown of domestic  versus imported wine 
sales?  
Answer by Canada  
 
There are formal processes underway, including the WTO consultation DS531, and therefore 
Canada is of the view that it would be inappropriate to further comment on this issue at this time.  
 
1.12.2   Question by United  States of America (AG -IMS ID 85012)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines 
from Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that 
are continuously available, available to gro cers by moving them t o the 
LCBO  Wines category."  
 
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list 
allowed to be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list 
need to move to the LCBO Wine category  (and off of the Vintages Essential 
list) in order to be solid in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores 
without moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, 
but imported products are  not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer 
and wine authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been 
distributed to operators of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the impl ementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations 
have been distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization 
that permits the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that 
operates a wine boutique inside  the store, wine offered for sale in the 
boutique)?   
Answer by Canada  
 
See response to AG-IMS ID 85057 . 
 
Follow -up: Australia regretted Canada's lack of response. Australia noted that it had previously 
consulted bilaterally with Canada on this issue and re corded significant interest in Canada's wine 
policy. The Unite States support ed New Zealand's questions.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 26 - 
 
  1.13  India's pulses policies  
1.13.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85064)  
Follow up question to India:  
In response to Canada 's questions on India 's pulse policies  aimed at self -sufficiency 
during the 7 June 2017 meeting of the Comm ittee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 84044), 
India noted that the government procures pu lses at a minimum support price  (MSP) for 
buffer stocks. Canada notes that recent media reports indicate  that the Government of 
India is aiming to dispose of approximately 1.9 million tonnes of buffer stocks of pulses 
before the arrival of the 2017 -18 crop.  
a. Could India indicate what percentage of these stocks it expects to be taken up 
by various governmenta l agencies and how much will be disposed of on the 
Indian market?  
b. Could India indicate if pulses from buffer stocks will be exported? If so, what is 
the estimated volume?  
c. Reports indicate that there will be a bumper 2016 -2017 pulse crop. Could India 
indicate what volume of this crop it expects to procure?  
Answer by India 
 
Canada 's question is based on media reports, which India is  not in a position to confirm. However, 
India would like to inform the Committee that India is basically a net importer of pulses and has 
not exported pulses from stocks.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine registered continued  intere st in this issue, particularly  its direct effect on 
international trade. Australia  expressed concern with the effect of excess stocks and pointed out 
that even stocks released domestically may end up in the export market.  Australia stressed the 
importance of ensuring market support program mes for food security purposes would  not lead to  
unintended consequences. The United States noted that as per its understanding , India in 
June 2017 raised the procurement price for pulses by approximately 7 % - 8% and increased the 
planted area for 2017/2018. The United States reiterated its concern  with the direct and indirect 
exports resulted from  the buffer stock for both pulses and other commodities acquired at minimum 
support prices  such as wheat. The European Union echoed previous speakers' comments. In 
particular, the European Union underlined the relevance of this topic in the negotiation agenda and 
the importance of addressing the issue of excess stocks regardless if they were sold internally or 
exported.  
1.14  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85071)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its question a t the June CoA 
regarding the 30  June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO General 
Council 's waiver decision of 24 July 2014 (WT/L/932). Australia seeks an update on the 
Philippines ' tarifficatio n efforts to date.  
 
Answer by Philippines  
 
The following is an  update on the Philippines'  rice tariffication efforts.  
 
The Philippine House of Representatives (HOR) is currently reviewing consolidated bill that will 
allow for the tariffication  of rice imports, entitled "An Act Replacing The Quantitative Import 
Restrictions On Rice With Tariffs, Amending For The Purpose Republic Act 8178, As Amended By 
Republic Act N°9496, Further Amended By R epublic Act N°10848, Entitled: ' An Act Replacing 
Quan titative Import Restrictions On Agricultural Products, Except Rice, With Tariffs, Creating The 
Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund, And For Other Purposes '". This bill is the G/AG/W/170  
 
- 27 - 
 
  outcome of several deliberations by a technical working group (TWG), wh ich worked on five bills 
filed by different legislators in relation to the lifting of the quantitative restriction on rice.  
 
The Philippine Executive Branch is working closely with both Houses of Congress in the finalization 
of the bill, as the President o rdered the passage of the rice tariffication law to be expedited.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and the United States flagged interest in this issue. Thailand 
registered continued interest as a rice exporter to the Philippines.  
 
1.15  Thailand's import permits  for feed wheat  
1.15.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85039)  
Thailand at the WTO Committee on Agriculture of March 2017 informed Members that it 
is a temporary measure put in place to relieve the situation of market oversupply of 
corn. At the CoA of June 2017, Thailand further indicated that it was reviewing the 
increased importation at a reasonable level and having consultation with stockholders in 
finding a satisfactory measure.  
 
a. Could Thailand share with WTO Members the result of its internal review an d 
any decision taken?  
b. As the end of calendar year 2017 is now approaching, could Thailand please 
clarify if this measure will be continued in 2018?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand is still undergoing rigorous  domestic consultations to find a suitable solution  that strikes a 
balance between the surge in import of feed wheat and the livelihood  of domestic corn farmers.  
Thailand will provide an update to Members once a solution has been achieved.  
 
Follow -up: Australia, Ukraine, and the United States supported the question. Ukraine looked 
forward to Thailand's confirmation that this measure would be removed. Canada underscored it 
commercial interest in this issue.  
1.16  U.S. dairy policies  
1.16.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85079)  
a. According to a document titled "Classification of Dairy Products " on the website 
of the California Department of Food and Agriculture available here: 
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy/pdf/InfoPack/ClassificationDairyProducts.pdf , 
certain products such as yogurt are classified under milk Class 2, unless the 
products is "sold outside the U.S. ", in which case the products are then 
assigned to Class 4a.  
i. Could the United States please clarify if this is related to milk class pricing 
in California? If not, please describe what this pertains to.  
ii. Could the United States also please explain if milk handlers (or processors) 
would be paying a different minimum price for the milk they purchase 
contingent on the destination (domestic use, or for export) for the yogurt 
being produced? Canada also notes that prices, or component prices, paid 
for milk under Class 4a may be lower than Class 2 prices in certain months 
of the year.  
iii. Does the United States have similar type of regulation for Federal Milk 
Marketing Orders?  
b. According to a news article in from Dairy Herd Management 
http://www.dairyherd.com/news/industry/proposed -changes -fluid-milk-G/AG/W/170  
 
- 28 - 
 
  pricing -and-why-farmers -need-care, the "Farmer cooperatives and processor 
trade organizations are currently considering a farm bill request to change the 
beverage milk price to the simple average of the advanced Class III and IV milk 
prices plus 74 cents per hundredweight ". Canada would like to understand the 
authority and involvement that the Federal Government, specifically the USDA, 
has over milk pricing, production, and marketing in the United States.  
i. Canada understands that processors pay for their milk based on their end -
use through milk class pricing. How are all the milk class prices established?  
ii. What would be the milk class used for liquid ultrafiltered milk?  
iii. What would be the milk class used for liquid whey?  
iv. What is the role of the UDSA or any other Federal, or State le vel government 
or delegated authority, in setting the prices for milk classes (I through IV).  
v. What are the functions of the Milk market Administrators Office of the 
USDA?  
vi. What is the role of the UDSA or any other Federal, or State level government 
or del egated authority in determining the payments to producers in a 
Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO)?  
vii. How are milk producers paid for their milk in the Upper Midwest FO.30, 
Mideast FO. 33, and Northeast FO.1? What role does the USDA have in this?  
viii. What is t he uniform price or blend price?  
 How is it calculated?  
 Is the calculation different for different FMMOs? If so, what are the 
calculations for each FMMO?  
 Who calculates and determines the uniform/blend price on a monthly 
basis?  
 What is the producer sett lement fund? How does it work?  
 Is the calculation of the uniform/blend price different among FMMOs? If 
so, how is it calculated in the largest milk producing FMMOs (Upper 
Midwest FO.30, Mideast FO. 33, and Northeast FO.1)?  
c. The United States mentioned in the answer to Canada 's question from the 
84th Committee on Agriculture, that: "Manufacturers who opt to not pool their 
manufacturing milk are free to contract for milk purchases at prices they 
negotiate privately with suppliers. "  
i. Does this mean that for a ll milk producers who sell their raw milk for the 
production of Class I milk, the handler is required to purchase the milk at no 
lower than the Class I price?  
ii. Is milk ever 'pooled ' by milk producers, or is it just manufacturers or 
handlers that pool payme nts of the use of their milk (i.e. a pricing pool)?  
iii. Are there any instances where a milk producer would get paid less than a 
blend price, or a price below the cost of producing their milk?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 29 - 
 
  iv. What is the amount of milk by volume and value that is pooled vs. not 
pooled for use in all the milk classes (I -IV) in the Upper Midwest FO.30, the 
Mideast FO.33 and the Northeast FO.1 for the latest available year?  
v. Are there any instances where pooling i s not required for Class I (fluid) milk 
in any of the Federal Milk Marketing Orders? What about for the state of 
California?  
vi. Are dairy cooperatives (i.e. producer -handlers) required to pool Class I fluid 
milk, and/or pay the Class I price, and under which  authority?  
vii. What are the reasons and ways that a milk handlers would not pay the 
minimum Class I price?  
viii How does the U.S. Dairy Forward Pricing Program under the 2014 Farm Bill 
work? What is the usage rate among dairy producers of the program for the 
most recent year?  
ix. What data was used to calculate the reference price for sunflower? Is this 
information pub lically available?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a.  
i. This is an updated description of California 's milk classes.  
ii. The minimum price milk handlers pay in California depends on the milk class. Pricing 
formulas for all of California 's milk classes are  publically available.  
iii. The California Department of Food and Agriculture regulations are distinct from the 
prices and milk classes established by the Federal Milk Market Orders, which cover 
ten regions but not California.  
b.  
i. The FMMO system has four milk cl asses t hat have been in effect since 
1 January  2000. FMMO Class I is milk used in fluid milk products. Class II is milk 
used to produce fluid cream products, soft "spoonable " products like cottage cheese, 
ice cream, sour cream, and yogurt, and other produc ts such as kefir, baking mixes, 
infant formula and meal replacements, certain prepared foods, and ingredients in 
other prepared food products. Class III is milk used to produce spreadable cheeses 
like cream cheese, and hard cheeses, like Cheddar, that can be sliced, crumbled, 
grated, or shredded. Class IV is milk used to produce butter, evaporated or 
sweetened condensed milk in consumer -style packages, and dry milk products.   
All minimum classified prices are set by formulas, four which are established by 
regulation and incorporate observed market prices. Classified prices are expressed in 
dollars per hundredweight (cwt) of milk and apply to milk pooled in the previous 
month. For example, classified prices for September were announced on 4 October, 
and refle ct observed market sales of wholesale commodity products that occurred in 
September. The pricing formulas for Class III milk and Class IV milk incorporate 
market wholesale finished dairy product prices. Class II prices are determined by 
adding a differenti al to the Class IV value. Class I prices, at plant location, are 
determined by adding differentials to the higher of the Class III or Class IV values.   
ii. Liquid ultrafiltered milk would be classified according to its end -use.  
iii. Liquid whey is a by -product of cheese making and classified as Class III. If the liquid 
is dried and then used in a fluid milk product, the dry product would be classified as 
Class IV, and the increase in fluid milk product volume due to the fortification would 
be classified as Class I.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 30 - 
 
  iv. USDA determines, by regulation, minimum classifie d prices for milk pooled in 
the FMMO system. During 2016, FMMOs pooled approximately 64 % U.S. milk 
production. FMMOs do not determine or enforce minimum prices for milk not pooled 
on a FMMO. FMMOs do not re quire the pooling of Class II, III, and IV milk.  
The FMMO programme currently uses end -product price formulas based on the 
wholesale prices of finished dairy products to determine the minimum classified 
prices handlers pay for raw milk in the four classes. USDA conducts a mandatory 
survey of the weekly w holesale prices of four manufactured dairy products (Cheddar 
cheese, butter, non-fat dry milk and dry whey). The FMMO end -product price 
formulas incorporate these surveyed prices to determine the component values in 
raw milk.  
v. Market Administrators assure t hat fluid (Class I) milk processors (wh o are required 
to be regulated ) and dairy product (Class II, III and IV) manufacture rs (who choose 
to be regulated ) properly account for the milk and milk components they buy and 
pay producers or cooperatives a pooled  uniform value according to the prov isions of 
the applicable FMMO. Market Administrators ' staff review fluid milk processors ' and 
dairy product manufacturers ' records to ensure accurate milk use reporting to the 
Market Administrator  and timely payments to producers  are made, provide for 
accurate weights and milk component testing for producer payment  purposes, and 
publish market information.  
vi. USDA enforces minimum, timely payments to producers for milk pooled on an order.  
USDA computes and publishes the unif orm price for each FMMO reflecting the use of 
all milk in each ma rket-wide pool. Handlers are required to pay the uniform price  for 
all milk they pool on th e FMMO, adjusted for location. In six of the FMMOs, producers 
are paid for the pounds of butterfat, pounds of protein, pounds of other solids, and 
cwt of milk po oled. The cwt price is known as the producer price differential  (PPD) 
and reflects the producer 's pro rata share of the value of Class I, Class II, and 
Class IV uses in the pool re lative to the Class III value. In the other four FMMOs, 
producers are paid on a butterfat and skim basis.   
vii. In these orders, producers are paid for the pounds of butterfat, protein and other 
solids in th eir pooled milk, plus the PPD. The Market Administrato r and staff enforce 
minimum produc er payment of the blend price. Over-order premiums to producers 
operate outside of the FMMO system.   
viii. The uniform price (often called the blend price) is the weighted market average price 
that reflects all classified uses o f milk pooled on the Federal order during the month.  
The uniform price is the Class III milk price at a standard test, plu s the PPD (as 
described above). Each Market Administrator Office calculates their respective 
uniform price each month reflecting the v alue of pooled milk on the respective 
marketing order during the month. The producer settlement fund is a balancing fund 
into which handlers pay or from which they receive a draw to allow all handler to pay 
producers the uniform price. Uniform prices in si x of the current 10 FMMOs (which 
includes the Upper Midwest, Mideast and Northeast) are calculated as described 
above. The other four orders (Arizona, Appalachian, Southeast and Florida) 
determine the uniform price using a uniform butterfat price and a uni form skim milk 
price. The uniform butterfat price is calculated by totalling  the butterfat values for all 
four classes and dividing by the total butterfat pound s. The uniform skim milk price 
is calculated by totalling  the skim milk and skim component value s for all four 
classes and dividing by the total hundredweight of skim milk.   
c.  
i. FMMOs regulate plants according to where they h ave sales, not plant location. Class I 
handlers who are regulated by a FMMO (meaning the handlers have sales into the 
FMMO marketi ng area) are required to pay the minimum classified price for all of 
their milk receipts at the plant. The Class I revenue is pooled and shared with all 
producers pooled on the order during the month through the uniform price.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 31 - 
 
  ii. Producers are not regulated b y the FMMO. Handlers and manufacturers make the 
pooling decision for the milk they use.   
iii. FMMO price formulas for classified milk incorporate observed market transactions of 
wholesale commodity dairy products (butter, Cheddar cheese, non-fat dry milk a nd 
dry whey) during the month. Producers ' cost of production is not incorporated into 
the formulas.  
iv. In 2016 the Upper Midwest order had 32.8 billion pounds of milk pooled (valued at 
$5,154 million) and an estimated 8.5 billion pounds of milk not pooled (with an  
estim ated value of $1,437 million). During January through August 2017 the Upper 
Midwest order has had 22.2 billion pounds of milk pooled (valued at 3,847 million) 
and an estimated 5.9 billion pounds of milk not pooled (with an estimated value of 
$1,023 m illion).   
In 2016 the Mideast order had 19.7 billion pounds o f milk pooled (valued at 
$3,108  million) and an estimated 1.1 billion pounds of milk not pooled (with an 
estimated value of $174 million). During January through August 2017 the Mideast 
order has  had 13.9 billion pounds of milk pooled (valued at $2,444 million) and an 
estimated 0.4 billion pounds of milk not pooled (with an estimated value of 
$74 million).   
In 2016 the Northeast order had 27.0 billion pounds o f milk pooled (valued at 
$4,388  millio n) and  no pounds of milk not pooled. During January through 
August  2017 the Northeast order has had 18.5 billion pounds of milk pooled (value at 
$3,326 million) and no pounds of milk not pooled.   
v. Pooling of Class I m ilk sold within the FMMO area by regulat ed distributing pl ants is 
required by all FMMOs. FMMOs exempt the follow ing handlers from pooling Class  I 
milk: 
 Plants operated by a governmental agency, college or university, or charitable 
institution, all which have no commercial sales;  
 Plant with sales  of less than 150,000 pounds of fluid milk per month; and  
 Producer -handlers (they operate a dairy farm(s) and distributing plant under 
their sole enterprise and risk) with fluid milk sales of less than 3,000,000 pounds 
per month.  
Pooling of all milk in Cal ifornia is required, with limited exceptions (California Food 
and Agriculture Code, Chapter 2, Part 3, Division 21 and Chapter 3, Part  3, 
Division  21).  
 Producer -distributors with distribution of less than 500 gallons per day and with 
no sales to other han dlers.  
 Large producer -distributors in California who own exempt quota are not required 
to pool the volume of Class I milk equal to the amount of exempt quota they 
own. 
vi. Dairy cooperatives, acting in their capacity as  handlers consistent with 
7 USC 608c(5)( A), are required to pool Class I milk and account to the pool at the 
minimum Class I value.  
vii. FMMOs exempt the following handlers from pooling (paying) Class I milk:  
 Plants operated by a governmental agency, college of university, or charitable 
institution, all of which have no commercial sales;  
 Plants with sales of less than 15000,000 pounds of fluid milk per month; and  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 32 - 
 
   Producer -handlers (they operate a dairy farm(s) and distributing plant under 
their sole enterprise and risk) with fluid mi lk sales of less than 
2,000,000  pounds per month.  
viii. The Dairy Forward Pricing Program allows farmers to voluntarily enter into forward 
price contracts with handlers for pooled milk used for Class II, III, or IV purposes 
under the FMMOs. The program me allows regulated handlers to pay farmers in 
accordance with the terms of a forward contract instead of paying the applicable 
FMMO uniform price for pooled milk. Handlers still account to the FMMO market wide 
pool for the classified use value of that milk.  USDA does not calculate a "usage rate " 
among dairy producers for this program me. 
ix. The reference prices were determined by Congress in the Agricultural Act of 2014.  
Follow -up: The European Union noted interest in the question.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION W ITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIF ICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.1.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/30)  
AG-IMS ID 85108: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
According to notification G/AG/N/EU/30, in 2014, 124,621 tonnes o f common wheat 
were imported to the European Union under the relevant TRQ. According to Eurostat 
data the EU imported 357,493 tonnes of common wheat from the Russia n Federation  
in 2014.  
 
a. Bearing in mind the answers provided by the European Union to previo us 
questions from the Russia n Federation (AG-IMS ID 82029), does it mean that 
Russi an wheat was imported at out -of-quota tariff rate and not under tariff rate 
quota?  
b. Could the European Union provide the possible explanations for this situation?  
Answer by the European Union  
 
The TRQ concerned is for low and medium quality common wheat and the quantity notified as 
imported within the TRQ in 2014 is correct.  
 
In 2014, the Russia n Federation  also exported to the EU high quality common wheat, for which 
there is no TRQ, but for which the current applied duty is zero.  
 
The tra de data referred to is at CN 8-digit level. The tariff line concerned at this 8-digit level 
includes high quality, medium quality and low quality common wheat.  
 
2.1.2   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/3)  
AG-IMS ID 85080: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
According to Table MA:2 in G/AG/N/KAZ/3, the fill -rate for Kazakhstan 's tariff quota 
KAZQ001 for fresh, chilled or frozen beef in 2016 was 10%. Could Kazakhstan indicate 
the reason(s) for this low fill-rate?  
 
Answer by Kazakhstan  
 
See response to AG -IMS 85040.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 33 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85040: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
KAZQ001 and KAZQ003 TRQs are largely underfilled. Could Kazakhstan explain the 
reason for the very low fill rates for its TRQs KAZQ001 and KAZQ003 respectively on 
beef and on poultry?  
 
Answer by Kazakhstan  
 
a. Prior to joining the WTO, the Republic of Kazakhstan historically imported beef at a level 
of approximately 5,000 -8,000 tonnes per year. The TRQ volume for this type of meat 
was set at 10  thousand tonnes. As a result of WTO accession negotiations, Kazakhstan 
undertook a commitment to establish TRQ for beef at a level of 21  thousand tonnes. At 
the same time it should be noted that the domestic demand is almost entirely satisfied 
by domestic producers. According to the statistics, in 2016 the total consumption of beef 
in Kazakhstan amounted to 438,426.6  tonnes, whereas local production was 
430,599.8  tonnes. Also it is worth noting that the local preference lies with fresh meat, 
while imported frozen beef is only used for further processing in the production of other 
products. Thus, a rather high volume of domestic production coupled with the local 
consumer preferences explain low level of beef imports from third countries.  
b. Regardin g poultry (HS Code 0207), Kazakhstan undertook to establish TRQ at a level of 
140 thousand tonnes, of which 128 thousand tonnes for "frozen non -fat halves or 
quarters of carcasses of domestic chickens and frozen unattached legs of chickens and 
chunks of th em (HS codes 0207 14 200 1 and 0207 14 600 1)" and 12 thousand tonnes 
for "other poultry types". As regards to the first two tariff lines a high import volumes 
were registered with TRQ fill rate of 87.1%. Historically, the preference of domestic 
consumers was with this segment and all imports of poultry fell under this category. The 
low level of imports of other poultry meat types within the tariff quota is explained by 
their sufficient production in the domestic market and consumer preferences. In 
addition , it is important to take into account recent significant depreciation of the 
national currency relative to the U.S. dollar, which affected the purchasing power of 
Kazakh consumers. In conclusion, Kazakhstan would like to underscore that Kazakhstan 
operate s TRQs appropriately, consistent with WTO Agreements and in a fair and 
transparent manner.  
2.1.3   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/39)  
AG-IMS ID 85083: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues  
From table MA:2 y ear 2014 and 2015, Malaysia notified numbers of TRQs products were 
not opened, for example, live swine, meat, milk, coffee beans, wheat, cane sugar, and 
unmanufactured tobacco.  
 
a. Please explain why the TRQ were not opened for those products?  
b. Despite notifying that TRQs were not opened for tobacco, there were  total 
imports of 31.8 million k gs for unmanufacture d tobacco and tobacco refuse 
in 2015. Please provide explanation to the situation?  
Answer by Malaysia  
 
a. TRQs for the identified products were not opened due to that fact that Malaysia's  existing 
MFN applied duty (d uring the review period) was lower than in -quota tariff, as contained 
in Malaysia 's Schedule of Commitments at the WTO.  
b. Information on TRQs that were not opened was included for transparency purposes . This 
is in support of the Secretariat 's improvements t o the on -line notifi cations 
system  (Ag IMS) that aims at standardising the way information is presented by 
Members. As such, tariff quotas that are not opened during the review period would still 
be reflected in the same order as they are included in the s chedule, at the end of each 
notification.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85082: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
a. Thailand notices that there was 0% fill rate for live poultry (Tariff 
number  010594190) in the notification for 2014,  would Malaysia provide 
reasons to this zero filled rate?  
b. Thailand notices that there was 0% fill rate for the following products under 
TRQ in the notification for 2015:  
 Meat of swine, fresh, chilled or frozen (Tariff number 020311000, 
020321000);  
 Live poultry (Tariff Number 010511900);  
 Birds ' eggs, in shell, fresh, preserved or cooked (Ducks eggs) (Tariff 
Number 040719100,  040729100,  040790200) .  
i. Please provide reasons to this zero filled rate?  
ii. Are there any initiatives to allow a higher fill -rate in t he future?  
Answer by Malaysia  
 
a. and b  
i. The in -quota quantities reflect the domestic demand for the respective products. 
Note that decision to import remains entirely a business decision. In some cases, 
despite the fact that tariff quota for the questioned pr oducts were made available to 
the private sector, the quota was not filled due to the lack of demand for imports. In 
addition, under -utilization of tariff quotas is also due to a number of market related 
factors, including the devaluation of the Malaysian Ringgit (RM) during the review 
period.  
b.  
ii. To date, Malaysia does not have specific initiatives to increase the utilization rate.  
Follow -up: As a main sugar supplier,  Brazil noted its interest in the sugar market .  
2.1.4   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/92)  
AG-IMS ID 85041: Qu estion by European Union - Transparency issues  
The three TRQs NORQ091, NORQ092 and NORQ093 on apples were presented in 
previous years as one unique quota. In the notification covering year 2016, Norway is 
presenting the three TRQs separately. Could Norway explain this change in its 
notification?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
The three TRQs on apples notified in the 2016 notification are in accordance with the Norwegian 
Schedule. The quantities have been merged in all previous notifications (i.e. as of 1995) as the 
three quotas have been covered by a single tariff item number (08.08.1011), which replaced the 
tariff item numbers the TRQs were identified with in the schedule. The TRQs have, however, been 
administered separately as seasonal quotas i n accordance with the Sc hedule.  
AG-IMS ID 85014: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States thanks Norway for its 2016 MA2 notification. There are a number of 
product commodities with low TRQ fills inclu ding pork (02032101) 0%; 
Turkey  (02072500) 0%; poultry (02071200) 31%; eggs (04072100) 32%; and white 
and red cabbage (07049040) 10%. Please provide explain the reason for the low fill 
rates in the products listed above.  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 35 - 
 
  Answer by Norway  
 
In general, the quota fill rates depend on fluc tuations in consumer demand, domestic prices and 
production, as well as imports under bilateral tariff quotas or preferential tariffs. Although imports 
under these arrangements varies due to variations in demand as well, it seems that for certain 
products,  such as poultry and pork, importers have had somewhat higher interest in the bilateral 
EU quotas than in the WTO quotas. Trade data indicates that for meat the EU quotas are 
preferable to importers as fresh/chilled meat is included, whereas the WTO quotas  are limited to  
frozen meat.  
 
 Pork (02032101):  Over a number of years the domestic market for pork has been 
characterised by surplus production and consequently lower domestic prices. This was also 
the case in 2016. In addition, 598 tonnes  of pork was imported under the bilateral EU quota, 
hereof 590 tonnes  fresh/chilled meat.  
 Turkey (02072500) : Although there has been some increase in domestic demand over the 
last decade, domestic consumption of turkey is relatively low. In addition to th e WTO quota, 
an EU quota covers imports of both fresh/chilled and frozen turkey. Nevertheless, there was 
no import of turkey to Norway in 2016.  
 Poultry (02071200):  In general, there has been limited interest among importers for 
importing poultry. Domestic  prices were still relatively low in 2016 following a sharp fall in 
domestic demand and production in 2015. In addition th e import under the bilateral 
EU quota was 629 tonnes  in 2016, hereof 408 tonnes  fresh/chilled meat.  
 Eggs (04072100):  In general, ther e has been limited interest among importers for importing 
poultry as domestic supply of salmonella -free eggs to a large extent meets the domestic 
demand. In addition import under the bilateral EU quota was 288 tonnes  in 2016.  
 White (07.04.9013/9020) and r ed cabbage (07049040) : Firstly we would like to clarify that 
the quota fill for white cabbage was at 66 % in 2016. We therefore assume that the question 
relates to red cabbage only. In addition to the WTO quota a number of free trade partners 
enjoy preferen tial tariffs for tariff line 07049040 into Norway. Whether imports will take 
place under the WTO quota or preferential tariffs depends on the commercial considerations 
made by the individual importers. In 2016 total imports of red cabbage was 366 tonnes . 
2.1.5   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/80)  
AG-IMS ID 85042: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
a. Switzerland is notifying fill rates above 100%. Could Switzerland remind the 
Membership how it calculates the quota fill rates?  
b. On a similar question raised by Ar gentina at the COA meeting of 26/09/2002 
on Switzerland's notification G/AG/N/CHE/28, Switzerland replied that it had 
extended the TRQs concerned. Could Switzerland confirm that all TRQs with a 
quota fill rate above 100% have seen their volumes extended an d on the same 
conditions as recorded in its Schedule?  
c. In the event that the fill rate above 100% is not the result of the extension of 
the volume but is resulting from an autonomously import duty lower or equal to 
the in -quota rate concerned, could Switze rland indicate which quotas would be 
concerned by such measure and which are the currently autonomously applied 
rates?  
d. Having in mind a possible future harmonisation of Members' notifications on 
quota fill rates, could Switzerland share its view on a poss ible practice which 
would be to indicate 100% whenever the Schedule commitment is met?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Answer by Switzerland  
 
a. Switzerland has separate tariff lines for in -quota and out -of-quota imports on the 
8-digit level. All imports under the in -quota -tariff rate are a ccounted for the calculation 
of the fill rate.  
b. The quota fill rates above 100% are either due to an autonomous increase of th e quota 
amounts decided by the g overnment according to Art. 21 of the Federal Law on 
Agriculture of 29 April 1998 and the General O rdinance on imports of agriculture 
products, or the respective TRQs are not administered, which means that an unlimited 
amount of imports at the in -quota rate can enter Switzerland. The following quotas are 
not administered: No  8 Casein; No  11 Egg products  other than dried; No 13 Cut flowers; 
No 22 Grapes for pressing and grape juice.  
c. The quota fill rate above 100% always depends on an autonomous overfill or the non -
administration of the respective TRQs as shown above. Autonomous duty reductions, 
applied o n a broad range of tariff lines, do not explain the overfill -rate of TRQs. The 
current levels of autonomous duty reductions are publis hed in the respective 
ordinance  (No. SR 631.012).  
d. Despite being open for discussions on future harmonisation of Members ' notifications on 
quota fill rates, Switzerland is of the view that for transparency reasons it is better to 
indicate  the exact fill rate of a TRQ.  
2.2  SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  
2.2.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/152)  
AG-IMS ID 85086: Question by Aust ralia - Transparency issues  
According to the Table MA:3 notification (G/AG/N/TPKM/152), Chinese Taipei applied 
the volume -based SSG for other chicken cuts between 9 June and 31 December 2017. 
The statistics provided by Chinese Taipei to calculate the trigg er level indicates that 
imports decreased significantly between 2014 and 2015. Notably, imports as percentage 
of consumption only amount to 0.58% over the three year reference period. Could 
Chinese Taipei please explain why under these circumstances it is necessary to apply 
the SSG? Did these imports pose a risk to national production? Could Chinese Taipei 
indicate the primary origins of imported chicken cuts?  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
Chinese Taipei  firstly confirm s that the actions of SSG for the produc ts concerned are fully in 
accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Chicken cuts are considered as one of Chinese Taipei's  most sensitive products. It was listed as 
one of the SSG  products in accordance with Chinese Taipei 's accession commitment. The imports 
of such products will cause great impact on its domestic production. Therefore, such measures 
remain necessary.  
 
Primary origin of imported chicken cuts to Chinese Taipei's market in 2016 is the United States.  
 
Follow -up: The United  States supported the question.  
 
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 85015: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
a. Australia notified product specific Amber Box support for "live ca ttle exports ", 
which was noted as assistance through concessional loans and financial advice 
grants to pastoralists and service business which were affected by the G/AG/W/170  
 
- 37 - 
 
  temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia. Please explain how 
eligibility for  this programme was determined.  
b. Australia notified product specific amber box support for "live cattle exports " 
with a comparison against the value of production for only "live cattle for 
export. " Please explain the basis for not comparing against all liv e cattle.  
Answer by Australia  
 
a. On 10 August 2011, the Australian Government made short -term assistance in the form 
of Financial Advice Grants available to primary producers directly affected by the 
temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia.  The purpose of the grants was 
to provide vouchers of up to $5,500 (GST inclusive) to primary producers directly 
involved in the live export cattle trade to Indonesia to obtain professional financial 
advice from financial advisers or accountants to help ma ke decisions on costs relating to 
their business. Applications opened on 10 August 2 011 and were available 
until 31 December 2011.  
Eligibility : to be eligible for the Financial Advice Grant, a person had to:  
 be a farmer involved in the exp ort of live cat tle to Indonesia;  
 have been granted a Live Export Business Assistance Payment (BAP) Eligibility 
for the BAP included: having a registered Australian Business Number (ABN) on 
or before 7 June 2011 having an annual bus iness turnover of less than 
$10 million per annum deriving more than 5 0% of its business turnover from the 
live cattle export trade to Indonesia in any one of  the three financial 
years  2008-09, 2009 -10 and 2010 -11 having verifiable evidence that it:  
 was involved in the live cattle export trade to Indonesia during 2010 -11 
financial year, or  
 was to be involved in the live cattle export trade to Indonesia during 2011 -12 
financial year.  
b. As the support was eligible only for those involved in the live cattle export trade to 
Indonesia during the 2011 -12 financial year, we compared the support against the value 
of production for this specific product 'live cattle for export '. If the support was 
compared against all live cattle then the support value would still be de minimis .  
2.3.2   Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/26)  
AG-IMS ID 85095: Question by Canada - General services: other  
Canada noticed that payment listed under "General Management and Coordination 
Services: Facilitates the initiation and review of agricultural policy affecting all 
programmes and projects of the Ministry " decreas ed by 90.6% going from 
BDS 54.0 million in 2014/15 to BDS 5.2 million 2015/16. Could Barbados please explain 
this significant change in expenditures?  
 
Answer by Barbados  
 
In response to the question posed by the Delegation of Canada, Barba dos would wish to inform 
that the change in of $54 M in 2014/14 to $5.2 M in 2015/16 under General Management and 
Coordination Services was due to a change in accounting practices. The finances allocated to this 
sub ending also include finances to state ow ned entities, which ha ve now been removed.  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.3.3   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  
AG-IMS ID 85096: Question by Canada - General services: training services  
Canada notes a noticeable decrease in expenditure under Training Services for "Training 
services provided by th e National Training Institute " which went from USD 14.2 million 
in 2015 to USD 9.2 million in 2016. Could Costa Rica please explain this significant 
change in support?  
 
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
The decre ase in expenditure under the so called Training Services  Programme of the National 
Training Institute  (INA) for 2016 was due to cuts in agricultural training so that resources could be 
used to address the increasing need for training of qualified human resources in technological 
areas.  
 
2.3.4   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/59)  
AG-IMS ID 85016: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Costa Rica reported the abolishment of its market price support for rice  as of 
February  2015 with the introduction of new reference p rices. In response to 
AGIMS  ID 82039, Costa Rica notes the reference price is based on rice producers ' 
average costs of production and is non -compulsory. However, Costa Rica goes on to 
state that effective prices paid to producers are scattered around the reference price. 
The United St ates would note that the annual average producer price was slightly lower 
in 2015 and 2016 compared to previous years, but remained nearly constant in both 
years. However, these prices remain more than twice as high as the border price. 
Further, it is repo rted that the reference price continues to function as a de facto 
reference price according to the OECD and others.  
  
a. Please explain why domestic prices of rice for producers remain significantly 
higher than international prices.  
b. Noting that there is als o no notified spending related to domestic food aid, 
please confirm the Government of Costa Rica does not finance, directly or 
indirectly, the lower prices paid by consumers compared to the high prices paid 
to producers for rice. Please provide additional details that would help 
Members further understand this situation.  
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
a. Costa Rica notes that the prices of commercial transactions between primary producers 
and industrial producers in the agricultural value chain for rice are the result  of private 
transactions between private stakeholders. Although these transactions are used for tax 
purposes, for obvious reasons of internal competition between industrial enterprises and 
commercial brands of rice, these prices remain, and must remain hig hly confidential. 
Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that at this stage of the agricultural value chain 
for rice, the primary producer provides the industry with dirty and humid rice, and 
conditions vary among individual transactions and among produ cers. As a result, it is not 
technically feasible to establish an average price, nor is there an international price for 
rice traded under such conditions that would help to provide any kind of comparability.  
b. Regarding the second question, Costa Rica has a 100% compliance record for its 
transparency commitments, including its notifications for 2016. It applies best practices 
in terms of notification and transparency, and accordingly, it regularly reviews and 
updates its domestic support notifications to en sure maximum precision and complia nce 
with WTO rules. Thus, Costa  Rica's domestic support notification for 2016 must be 
understood to be complete, and it does not contain any price support programmes for 
rice or any other agricultural product.  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Follow -up: To follow up on part b of its question, the United States asked Costa Rica to clarify the 
basis for the difference between the producer and consumer prices. Uruguay record ed its interest 
in this  issue given its rice export s to this market had  encountered  difficulties these years . 
2.3.5   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/54)  
AG-IMS ID 85017: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The United States appreciates Cuba 's timely notification of its domestic support 
meas ures despite not having all the data available yet. For the measure "Compensation 
from the state Budget for inputs by agricultural producers, " please explain:  
  
a. How the "Compensation from the state Budget for inputs by agricultural 
producers " programme  is implemented;  
b. How payments to producers are determined; and  
c. The eligibility requirements for producers, including how Cuba defines "low-
income or resource -poor producers. "  
Answer by Cuba 
 
Cuba undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.3.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  
AG-IMS ID 85106: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes that since India 's last notification (which covered the years 2004 -2011) 
a number of General Services measures spending has increased astron omically. 
Extension and advisory services, which was valued at US$115.47 million in 2010 -11, 
increased to US$601.51 million in 2013 -14. Marketing and promotion services which 
was valued at $33.23 million in 2010 -11, increased to US$600.93 million. Infrastr ucture 
services which was at US$324.75 million in 2010 -11, increased by more than six times 
in one year to be US$2,128.02 million in 2011 -12. Can India:  
a. provide details of the progra mmes included in these measures;  
b. provide  details for the events or circumstanc es behind this rise in spending.  
Answer by India 
 
a. Spending under "Extension and Advisory services " has increased mainly due to increased 
expenditure on various programmes like extension, information technology and 
mana gement of soil health, etc.  
b. Expenditure has increased on Marketing and Promotion Services on programmes for 
horticulture, organic farming and assistance to cooperative, etc. Further expenditure has 
increased on infrastructural services under various progra mmes such as Development 
and Strengthening of Infrastructure Facilities for Production of Quality Seeds, National 
Mission on Micro Irrigation, Macro Management of Agricultural Sector, etc.  
AG-IMS ID 85102: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (incl uding Table DS:2)  
All supporting Tables DS:4 in G/AG/N/IND/11 notify support for basic products, falling 
under De Minimis , or 10% or less of the annual Value of Production for the product in 
question as mandated by the Agreement on Agriculture Part IV, Art icle 6, 
Paragraph  4 (a) (i) and Paragraph  4 (b).  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 40 - 
 
  a. For each product notified in the Supporting Tables DS:4 for each year covered 
by the notification, could India provide the products Value of Production for the 
year in question?  
b. For the Non -product specif ic AMS notified in each year, could India provide its 
aggregate Value of Production for the year in question?  
Answer by India 
 
Value of agricultural production in India (Million US$)  
Year 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 
Total Value of Agriculture  350403  347206  354156  
Rice 35598  36438  36419  
Wheat  24637  24207  23150  
Cotton  16156  12592  13617  
Pulses  10882  11464  11122  
Coarse Cereal  9953 9569 9681 
Jute 881 773 826 
Groundnut  5112 3768 4796 
Sunflower  299 319 262 
AG-IMS ID 85089: Question by Canada - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes the addition of an "Insurance Premium Subsidy " under India 's 
non-product -specific AMS. Canada asked questions on India 's proposed crop insurance 
scheme at the Committee on Agriculture meeting in June 9, 2016 (AG -IMS ID 79051). In 
their response, India provided a web link which it claimed provided the details on the 
programme. However, Canada was unable to find the requested information.  
a. Could India please list the crops or other products covered under this new 
programme?  
b. Could India indicate if producers under this new crop insurance scheme will be 
able to choose the level of coverage? c) What are the eligibility criteria to 
receive a payment under this programme?  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a re sponse at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 85093: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Could India provide the value of production (VoP) data for each p roduct used to 
calculate the de minimis  threshold listed in Supporting Table DS: 4 f or 2011 -2012, 
2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014? Would India consider routinely including VoP data 
information in its notifications in order both to facilitate the review process of the 
Committee on Agriculture and to increase transparency?  
 
Answer by India 
See response to AG -IMS ID 85102.  
AG-IMS ID 85100: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that for the 2011 -2012 to 2013 -2014 reporting period, the following 
measures are no longer included under General Services in India 's STDS:1:  
 Crop insurance scheme previously notified under Payments fo r relief from 
natural disasters;  
 Dry land farming/rain -fed farming and Provision of loan at concessional rates 
and debt waiver previously notified under Structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids;  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 41 - 
 
   Soil conservation in catchment areas of river valley projects and Integrated 
watershed management previously reported  under Environmental programmes.  
Could India confirm whether or not these programmes have been terminated? Have they 
been replaced by other measures and if so, which ones?  
 
Answer by India  
 
Premium subsidy for crop insurance has been notified under non -product specific s upport. For 
other programmes, India  will submit information shortly.  
AG-IMS ID 85043: Ques tion by European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Value of Production – Total and per product  
 
The notification from India does not contain any figures on the Value of Production. 
Whilst not an obligation, nevertheless, the notification g uidelines (the Handbook on 
agricultural notifications) suggest that: "Irrespective of the Supporting Table used for 
justifying de minimis  claims, what is, however, always expected by Members is the 
inclusion of relevant VoP data (i.e. of relevant products for product specific de minimis  
or total agricultural production for non -product specific de minimis  claims) in the 
notification. The information can be included as a footnote or in an additional column in 
Supporting Table DS:4; there is no defined format. "  
 
a. Could India therefore provide figures for the total Value of Production for the 
agricultural sector and the Value of Production per product in 
Supporting  Table  DS:4.  
Total Production for products subject to market Price Support  
b. Could India indicate to tal annual production for the products indicated in 
Supporting Table DS:5?  
Local government support  
c. Could India indicate which part of the notified subsidy is paid from central 
government funds and what part, if any, is paid by sub -national governments?  
Input Subsidies  
d. Could India indicate separately the subsidy per year for:  
 Irrigation ; 
 Fertilisers ; 
 Electricity ; 
 Diesel/fuel subsidies . G/AG/W/170  
 
- 42 - 
 
  Answer by India  
a. Value of Production – Total and per product  
Value of agricultural production in India (Million US$)  
Year 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 
Total Value of Agriculture  350403  347206  354156  
Rice 35598  36438  36419  
Wheat  24637  24207  23150  
Cotton  16156  12592  13617  
Pulses  10882  11464  11122  
Coarse Cereal  9953 9569 9681 
Jute 881 773 826 
Groundnut  5112 3768 4796 
Sunflower  299 319 262 
b. Total Production for products subject to market Price Support  
Total Production for the products subject to MSP (in million tonne)  
 Rice Wheat  Cotton  Pulses  Coarse Cereals  Jute  Groundnut  Sunflower  
2011 -12 105.30  94.88  35.20  17.09  42.01  11.40  6.96 0.52 
2012 -13 105.23  93.51  34.22  18.34  40.04  10.93  4.70 0.54 
2013 -14 106.65  95.85  35.90  19.25  43.29  11.68  9.71 0.50 
c. Local government support  
Domestic Support Notification to agriculture includes expenditure incurred by State as well as the 
central government. For example, fertilizer subsidy is given by central government whereas 
Electricity and Irrigation  subsidy is given by the State g overnments.  
d. Input Subsidies  
Input subsidies provided each year (in million US$)  
Year Fertiliser  Electricity  Irrigation  Total  
2011 -12 15561.33  5129.09  4714.97  25405.39  
2012 -13 12976.49  6285.47  4910.57  24172.53  
2013 -14 11781.84  6543.18  4502.75  22827.78  
AG-IMS ID 85020: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2 ) 
India notifies that all product -specific and non -product specific support notified for each 
year covered by notification G/AG/N/IND/11 is de minimis .  
For each notified de minimis  exemption in this notification, please provide the 
corresponding value of total production for each commodity, as well as the total value of 
agricultural production, used to make the determination, including the relevant 
calculations.  
 
Answer by India 
 
See response to AG -IMS ID 85102.  
AG-IMS ID 85018: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States would like to thank India for its efforts to complete its domestic 
support notifications through 2013/2014.  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 43 - 
 
  Supporting Table DS:1  
 
The United States notes several changes, including the discontinuation of a number of 
measures, the addition of new measures, and substantial changes in notified values, to 
the measures notified by India between 2010/11 in G/AG/IND/10 and the subsequent 
years notified in G/AG/N/IND/11.  
 
a. Does India plan to submit a DS:2 notification to notify any new or modified 
measures reported as exempt?  
b. Please explain the reason for the notified budgetary outlays for "Extension and 
Advisory services" support increasing  significant ly, nearly fivefold, between 
MY 2010/11 and MY 2011/12.  
c.  India has notified a new measure for "Inspection services" in MY 2011/12 
without the required DS:2 notification. In light of this:  
i. Please provide an explanation of the measure is implem ented,  
ii. How the measure meets the exemption requirements of Annex 2, and  
iii. Whether a DS:2 notification will be provided.  
d. Please explain the reason for the notified budgetary outlays for "Marketing and 
Promotion services" support increasing significantly, m ore than 1,300%, 
between MY 2010/11 and MY 2011/12.  
e. Please explain the reason for the increase in notified budgetary outlays for 
"Infrastructural services" support at levels in MY 2011/12 that were more than 
six times higher than levels notified in MY 201 0/11.  
f. It is noted that a number of Green Box measures including, "dry land 
farming/rain -fed farming" , "provision of loans at concession rates and debt 
waiver" , "soil conservation in catchment areas of river valley projects," and 
"integrated watershed management" are no longer notified by India. It is the 
U.S. understanding that all of these measures may not have been terminated 
after MY 2010/11. For example, it appears that India has continued to 
implement the "integrated watershed management" programme according to 
documentation in India's Union Budget and a 2015 India Cabinet Committee on 
Economic Affairs approval of the consolidation of the program into a larg er 
programme.  
i. Please indicate if and whether any or all of these measures of have been 
replaced by other measures and if so, where these are notified in India's 
notification.  
ii. If not, please verify that all of these measures have been terminated.  
g. India n otes that for all measures notified under General Services the data is 
sourced from various boards and the Ministry of Agriculture, while India's 
previous notification only indicated the Spice Board and Ministry of Agriculture 
as the source. Please confirm  whether this change indicates any change in how 
the measures are implemented and funded.  
Answer by India  
a. India is working on bringing all its notifications up to date.  
b. Spending under "Extension and Advisory services " has increased mainly due to increase d 
expenditure on various programmes like extension, information technology and 
management of soil health, etc.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 44 - 
 
  c. This is not a new measure. Inspection services refers to the expenditure on 
Implementation of Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer 's Right Legi slation.  
d. Expenditure has increased on Marketing and Promotion Services on programmes for 
horticulture, organic farming and assistance to cooperative, etc.  
e. Further expenditure has increased on infrastructural services under various programmes 
such as Deve lopment and Strengthening of Infrastructure Facilities for Production of 
Quality Seeds, National Mission on Micro Irrigation, Macro Management of Agricultural 
Sector, etc.  
f. Answer will be submitted shortly.   
g. Data source for all the measures notified under General Services is Ministry of 
Agriculture and various boards. There is no change in how the measures are 
implemented and funded.  
AG-IMS ID 85103: Question by Canada - General services: inspection services  
Canada notices the new addition of Inspection services under "General Services ". As 
India has not reported any amounts under Inspection services in its STDS:1 since the 
2003 -04 reporting period, could India please provide details on the programmes notified  
under this item? Could India advise when they intend to submit a DS: 2 notification for 
these programmes to show how they meet the policy specific criteria of paragraph 2 e) 
of Annex 2?  
 
Answer by India 
 
This is not a new measure. Inspection services refe rs to the expenditure on Implementation of 
Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer 's Right Legislation.  
AG-IMS ID 85101: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
Canada notes a significant increase in support under Infrastructural services notified in 
India's STDS:1 which averaged USD 1,854 million in the 2011 -2012 to 2013 -2014 period 
compared to a total of USD 324.75 million in 2010 -11. Could India please provide details 
on this significant increase in support for Infrastructural s ervices? Is this the result of a 
new initiative?  
 
Answer by India 
 
Expenditure has increased on infrastructural services under various programmes such as 
Development and Strengthening of Infrastructure Facilities for Production of Quality Seeds, 
National M ission on Micro Irrigation, Macro Managemen t of Agricultural Sector, etc.  
AG-IMS ID 85097: Question by Australia - Public stockhol ding for food security purposes  
Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/11 notifies over US$14 billion per annum in 
public stockh olding for food security purposes support as "Green Box " measures exempt 
from reduction commitments.  
  
a. The Agreement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 states, "The volume and 
accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to pre -determined targets related solely to 
food security ". For each of the years and commodities covered by the notification, could 
India provide:  
i. The pre -determined targets and when these were established;  
ii. An explanation of how these targets were established in compliance with the 
requirement of a sole focus on food security.  
b. The Agreement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 further states, "Food purchases by 
government shall be made at current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be 
made at no less than the current domestic  market price for the product and quality in G/AG/W/170  
 
- 45 - 
 
  question ". For each of the years and commodities covered by the notification, could India 
provide:  
i. The price at which the commodity was purchased;  
ii. The market price for each commodity at the time of purchase;  
iii. The price at which sales from food security stocks were made;  
iv. The domestic market price for the commodities sold from food security stocks at the 
time of their sale?  
Answer by India  
 
Before the onset  of each marketing season, the Government of India cons ults agencies concerned 
to make an assessment of availability of foodgrains, for procurement at MSP based on the various 
factors. The farmers in India are primarily low -income resource poor subsistence farmers. They 
keep a portion of their produce for self -consumption, seed for the next crop year and local market 
sale. Only a portion of marketable surplus offered by the farmers conforming to prescribed 
specifications is procured under MSP operations.  
 
Some of the information can be accessed at http://dfpd.nic.in/ . 
AG-IMS ID 85105: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
The criteria in paragraph 3, Annex 2, Public stockholding for food security purposes 
states that the "…volume and accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to pre -
determined targets and relate solely to food security. " Could India please provide the 
specific pre -determined target volumes for the crop(s) acquired for public stockholding 
for each of the reporting years (i.e. 2011 -2012, 2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014)?  
 
Answer by India  
 
Before the onset  of each marketing season, the Government of India consults agencies concerned 
to make an assessment of availability of food grains, for procurement at MSP based on the various 
factors. Th e farmers in India are primarily low -income resource poor subsistence farmers. They 
keep a portion of their produce for self -consumption, seed for the next crop year and local market 
sale. Only a portion of marketable surplus offered by the farmers conform ing to prescribed 
specifications is procured under MSP operations. The eligible production is therefore, the quantity 
which is actually procured.  
AG-IMS ID 85087: Question by Thailand - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
From Supporting table D S:1 Year 2011 -1014, please provide more details on Public 
Stockholding for food Security purposes, for instance, condition and products covered 
under the programme.  
 
Answer by India  
 
More details can be accessed at : 
 http://fci.gov.in/  (Food Corporation of India) ; 
 http://dfpd.nic.in/  (Department of Food and Public Distribution) . 
AG-IMS ID 85098: Question by Canada - Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatment / 
Development Programmes)  
Several measures previously notified under Supporting Table DS:2, (Special and 
Differential Treatment) are no longer included in India 's most recent DS:1 notification. 
They are as follows:  
  
 Previously notified under Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture: Government programmes on livestock and poultry 
improvement/breeding  Loans under tea development under Investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 46 - 
 
   Previously no tified under Agricultural input subsidies to low income or resource 
poor producers: Small farmers development assistance  Grant -in-aid given for 
production of planning material of cardamom (both small and larg e) 
Programme for replanting of senile and unecon omic cardamom gardens/tea 
gardens Grant -in-aid given for post -harvest development of spices. For each of 
these items, could India please indicate the status of these programmes? Have 
they been terminated or replaced by another measure?  
 
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 85099: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Supporting Table DS:2 of G/AG/N/IND/11 notifies between US$25 and US$22 billion 
per annum in  Agricultural input subsidies to low income or resource poor producers as 
Special and Differential Treatment "Development Programmes. " The Agreement on 
Agricult ure Part IV Article 6 Paragraph  2 states, "… input subsidies generally available 
to low -income o r resource -poor producer in developing country Members shall be 
exempt from domestic support reduction commitments… "  
  
According to the 2005/06 Indian Agricultural Census, there are over one million large 
(10+  hectares) holdings in India, over 5.3 million  medium holdings (4+ he ctares to 
10 hectares) and over 11.2 million semi -medium holdings. 58.68% of land sown in India 
is owned by holdings of Semi -Medium size and above.  
 
a. Can India indicate whether their input subsidy programme benefits these 
holdings?  
i. If so, can India indicate whether it considers the producers working these 
holdings to be low -income or resource -poor producers?  
ii. If not, can India indicate how the programs are structured to avoid their 
benefits flowing to these holdings?  
b. Can India indic ate why they have used the quantum of farm holdings held by 
low-income and resource poor farmers, rather than the amount of land held by 
such farmers as their explanatory note in Supporting Table DS:2?  
Answer by India 
 
As per agricultural census 2010 -11, 99.29 % Indian farmers h ave landholding of less than 
10 hectare. India's  agricultural input subsidies are consistent with Article 6.2 of the AoA.  
AG-IMS ID 85094: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
The n otified amounts of support for input subsidies under Supporting Table DS: 2 which 
includes irrigation, fertilizers and electricity, appear to be progressively decreasing. 
However, if the amounts shown in U.S. dollars were converted to India rupees using th e 
exchange rates noted at the bottom of Supporting Table DS:1, there is a steady increase 
in the amount of input subsidies.  
  
Could India provide a breakdown of the amounts for irrigation, fertilizers and electricity 
that are captured under the heading "other input subsidies "?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 
Input subsidies provided each year (in million US$)  
Year Fertiliser  Electricity  Irrigation  Total  
2011 -12 15561.33  5129.09  4714.97  25405.39  
2012 -13 12976.49  6285.47  4910.57  24172.53  
2013 -14 11781.84  6543.18  4502.75  22827.78  
AG-IMS ID 85019: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
a. India 's notification now notes that 99.15% of farmers are low -income or 
resource poor. In response to AG -IMS ID 75021, India stated there is a trend 
that the average size of farms, by landholding, decrease in each subsequent 
Census, and that 99% of farms have in adequate resources to generate enough 
income to maintain a minimum standard of living. Concurrently, India has 
increased agricultural production in India, exports, and marketed surplus of 
major commodities. India is now one of the world 's largest agricultu ral 
producers and exporters of a number of major and minor commodities.  
i. Please provide additional information beyon d that provided in previous 
CoA responses, including relevant statistics, to help Members understand 
this dichotomy.  
ii. Please include any ava ilable statistical information with regards to the size 
and ownership structure of the farms that contribute to the sizeable 
marketed surplus.  
b. Please explain what mechanisms exist in India 's domestic support measures to 
ensure that the programmes benefit low-income or resource poor farmers only. 
Given the sizeable market surplus of commodities in India, does India have any 
statistical information or other relevant information it can share with Members 
to better understand the level of input subsidies provi ded to producers by size 
of operation and income level?  
 
Answer by India 
 
As per agricultural census 2010 -11, 99.29 % Indian farmers h ave landholding of less than 
10 hectare. India's  agricultural input subsidies are consistent with Article 6.2 of the AoA.  
AG-IMS ID 85107: Question by Australia - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
As Australia has previously noted ( AG-IMS ID  75017), Article 1(h)(ii) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture provides that the level of support actually provided should be "calculated 
in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, including Article 6, and with the 
constituent data and methodology used in the tables of supporting material incorporated 
by reference in Part IV of the Member 's Schedule". India's constituen t data and 
methodology used in the tables of supporting material in corporated by reference in 
Part IV of the Member's Schedule is India's AGST (G/AG/AGST/IND). India's AGST sets 
out all domestic support measures, including AMS, minimum support prices, exte rnal 
reference prices and total market price support, in Indian rupees (INR). India's 
notification (G/AG/N/IND/10) is in US dollars (USD) rather than Indian rupees (INR). 
The choice of currency can lead to marked differences in some indicators. Can India 
explain why it has used USD instead of INR in G/AG/N/IND/11?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The exchange rate between Indian Rupee and U.S. Dollar is determined by market forces. In order 
to provide comparable estimates, India has been notifying its domestic support in  U.S. dollars 
since 1995 -1996. India has followed a consistent approach in currency used while notifying its 
domestic support notifications.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 48 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85092: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Canada notes that market price support (MPS) is newly av ailable  for sunflower starting 
in 2012 -2013. It is unclear how India 's reference price for this product is derived since 
it is not calculated in India 's base data under G/AG/AGST/IND.  
  
a. Could India indicate what reference period was used to calculate the r eference 
price for sunflower?  
b. What data was used to calculate the reference price for sunflower? Is this 
information publically available?  
Answer by India 
 
India has used external reference price ($513.39/ton) for oilseeds (rapeseeds and mustard) to 
calculate the product specific support for sunflower.  
AG-IMS ID 85088: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
From Supporting table DS:5 Year 2011 -2012, ple ase explain how to arrive with co -
efficient of 1.5 and 2.35.  
 
Answer by India 
 
India announces Minimum Support Price (MSP) for paddy and raw cotton while the external 
reference price is for rice and cotton lint. This conversion is  done using standard co -efficient and 
methodology adopt ed by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.  
AG-IMS ID 85021: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  
a. In G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies market price supports for several 
commo dities; however, the list of commodities for each year differs. Further, 
certain commodities have been aggregated into larger categories compared to 
previous notifications and India 's AGST.  
i. Please explain the basis for aggregating these commodities despit e 
separate applied administered prices being announced.  
ii. For each year covered by this notification, please provide a list of all 
announced minimum support prices (e.g., applied administered prices) for 
each commodity announced, whether procurement occurred or not.  
b. The United States notes that India used the sa me methodology to calculate 
market price support as in its previous notifications, including the use of 
procurement as eligible production. As noted i n previous questions 
(AG-IMS ID 75062) to India in this Committee, this differs from India 's AGST 
where to tal production of a given commodity was used as eligible production. 
In response to AG -IMS ID 65061, India explains its reason for why it considers 
procurement to be the appropriate measure of eligible production, but did not 
confirm that India doesn 't pla ce any preset limit on the amount of production 
that may be procured from farmers. While India notes in response to AG -IMS 
ID 75062 that India procures marketable surplus and, it did not clarify any pre -
established limit.  
i. Please confirm that India doesn 't place any preset limit on the amount of 
production that may be procured from farmers.  
ii. Please clarify the basis for changing the notification methodology related to 
eligible production between India 's AGST and subsequent notifications, 
including any speci fic changes to Indian policy that contributed to this 
change.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 85029: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 8407 1. "In response to AG -IMS ID 83009, India 
states that 'the Government does not procure in all states, and hence entire production 
is not covered. ' Please provide the details of the specific legislation, regulations or other 
measures that limit the eligibil ity of procurement of eligible product from all states. "  
 
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 85104: Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
All supporting Tables DS:5  and DS:7 in G/AG/N/IND/11 notify Market Price Support 
programmes for a range of products.  
  
a. Could India indicate the methodology used to arrive at the Eligible Production 
value for each product covered?  
b. The Cotton Corporation of India indicates on its w ebsite that India is the 
largest producer of cotton in the world, producing 5.88 million MT in 2016 -17. 
Can India therefore explain why the Eligible Production for cotton in 2011 -12 
was only 1,000 tonnes?  
Answer by India  
 
Only a portion of marketable surp lus offered by the farmers and meeting prescribed specifications 
is procured under MSP operations. The eligible production is, therefore, the quantity which is 
actually procured at administered price.  
AG-IMS ID 85090: Question by Canada - Market price sup port: Eligible production  
Canada notes that India reported market price support for puls es for years 2012 -2013 
and 2013 -2014 where the eligible production was 1 00,000 metric tonnes and 
50,000  metric tonnes, respectively. These volumes a re a fraction of th e average 
18 million metric tonnes produced for these years. Could India elaborate on how it 
determines the volume of pulses eligible to receive the support price?  
 
Answer by India 
 
Only a portion of marketable surplus offered by the farmers and meeting prescribed specifications 
is procured under MSP operations. The eligible production is, therefore, the quantity which is 
actually procured at administered price.  
AG-IMS ID 85091: Ques tion by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
The eligible production for sunflower is very low in both 201 2-2013 at 1,000 tonnes and 
2013 -2014 at 4,000 tonnes. Could India please explain how eligible production is 
calculated for sunflower?  
 
Answer by India  
 
See response to AG -IMS 85090 .  
AG-IMS ID 85022: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
The United States notes that in G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies a new non -product 
specific measure: "insurance premium subsidy. "  
  
a. Please provide an overview of how this measure is implemented.  
b. Please explain how the budgetary outlays are calculated.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Australia , Brazil, Canada and the European Un ion requested that India submit a 
revision  or corrigendum  of its domestic support notification to include value of production data . 
Concerning question AG -IMS ID 85 097, Australia requested further information on how India 
implemented the targets and how India undertook the procurement to ensure that it did not lead 
to excess stock given there was no limit on the maximum amount of stock that could be procured . 
Australia stated that, according to  recent media reports, India's buf fer stock for rice and wheat  
were 50% above what was  require d for the food security programme. Brazil, Canada and the 
European Union echoed the concern and requested additional information  on pre -determi ned 
targets . Concerning input subsidies,  Australia asked India to provide the cri teria India used to 
ensure that they were in compliance with Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In 
Australia's view, the statement that around 99% of Indian farmers had landholding of less than 
10 hectare could not justify the compliance because some farmers may not meet the definition of 
low-income or resource -poor producers. The European Union asked India to be more specific 
concerning whether farmers owning more than 10 hectares of land could receive this subsidy. 
Ukraine indicated interest in questions relating to Article 6.2 subsidies. Australia and the European 
Union noted its continued concern about India reporting domestic support in US dollars despite the 
use of Indian rupees for all domestic support measures  in its AGST tables. Taken into  account  
Members ' great interest in India's domestic support policies and notifications, the United States 
encourage d India to make  a presentation on this subject  in future Committee meetings.   
2.3.7   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/60, G/AG/N/ISR/61)  
AG-IMS ID 85084: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Ukraine understands Israel's food security concern to ensure certain domestic 
production for at least certain products. The level of Israel 's support in terms of VoP for 
eggs, however, is ver y high, at 60%. Furthermore, Israel essentially exhausts its AMS 
through this policy of supporting domestic egg and milk production. Сould Israel 
elaborate on prospective policy for the egg sector?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
A regulatory reform in the egg sector is now under negotiation between the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Rural Development, Ministry of Finance and Israel's Farmers' Federation and Poultry Board.  
AG-IMS ID 85085: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment le vel 
Concerning G/AG/N/ISR/60, Canada recognizes Israel's efforts in bringing its domestic 
support back into compliance with its WTO domestic support commitment after 
exceeding its Total AMS commitment for 2011 to 2014  (G/AG/N/ISL/55). At the 
7 June  2016 Co mmittee on Agriculture meeting, Canada questioned Israel on the breach 
of their Total AMS commitment for 2011 to 2014 and requested details on their proposed 
alternate model to provide support to the agricultural sector (AG -IMS ID 80087). Israel 
responded that it was not in a position to provide additional details on its proposed 
alternate model but was hoping to have concrete results in the next fiscal year.  
 
a. Could Israel provide a status update on the development of this alternate 
model and provide an ov erview of its operation?  
b. What are the proposed time frames to implement these new support measures?  
Answer by Israel  
 
a. In March 2016, agreements on import liberalisation were reached concerning mainly  the 
beef, olive oil and frozen vegetable sectors. As a  compensation for the opening of the 
above -mentioned quotas, direct financial support was granted to the farmers.  
b. These new support measures were already implemented as a pilot program me. A 
proposed reform in the dairy sector is being negotiated between t he Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Finance and Israel's Farmers' Federation G/AG/W/170  
 
- 51 - 
 
  and Dairy Board to find a new, more modern, overall quota regime for this sector before 
March 2019. It is our aspiration that this new pricing mechanism will liberalise the dairy 
sector and keep Israel's AMS below its commitments. To this end, Israel will host an 
ENPARD seminar in 2018, to learn from the EU experience in the liberalisation of the 
dairy sector.  
AG-IMS ID 85023: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
Concerning G/AG/N/ISR/60,  
 
a. In G/AG/N/ISR/55, Israel notified that it exceeded its Final Bound Total AMS 
for each year covered. For 2015 and 2016, Israel notified lower but still 
relatively high levels compared to Israel 's commitment levels. Israel noted in 
G/AG/N/ISR/55, which was submitted in April 2016, that Israel has an 
ongoing reform of its domestic support and market access measures for dairy 
products and eggs, which would reduce Israel's Total AMS and promote more  
Green Box type measures.  
i. What accounted for the decrease in notified support in 2015 and 2016?  
ii. Please provide an update on the aforementioned reform process, including 
the 2016 pilot programme  noted in AG -IMS ID 80103 and 80064, and how 
this is accounted for in G/AG/N/ISR/60 for 2016.  
iii. If Israel has not yet begun implementing these reforms to reduce support 
levels, please explain what intermediary measures Israel will take to ensure 
it does not  exceed its WTO commitments again.  
b. Noting Israel's response to AG -IMS ID 80103, it remains unclear as to the 
justification used by Israel to make an adjustment to the applied administered 
price actually received by producers. While Israel notes paragraph 9 of Annex  3 
to the Agreement, this paragraph refers to how a Member would have made the 
necessary adjustments to the fixed reference price. Please provide further 
clarification to Israel's thinking with this regard.  
c. It is noted that Israel has made adjus tments to its applied administered price 
for milk, as explained in G/AG/N/ISR/55 which notes the quality differences 
between the two stated time periods. It is noted that Israel provided in 
response to AG -IMS ID 80103 the unadjusted rates for 2011 -2014, wi th 
additional clarity provided in AG -IMS ID 80064 as to the change in quality 
improvement.  
i. Please provide the adjustment factor used to report the modified applied 
administered price in 2015 and 2016.  
ii. Please further elaborate on how the exact price adjus tment factors were 
determined.  
iii. What is the reason Israel did not provide this adjustment factor in its 
notification?  
d. Israel has notified for a number of years the measure "Dairy farm reform."  
i. Please provide additional details with regard to what is included in this 
measure and how it is implemented.  
ii. Please explain whether there is any correlation in the support notified under 
this measure and the 2016 pilot programmes for dairy noted previousl y by 
Israel.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Answer by Israel  
a.  
i. The decrease in notified support in 2015 and 2016 was due to the decrease in AMS 
for the egg and dairy sectors. It is attributed both to increased efficiency in these 
two sectors and to a decrease in feed prices. Both factors  helped reduce the applied 
administered prices of eggs and milk.  
ii. In March 2016, agreements on import liberalisation were reached concerning mainly 
the beef, olive oil and frozen vegetable sectors . As a compensation for the opening of 
the above -mentioned q uotas, direct financial support was granted to the farmers, 
some of it is accounted for in document G/AG/N/ISR/60 supporting table DS6 and 
some will be accounted for in the 2017/18 fiscal year reports.  
iii. The ongoing reform that affected the increased effici ency in the dairy sector is now 
ending, prompting the need to find a new, more modern, overall quota regime for 
this sec tor before March 2019. It is Israel's  aspiration that this new pricing 
mechanism will liberalize the dairy sector and keep Israel's AMS below its 
commitments. To this end, Israel will host an ENPARD seminar in 2018, to learn from 
the EU experience in the liberalization of the dairy sector.  
b. Israel's applied administered price for milk is based on the current normative milk 
quality. This is  measured by the protein and fat contents of the raw milk. This makes it a 
different product than the raw milk originally compared to the reference price, which is 
the average milk prices in New Zealand in 1986 -88. This quality difference is embodied 
in the administered price and therefore should be set off in the market price support 
calculation.  
c.  
i. The adjustment factors for 2015 and 2016 are the same as the adjustment factors 
for 2013 and 2014, as the quality hasn't changed cons iderably: Normative fat 
content - 3.72% ; Normative protein content - 3.32% However, the coefficients for 
protein and fat were adjusted to reflect the international demand for each 
constituent.  
ii. In consultation with the Milk Board, the quality improvement was calculated using 
the fol lowing coefficients, protein: 54%, fat: 36%, and water: 10.0%. The following 
table details the changes in quality relative to the base period (average 1986 -88).  
Year Protein  Fat Quality improved  
avg. 86 -88 2.98%  3.18%   
2015 3.32%  3.72%  12.23%  
2016 3.32%  3.72%  12.23%  
iii. Providing the adjustment factor was not required, however Israel thanks the United 
States for this question and will provide the detailed calculation in all its future 
reports.  
d.  
i. The dairy farm reform focused on environmental aspects as well as the 
encouragement increasing farm sizes coupled with the retirement of inefficient 
farmers. As a result, the number of dairy farms decreased from 991 farms in 2008 to 
774 farms in 2016, para llel to an increase in average production per farm from 1.29 
to 1.87 million liters in the same period, resulting in reduced administered minimum 
price. Over the last two years, there has been a liberalization in the import regime of 
dairy products, focusi ng on new voluntary TRQs.  
ii. As explained above, the pilot program mes were in other sectors.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 53 - 
 
  Follow -up: Canada looked forward to an update from Israel regarding the outcome of domestic 
consultations. The European Union and Ukraine noted interest in learning  about  Israel's future 
policy developments. The United States looked forward to Israel being transparent regarding use 
of applied administered price s. 
  
2.3.8   Jamaica (G/AG/N/JAM/16)  
AG-IMS ID 85024: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States understands that Jamaica 's Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has a 
primary policy document for the sugar industry entitled "Jamaica Country Strategy for 
the Adaptation of the Sugar Industry 2006 -2020. " Please ex plain if and how any 
measures stemming from this policy document are notified in this notification.  
 
Answer by Jamaica  
 
A country strategy for the a daptation of the sugar industry,  adopted i n Jamaica, was funded by the 
EU. T he objectives of the strategy are the following:  
a. To develop and maintain a sustainable private sector led Sugar Cane Industry;  
b. To strengthen the economic diversification, social resilience and environmental 
sustainability of sugar dependent areas; and  
c. To support progress t oward macro -economic goals.  
The vast majority of the funds were used for developing the social infrastructure of Jamaica 's 
sugar dependent areas, which  are, building schools, health centres, and providing housing for 
sugar workers who were displaced due to  changes to the EU Sugar Regime, which impacted 
Jamaica 's Sugar Industry.  
 
The amount allocated to maintain a sustainable private sector -led sugar cane industry was through 
loans to interested cane farmers and did not fall within the requirements for notif ication in the 
context of document No. G/AG/N/JAM/16.  
 
2.3.9   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/191, G/AG/N/JPN/219)  
AG-IMS ID 85081: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Japan's notification for 2012 (G/AG/N/JPN/191), the amount for total value of 
production (VoP) used to determine the de minimis  threshold in Supporting Table DS:9 
is listed as "provisional data ". Could Japan indicate when they will provide the actual 
amount for total VOP?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
In the confirmed report, the actual amount  for total VOP for 2012 is 8,718.3 billion yen.  
AG-IMS ID 85025: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Between Japan 's last domestic support notification (G/AG/N/JPN/191) and 
G/AG/N/JPN/219, "extension and adviso ry services, research programmes, and 
infrastructural services for technological improvement of agriculture " budgetary outlays 
are reported as increasing threefold. Please explain the cause for this increase in 
outlays.  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
The main cause fo r the increase is that Japan promoted setting up joint -use facilities for collection, 
distribution, storage and processing of agricultural products as a part of economic stimulus 
measures.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 54 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85078: Question by Canada - Payments based on 8 5% or less  of the base 
level of production  
In 2014 (G/AG/N/JPN/219), amounts for Japan's Direct Payments for Rice reported in 
Supporting Table DS:3 decreased by 52% going from $155.9 billion yen to $74.7 billion 
yen. Could Japan please explain the reason for this si gnificant reduction in its blue box 
support?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
The main reason for the reduction is that unit of payment for the direct payments for rice was cut 
by half in 2014.  
AG-IMS ID 85077: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Concerning G/AG/N/JPN/219, Canada notes that amounts reported for beef and veal 
and meat of swine under Deficiency payments in Supporting Table DS:6 are exactly the 
same in the 2013 and 2014 reporting years. This is also the case for Payments related to 
volume or production reported for beef and veal – they a re exactly the same in 2013 
and 2014. Could Japan confirm that the amounts for the items described above are 
correct?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
These amounts are correct. These figures are based on the initial budget in Japan 's fiscal years 
2013 and 2014. The budget for FY 2014 was the same as that for FY 2013.  
 
2.3.10   Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19, G/AG/N/JOR/20)  
AG-IMS ID 85026: Question by New Zealand - Excessive rates of inflation  
Following  its questions at the 83rd Committee on Agriculture where New Zealand asked 
Jordan to submit amended DS:1 notifications with data that has not been ad justed for 
inflation (AG -IMS ID 83059), Jordan responded with "in due course, Jordan will provide 
unadjusted number for the notifica tion years 2013 and 2014 ". New Zealand also 
reiterates its request that Jordan submits future notifications with data that has not 
been adjusted for inflation; and submit supporting documentation, which can include 
domestic support data that has been adjus ted for inflation, as well as other information 
pertaining to the nature and magnitude of inflation and demonstrating its impacts on 
the ability of the Member in question to abide by its domestic support commitments.  
 
Can Jordan please provide an update o n when it will submit its domestic support 
notifications without inflationary adjustments for years 2013 and 2014?  
 
Answer by Jordan  
 
Jordan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.3.11   Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8, G/AG/N/MLI/8/REV.1)  
AG-IMS ID 85001: Quest ion by European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Mali notifies that in 2016 it granted subsidies for agricultural inputs in compliance with 
the criteria set out in Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to the latest 
versi on of the Director General's Evolving Table on Cotton Development Assistance 
(WT/CFMC/6/Rev.22) Mali has been indicated as a beneficiary country of several 
programmes/projects/activities targeting the cotton sector. For example several 
programmes have been  implemented in Mali with the aim of improvement of 
productivity and sustainability of cotton areas, fostering agricultural productivity in Mali 
etc. Are these programmes covered by the notification by Mali for 2016?  
 
Answer by Mali 
 
Mali undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 55 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85027: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States again appreciates efforts by Mali to update and revise its notifications. 
The Unite d States resubmits AG -IMS ID 83091, which was repeated in AG IMS ID 84096. 
This takes note of the revised notification G/AG/N/MLI/8/Rev.1, which does include 
one measure listed under input subsidies for low -income or resource -poor producers.  
 
The United S tates would like to note the positive steps taken by Mali over the past few 
years to bring its domestic support notifications up to date, and Mali 's continued efforts 
to notify this Committee of its measures on a regular basis. This step toward increased 
transparency is to be commended. The United States notes that Mali had a number of 
domestic support measures from 2004 to 2012 (see notification G/AG/N/MLI/2), some 
of which included seeds, fertilizer, rural equipment; however, in subsequent years, 2014 
and 2015 in G/AG/N/MLI/7 and 2016 in G/AG/N/MLI/8, Mali did not notify any 
domestic support measures. The United States understands that, in 2015, a number of 
measures were approved by Mali 's Council of Ministers. One example is the Ministry of 
Rural Developm ent's Irrigation Development programme in the Bani Basin and Selingue, 
with an objective of building hydro -agricultural infrastructure to allow for the 
development of land for agricultural production of crops including rice.  
  
a. Have any of these measures r elated to agriculture been implemented since 
being approved by the Council of Ministers?  
b. If so, in what year(s) did implementation of these measures begin?  
c. To gain a better understanding of Mali 's agricultural situation, please explain 
the reason for not  notifying any domestic support measures since 2012.  
Answer by Mali 
 
Mali undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 85028: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In G/AG /N/MLI/8/Rev.1, Mali notified a single measure, input subsidies for low -income 
or resource -poor producers under Article 6.2 for the year 2016. This appears to be a new 
measure that was not notified in previous years.  
 
a. Will Mali be submitting a DS:2  notification for this new exempt measure?  
b. Please describe how the measure is implemented and what inputs are covered.  
c. Please explain how Mali targets low -income or resource -poor producers under 
the measure and how the term is defined for purposes of the  measure.  
Answer by Mali 
 
Mali undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.3.12   Senegal (G/AG/N/SEN/6)  
AG-IMS ID 85076: Question by Canada - Other  
Senegal states that between 2013 and 2015 it engaged in "Green Box" public spending 
under the type of measure "Other". This measure is described as "Special programmes". 
Could Senegal expand on the description and content of the programmes included under 
the measure type  "Other"?  
 
Answer by Senegal  
 
Senegal undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 56 - 
 
  2.3.13   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/15 , G/AG/N/TUR/16 ) 
AG-IMS ID 85062: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey's notifications G/AG/N/TUR/15 and G/AG/N/TUR/16 cover domestic support 
commitments for the calendar years 2002 to 2004.  
  
a. Australia welcomes Turkey's submission of these notifications but note that 
many still remain outstanding. Could Turkey provide an update on when it 
expects to submit its outstanding mandatory notifications?  
b. Australia thanks Turkey for its transparency in h ighlighting where support for 
soybeans in 2003 and 2004, and rapeseed in 2004, breached Turkey's domestic 
support commitments. Could Turkey share what steps it took to prevent such 
breaches occurring in subsequent years?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Turkey is very w ell aware of the situation regarding the overdue notification and would 
like to thank to  the M embers for their support and cooperation. The process of gathering 
data, legislation and related work is still going on.  
b. Turkey has recently implemented various p rogrammes within the MFAL to raise 
awareness regarding WTO issues and obligations. As a result  of these  actions, especially 
in the field of SPS agreement, various  developments took place. The process of 
evaluation regarding the compliance of domestic suppo rts on those products with WTO 
rules for the subsequent years is still ongoing.  
AG-IMS ID 85074: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey has notified, for the first time, a number of programmes in the green box. 
However, onl y three programmes have been notified in a Table DS:2 notification. Could 
Turkey indicate when they expect to submit a Table DS:2 notification for the remaining 
green box programmes?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey will notify the remaining Green B ox programmes within a reasonable time frame.  
AG-IMS ID 85044: Question by European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union  appreciates that it has finally received  Turkey's DS:1 notifications 
for the years 2002 to 2004. As e xpressed in previous meetings in  EU views this is far too 
late.  
 
a. When will Turkey forward the remaining missing notifications?  
The notification  shows that Turkey has supported sunflower and rapeseed 
sectors above the permitted de minimis  level in 2003 and  2004 for sunflower 
and 2004 for rapeseed.  
b. Which measures has Turkey taken to ensure that it respects its WTO Domestic 
Support for the following years, and when were these measures introduced.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Turkey is very well aware of the situation regarding the overdue notification and would 
like to thank to the M embers for their support and cooperation in this respect. The 
process of gathering data, reviewing and related work is still going on.  
b. Turkey has implemented various programmes to raise awareness regarding WTO issues 
among MFAL. As a result of these actions , especially in the field of SPS agreement, lots 
of developments took place. The process of compliance with WTO rules is accelerating.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 57 - 
 
  Regarding the question, Turkey has not breached de minimis  rate for the sunflower. For 
rapeseed, Turkey would like to state its importer position with high amounts and 
therefore the level of domestic support has no trade distorting effect.  
AG-IMS ID 85030: Question by United States of America - Transparency  issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States thanks Turkey for its efforts to complete its DS notifications and 
would like to respectfully submit the following questions.  
  
Table DS:1  
  
a. It is noted that for 2003 and 2004, Turkey notified that it excee ded its WTO 
commitment levels for two products. What steps is Turkey taking to remain 
within its commitment levels going forward?  
Supporting Table DS:1  
b. From 2002 through 2004, direct payments to producers, which account for the 
vast majority of notified green box support, increased by 44%.  
i. Please explain the basis for this increased level of support.  
ii. For subsequent years to this notification, please indicate whether support 
continued to increase and at what rate.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Refer to the response  to AG -IMS ID 85062 and 85044.  
b. The increase of direct payments is due to the increase of the farmers that has been 
accounted in the database. For the subsequent years, the data gathering process and 
analyses is still going on. However, this programme has b een abolished as of 2008.  
AG-IMS ID 85063: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Can Turkey please provide information on the 'Direct income payments ' programme 
reported in supporting table DS:1 of its notification G/AG/N/TUR/15 and how it meets 
the criteria of paragraph 5 in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey would like to state that the direct income payments are paid for the farmers regardless of 
their level of production and product variety. Please also note that this programme has been 
abolished by 2008.  
AG-IMS ID 85065: Question by Thailand - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
From Supporting table DS:1 Year  2002 -2004, Turkey notified "direct payments to 
producers " as green box. Please clarify the qualification and condition for farmers under 
the programme.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The only condition to receive the payment is to confirm the agricultural activity b y supporting 
documents to the officials.  
AG-IMS ID 85073: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
Payments for relief from natural disasters increased significantly in 2004 going from 
USD 334,880 in 2003 to USD 35, 521,746 in 2004. Could Turkey provide additional 
information to explain this significant increase?  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
In 2004, there was massive rainfall, wind, flood, hail and frost all over the country which resulted 
in huge production loss in terms of a gricultural production regarding lots of agricultural products 
like, cotton, wheat, hazelnuts, apricots, apple, grapes and onions, etc. These payments were to 
compensate the losses of farmers due to these natural dis asters in 2004. Any interested M ember 
may refer to the following report of the Turkish Association of Agriculture Chambers for the impact 
of natural disasters on Turkish  agriculture production in 2004:  https://www.tzob.org.tr/zirai -
iktisadi -raporlar . 
AG-IMS ID 85070: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
In 2002 and 2003 there is a programme entitled "Tea compensatory payments " listed 
under Structural adjustment assist ance provided through investment aids. This 
programme is no longer listed in 2004. Could Turkey please confirm if this programme 
has been terminated?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
This programme finished in 2003. Then the new legislation was published in 2004, it came into 
force in 2005 and it is still in force.  
AG-IMS ID 85072: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Canada notices that paymen ts for Environmenta l programmes increased from 
USD 1,439,986 in 2003 to USD 6,816,232 USD in 2004. Could Turkey please provide 
details on the projects or activities that benefited from this support?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey undertook to provide a response  at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 85075: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada appreciates Turkey 's transparency and the additional information provided in 
the title page of its latest Table DS:1 notification. However, Canada is concerned that  
Turkey reports a Current Total AMS in excess of its scheduled domestic support 
commitment in 2003 and 2004.  
  
a. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that Turkey stays within its domestic 
support limits in subsequent years?  
b. Does Turkey expect to be over its AMS commitment levels after the 2004 year?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Please refer to the responses provided for the questions AG -IMS ID 85062 and AG-IMS ID 85044 . 
AG-IMS ID 85068: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Canada  notices that starting in 2002 Turkey no long er reports market price 
support  (MPS) for any products. Wheat, barley, maize, rye, oats, tobacco and sugar beet 
have previously been reported under Supporting Table DS: 5. Could Turkey elaborate  on 
the specific policy changes that account for this  seven change in spending?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The reason behind the policy change is the economic  crisis in 2000 and 2001 which a ffected the 
management of agricultural production. After the crisis a more market oriented policy was 
implemented, in which the production decis ions and price setting has been  administered by market 
itself without public intervention.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 59 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85031: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  
a. Since Tur key's last domestic support notification (G/AG/N/TUR/14) published 
in May 2002, Turkey has notified some significant changes to its domestic 
support measures. One major change was the notified elimination of market 
price supports. Please provide additional  details regarding the termination of 
Turkey 's market price support measures and the measures that have since 
replaced these.  
b. It is the Unite States understanding that the state -owned Turk ish Grain 
Board  (TMO) continues to implement and publish applied ad ministered prices 
for certain commodities. Further, it is the United States understanding that 
TMO receives government funds for various activities it carries out. Please 
explain the role TMO plays in Turkish grain markets, including any role TMO 
takes on behalf of the Turkish Government or is instructed to take by the 
Government .  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 85068.  
b. Regard ing the question concerning the  TMO, Turkey w ould like to kindly remind the 
Members that similar questions have been answered in previous C ommittee meetings 
and the last TPR of Turkey. Therefore, Turk ey would like to kindly invite M embers to 
refer to the replies provided for those questions.  
AG-IMS ID 85067: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In co lumn 9 of Supporting Table DS: 6 for the  three noti fied years (i.e. 2002, 2003 
and 2004), there are large amounts reported under associated fees/levies.  
  
a. Could Turkey please provide examples of the types of fees and levies that are 
reported?  
b. How are these fees and levies calculated?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
The fees that are referred are income tax, bank fees and social security premiums which are 
deducted from the support payments. These fees are fixed by the relevant laws.  
AG-IMS ID 85066: Questi on by Thailand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
From Supporting table DS:6 Year 2002 -2004, Turkey notified "Premium Payments " 
measures. Please provide more explanation on "Premium Payment " programme.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The supports in the form of "premium payment " are being paid to the farmers as a defined support 
amount per unit of crop produced. Accordingly, the premiums to be paid to the farmers is defined 
each year by the MFAL per product and per metric tonne.  
 
Follow -up: Australia noted that it was dif ficult to assess Turkey's compliance with WTO rules given 
the lateness of the information. As per Australia's understanding, some of the policies Turkey 
notified in 2002 -2004 had been cancelled in 2008. Australia requested details regarding the 
changes tha t had been made by Turkey in response to the breaches of its DS commitments. 
Australia  looked forward to T urkey's timely submission of its remaining DS notifications. Brazil, 
Canada, the European Union, New Zealand and the United States echoed Australia's concern 
regarding the timeliness of Turkey's notifications and encouraged Turkey to continue the trend of 
submitting DS notifications.  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 60 - 
 
  2.3.14   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/26)  
AG-IMS ID 85061: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada would like to follo w-up with Ukraine regarding question AGIMS ID 84024 from 
the Committee on Agriculture Meeting in June 2017. In this question, Canada asked 
Ukraine to provide information on the changes resulting in different types of support 
being provided to fruits, berri es and grapes, and hops. Ukraine responded that it 
required more time to answer this question. Is Ukraine now in a position to provide a 
response? If so, could Ukraine please share it with the Committee?  
 
Answer by Ukraine  
 
After close review  Ukraine confi rms that G/AG/N/UKR/26 is correct. The assignment of the support 
to hop; fruits, berries and grapes is correct under Other product -specific budgetary outlays in 
Supporting Table DS:7 in the  notification for calendar year 2012. The support was misplaced und er 
Non-exempt direct payments in Supporting Table DS:7 in G/AG/N/UKR/18 for calendar yea r 2011. 
Thus, Ukraine will provide corrigendum for it in the very near future.  
 
2.3.15   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109)  
AG-IMS ID 85058: Question by Canada - Transpa rency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes a discrepancy in the total VoP figures in the United States 2014 Table DS:1 
notification. The total value of production is reported as USD 405,646.295 million but 
the sum of all product -specific VoP totals U SD 550,264.95 million. Could the United 
States of America please explain this discrepancy?  
 
Answer by the United States of America  
 
United States undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.4.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/220)  
AG-IMS ID 85056: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In their recent Table DS:2, Japan includes the programme entitled Agriculture, forestry 
and fisheries Fund corporation for Innovation, Val ue-chain and Expansion 
Japan  (A-FIVE). Canada notes that this programme provides investment and 
subordinated loan to develop new business areas in order to stabilize and improve 
business in agriculture.  
  
a. Could Japan provide examples of the types of investments that a re covered 
under this programme?  
b. What are the specific eligibility criteria to receive a payment under this 
programme?  
c. The description states that subordinated loans can be provided through this 
measure.  Could Japan provide details on what these subordin ated loans are? 
Who provided these loans? On what basis or criteria are these loans provided? 
Does a producer have to repay these loans?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. A-FIVE can provide investment and subordinate loan to a new food -processing enterprise 
which utilizes  agricultural, forestry and fishery products, jointly established by farmers, 
foresters, fishers and food processors.  
b. To receive the investment and loan from A-FIVE, applicant needs to make a business 
plan to obtain an approval by the government, and recei ve an inspection by A -FIVE. To G/AG/W/170  
 
- 61 - 
 
  facilitate the utilization of private fund, the percentage of investment from A-FIVE is 
restricted to 50% or less in terms of the right to vote.  
c. Provided subordinated loan can be regarded as company's assets or earnings. A -FIVE 
can provide subordinate loan to start-up enterprise  jointly established  by farmers, 
foresters, fishers and food processors to raise the capital adequacy ratio on the condition 
that such enterprise raises fund from private financial sector. Those subordi nate loans 
have to be repa id. 
2.4.2   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/16)  
AG-IMS ID 85048: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey 's recent Tables DS:2 notification lists a programme aimed at providing "Support 
to the farmers planting maize, sunflower, soybean and fodder plants in the areas of 
sugar beet production. " This programme is classified under paragraph 11 of Annex 2, 
Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids. As with the other 
two notified programmes, the lack of detail makes it difficult to determine if this 
programme meets the policy specific criteria of this paragraph.  
  
a. As per paragraph 11 a), programmes should be designed to "assist the financial 
or physical restructuring of a producer 's operations in resp onse to objectively 
demonstrated structural disadvantages. " Could Turkey provide information on 
the structural disadvantages this programme is trying to address?  
b. This programme seems to specifically target sugar beet producers. Could 
Turkey confirm if a p roducer needs to produce sugar beets to be eligible to 
receive a payment under this programme? More specifically, how does this 
programme meet the requirements of paragraph 11 (b) which states that 
payments "shall not be related to, or based on, the type o r volume of 
production "? How does this programme not constitute a product -specific 
payment to sugar beet producers?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Due to the past overproduction of sugar beet, the supply and demand of sugar beets were not in 
balance and therefore ther e was instability in the market. With this structural adjustment 
assistance, the producers had been encouraged  to produce alternative crops. In this sense, the 
support provided under this programme was not for the production of sugar beet, but for the 
production of other crops instead of sugar beet.  
AG-IMS ID 85045: Question by European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union would like additional information about how the measure "Direct 
income payments to the farmers and est ablishment of farmer 's registry system " is 
operated.  
 
a. Could Turkey please explain which paragraphs of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture that applies to the measure in question?  
b. Are payments made per area unit of agricultural land regardless of production?  
c. Is production required to receive such payments?  
d. Is this measure still operational today?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Turkey, like any other developing country , has been working very hard to register 
agricultural producers, farm types , product varieties , land types and  live animal stocks 
within a database. In order to complete this system, the application has first been 
managed in pilot districts and then it has been extended  countrywide.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 62 - 
 
  b. Payments are based on the amount of land.  
c. The support is not relat ed to the level of production or product variety.  
d. This programme was no longer applied after 2008.  
AG-IMS ID 85032: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
a. For "direct income payments to farmers " during the period covered by 
G/AG/N/TUR/15 (2002 through 2004):  
i. Please explain the eligibility requirements for farmers to receive payments, 
including any requirements associated with eligibility to enroll in the 
farmers ' registry system.  
ii. Please explain  how actual payment levels were determined.  
b. For "Support to Animal Husbandry, " please explain eligibility requirements for 
breeders and provide additional details as to how the programme is 
implemented and how payment levels are determined.  
c. For "support to the farmer planting maize, sunflower, soybean and fodder 
plants in areas of sugar beet production, " the description states payments are 
based on area and aims to compensate for loss of farmers ' incomes due to 
decrease in sugar beet production quotas. Th e descript ion in Supporting 
Table  DS:1 of G/AG/N/TUR/15 states payments are aimed to encourage 
alternative production.  
i. Please explain how actual payment levels were determined, including 
whether there was any requirement to plant maize, sunflower, soybean , or 
fodder plants to receive payments.  
ii. Please confirm if the payments were one time only.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 85045.  
b. Turkey is still reviewing the details of this programme and will give the answer to this 
question in w ritten format in due course . 
c. Refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 85048.  
AG-IMS ID 85051: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Turkey 's recent Table DS:2 notification lists a programme entitled "Direct income 
payments to the farmers and establishment of farmers ' registry system ". This 
programme is classified under paragraph 5 of Annex 2 starting in 2002 in Turkey 's latest 
Table DS:1 notification G/AG/N/TUR/15. Due to the lack of details on this programme, it 
is difficult to de termine if it meets the policy specific criteria of paragraph 5 and in 
particular, the criteria set forth in paragraph 6 b) to e).  
  
a. Could Turkey please outline the eligibility criteria for farmers to receive a 
payment under this programme?  
b. Could Turkey please confirm that under this programme, "no production shall 
be required in order to receive such payments" (i.e., farmers would receive a 
payment whether or not anything is produced) as required under 
paragraph  6 e)?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 63 - 
 
  c. Canada notes that the description d oes not provide the anticipated full amount 
of the programme. Could Turkey provide the anticipated amount for the length 
of the programme? If this information is not available, is there a specific 
amount available under this programme each year?  
d. The descr iption does not provide information on the duration of the 
programme. Is this programme still in place? If so, what is the expected end 
date for this programme?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Refer to response to AG -IMS ID 85045 . 
AG-IMS ID 85050: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Turkey 's recent Table  DS:2 notification lists an item entitled "Support to Animal 
Husbandry ". This programme is classified under Articl e 6.2 (Special and 
Differential -Development Programme support) of the Agreement on Agriculture in 
Turkey 's latest Table DS:1 notification G/AG/N/TUR/15.  
  
a. Could Turkey please provide more details on the eligibility criteria under this 
programme? Specifically, what types of investments are eligible to receive  
payment?  
b. The exemption of agricultural input subsidies under Article 6.2 from certain 
domestic support reduction commitments is limited to subsidies that are 
"generally available to low -income or resource poor producers in developing 
country Members". Co uld Turkey elaborate how it defines "low -income or 
resource poor" producers?  
c. The description states that the period of application for this programme is 
from  2000 -2004. However, no amounts are reported for this item in Turkey 's 
Table DS:1 notification for  2000 (G/AG/N/TUR/12) or 2001 
(G/AG/N/TUR/14). Could Turkey confirm that no payments were provided for 
this programme during the 2000 and 2001 period? If no payments were 
provided for this period, could Turkey elaborate why no payments were made?  
Answer b y Turkey  
 
a. Turkey is still reviewing the details of this program me and will give the answer to this 
question in written format in due course . 
b. No input subsidy has been notified under the Development Programmes by Turkey in the 
notification under review.  
c. Turkey is still reviewing  this question and would like give the answer in written format in 
due course.  
Follow -up: Concerning part b of question AG -IMS ID 85050, Canada sought clarification regarding 
whether  Article 6.2 support was provided during the period concerned. The European Union and 
the United States echoed the question. Turkey responded that Canada's question was about input 
subsidies provided to low-income or resource poor. Turkey did notify  some  support under Arti cle 
6.2 and it was categorized as  investment subsidies rather than input subsidies.  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.5  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.5.1   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/89)  
AG-IMS ID 85033: Question by United States of America - Other forms of assistance  
The United States thanks South Africa for it 2014 NF1 notification. Can South Africa 
explain the conditions under which financial contributions were dispersed, particularly 
to Zamia and Malawi? Did any of these contributions have any impact on trade to the se 
two countries?  
 
Answer by South Africa  
 
The money was spent on various development projects in the specified countries. The assistance 
was provided in the form of basic equipment and skills transfer for the establishment and 
rehabilitation of small scale dairy farming. The assistance was provided with the condition that it is 
a once -off contribution; project participants were to be select ed from local communities; the 
governments of these countries were to provide security to the investments and othe r resources 
(basic infrastructure such as land, buildings and extension services).  
 
The produce from the projects could be sold anywhere as there were no trade related conditions 
attached to the assistance.  
 
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
3.1  Kyrgyz Republic  
AG-IMS ID 85047: Question by Canada   
Canada thanks Kyrgyz Republic for its new domestic support notification for 2012. 
However, it is difficult to assess any changes or to see any trends in domestic support 
provided by the Kyrgyz Republic to its agricultural produ cers in the absence of 
notifications for previous years. Canada notes that the earlier domestic support 
notification was for 1998. Could Kyrgyz Republic please advise when it expects to 
submit the missing notifications (i.e. 1999 to 2011)?  
 
Answer by Kyrgy z Republic  
 
Kyrgyz Republic  would like to note that it  is fully committed to the WTO requirements and 
currently the process on completion of necessary information is underway.  As soon as 
Kyrgyz  Republic  submit s finalized notifications through the WTO Syste m, Canada will be informed 
in due course.  
 
Follow -up: Canada looked forward to Kyrgyz Republic's upcoming notification s.  
 
3.2  Nigeria  
AG-IMS ID 850 37: Question by European Union   
The latest DS:1 notification from Nigeria dates from 2012 covering 2011. Since  then 
Nigeria has implemented the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and th e 
Agricultural Promotion Policy  (2016 -2020).  
 
Will Nigeria submit a DS:1 notification for years after 2011 including Green Box support 
as well as Article 6:2 support?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/170  
 
- 65 - 
 
  4  OTHER  
4.1  New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 8504 6: Question by European Union  
New Zealand in its reply to the EU question for the 84th meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture argues that sinc e Zespri is a private organization, provisions of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res are not relevant for 
Zespri  operations. However, paragraph 20 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition rules that "Members shall ensur e that agricultural exporting state trading 
enterprises do not operate in a manner that circumvents any other disciplines contained 
in this annex" . Paragraph 6 of the same Ministerial Decision rules that export subsidy 
entitlements shall be immediately eli minated. Following to that, agricultural exporting 
STEs shall not operate in a manner that circumvents the commitment to eliminate export 
subsidies. According to Annex 1(g) of the ASCM exemption of indirect taxes on exported 
products, in excess of those le vied on domestic like products, fall under the illustrative 
list of export subsidies. Therefore, following the adoption of the Nairobi Decision, Zespri 
shall not grant export subsidies in the form of providing its nursery stock free -of-charge 
to growers ou tside New Zealand whereas planting fees and royalties are charged on the 
domestic like products. Could New Zealand confirm if Zespri provides its nursery stock 
free-of-charge to growers outside New Zealand?  
 
Answer by New Zealand  
 
As New Zealand has previously clarified to the Committee on Agriculture, Zespri is a private 
company. Zespri 's decisions relating to the provision of nursery -stock to overseas growers is a 
commercial decision and in no way involves the New Zeala nd Governme nt. The New Zealand 
Government has no equity shares in Zespri. When it was established in 2000, Zespri Group Limited 
shares were distributed to kiwifruit growers and ownership remains private. Further, Zespri does 
not receive any form of support from the Government , other than having access to contestable 
Crown funding for research and development that is available to all companies and industries. As 
with any New Zealand company, the New Zealand Government expects Zespri to operate in a 
manner consistent wi th the law in all jurisdictions in which it operates, including competition law 
and any laws relevant to the provision of nursery stock.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union noted its particular interest in the status of STEs, i.e. whether an 
enterprise needed to be government -owned to be STE.  
 
4.2  United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 85038: Que stion by European Union  
Ag-IMS ID 84068 – point e):  
The US, in reply to the EU question for the 84th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, 
stated that "U.S. food assistanc e programmes are not used to promote U.S. market 
development objectives. The [requirements that all agricultural commodities provided 
be sourced from the United States, that at least 50% of US food aid must be shipped on 
US flagged vessels and that at leas t 50% of any bagging must consist of whole -grain 
commodities bagged in the United States] are U.S. legislative procurement mandates." 
In the Hearing on the Future of International Food Aids and Agricultural Development of 
the US House Committee on Agricult ure, held on 7  June  2017, the Chairman of the 
Committee stated that "(the US) international food aid programmes not only contribute 
to jobs in the US agricultural sector but they also create American jobs in the 
manufacturing and maritime sectors as well. Eliminating such programmes seems a bit 
contrary to the role of any robust "America first" policy."  
a. Could the US explain how the objective of creating jobs in the US agricultural, 
manufacturing and maritime sectors and promoting an "America first" differs  
from an objective of promoting developments in the US agricultural, 
manufacturing and maritime markets?  G/AG/W/170  
 
- 66 - 
 
  Requested Food Assistance  
 
The Nairobi Decision in paragraph 25 states that Member s are encouraged to provide 
non-emergency development food assistance where recipient countries or recognized 
international humanitarian/food entities, such as the United Nations, have requested 
food assistance.  
 
b. Could the US specify when and in which form have the recipient countries o r 
recognized international humanitarian/food entities, such as the Un ited 
Nations, have requested US  non-emergency in -kind food assistance?  
USDA -run McGovern -Dole International Food for Education programme  
 
The US administration announced budget proposals on 23 May 2017. These proposals 
include the elimination of the USDA -run McGovern -Dole International Food for Education 
programme and USAID -run Food For Peace, Title II programme. The budget proposal 
confirms that the McGovern -Dole programme "lacks evidence  that it is being effectively 
implemented to reduce food insecurity and that providing emergency food aid through 
International Disaster Assistance account (IDA) has been shown to allow more 
appropriate and on average more cost effective assistance than Ti tle II food aid".  
 
c. The EU shares this assessment and asks when these ineffective and trade 
distorting food a id policies will be eliminated.  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a. As stated in the Co A in June 2017, U.S. food assistance program mes are not used to 
promote U.S. market development objectives.  
b. The United States provides required information  regarding food aid in its 
NF:1 notifications and its Export Competition Questionnaire submissions to the 
WTO.  Additional information is reported as directed  by the Food Aid Convention.  
c. The United States  cannot speculate on future Congressional actions.   
 
__________