G/AG/W/157  
 
21 October 2016  
(16-5729) Page: 1/55 
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 14 -15 SEPTEMBER 20161 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/ 156 as well as follow -up comments made during the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 20 October 2016 : 
 
AG-IMS ID  Answer by  Question by  Notification Reference  Repeat question  
81021  Tanzania  Thailand  Article 18.6   
81065  Turkey  New Zealand  Article 18.6   
81064  Turkey  Canada  Article 18.6   
81098  United States  Brazil  Article 18.6   
81033  Zambia  European Union  Article 18.6   
81053  China  Australia  Article 18.6  79057  
81082  Fiji Canada  G/AG/N/FJI/13  80075  
81085, 81086  Tunisia  Australia  G/AG/N/TUN/4 9 80023  
81088, 81087  Tunisia  Canada  G/AG/N/TUN/4 9  
81102  Viet Nam  Peru G/AG/N/VNM/6   
81026  China  United States  G/AG/N/CHN/30  79006, 80093  
81092  Turkey  Australia  Overdue Notifications   
81018  Turkey  Canada  Overdue Notifications   
81019  Turkey  United States  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 th eir rights and  obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18. 6 ...... 6 
1.1   Australia's Biosecurity Act of 2015  ................................ ................................ .................  6 
1.1.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81045)  ................................ ................................ .........  6 
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
1.2.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81008)  ................................ ........  6 
1.3   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81054), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81056), and 
the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81009)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.3.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81055) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81001)  ..............  9 
1.3.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81049)  ................................ ................................ .........  9 
1.4   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ............................ 10 
1.4.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81046)  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.4.2    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81024) and New  Zealand 
(AG-IMS ID 81097) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 11 
1.4.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81003)  ................................ ............................. 12 
1.4.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81057) and the United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81011)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 
1.5   Canada's Growing Forward policy framewo rk ................................ ................................ .13 
1.5.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81047)  ................................ ................................ ........ 13 
1.6   Canada's support for the ornamental horticulture industry  ................................ ............... 13 
1.6.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81048)  ................................ ................................ ........ 13 
1.7   Canada's compositional standard for cheese  ................................ ................................ ..14 
1.7.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81002)  ................................ ............................. 14 
1.8   Canada's STE notification on dairy products  ................................ ................................ ...14 
1.8.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81096) and the United  States  of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81010)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14 
1.9   Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  ................................ ................................ ............ 15 
1.9.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81004), Norway (AG -IMS ID 81051) and 
Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 81052)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 
1.10   Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  ................................ ........................... 16 
1.10.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81012)  ................................ .....16 
1.11   European Union's agriculture policies  ................................ ................................ .......... 16 
1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81058)  ................................ ................................ .16 
1.11.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81061)  ................................ ................................ ......17 
1.11.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81060)  ................................ ................................ ......18 
1.11.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81005)  ................................ ........................... 18 
1.12   India's sugar export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .................... 19 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81062)  ................................ ................................ .19 
1.12.2    Question by the Europ ean Union (AG -IMS ID 81025)  ................................ .................. 20 
1.13   India's importation of apples  ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.13.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81006)  ................................ ........................... 20 
1.14   India's export assistance programmes  ................................ ................................ ......... 21 
1.14.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81013)  ................................ .....21 
1.15   Moldova's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 
1.15.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81014)  ................................ .....21 
1.16   Pakistan's increase on import duties on milk powder including whey  ............................... 22 
1.16.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81030)  ................................ .................. 22 
1.17   Pakistan's export subsidy for sugar exports  ................................ ................................ ..22 
1.17.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81028)  ................................ .................. 22 
1.18   Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs ................................ ................................ ....23 
1.18.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81063)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.18.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81007)  ................................ ........................... 24 
1.19   Tanzania's restriction on sugar imports  ................................ ................................ ........ 24 
1.19.1    Question b y Thailand (AG -IMS ID 81021)  ................................ ................................ .24 
1.20   Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising the use of domestic dairy  ................................ .24 
1.20.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81065)  ................................ ........................... 24 
1.21   Turkey's domestic support policies  ................................ ................................ .............. 25 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 81064)  ................................ ................................ ...25 
1.22   U.S. Global Food Security Act  ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 
1.22.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81067)  ................................ ................................ ......25 
1.23   U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Share programme  ................................ .......................... 26 
1.23.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81069)  ................................ ................................ ......26 
1.24   U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  ............................. 26 
1.24.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81070)  ................................ ................................ ......26 
1.25   U.S. increase in sugar TRQ  ................................ ................................ ........................ 26 
1.25.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81068)  ................................ ................................ ......26 
1.26   U.S. purchase of cheese stock  ................................ ................................ .................... 27 
1.26.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81066)  ................................ ................................ .27 
1.27   Viet Nam's increase of excise duties for wine and spirits  ................................ ................ 27 
1.27.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81032)  ................................ .................. 27 
1.28   Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  ................................ ................................ 28 
1.28.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81033)  ................................ .................. 28 
1.29   China's environmental programmes  ................................ ................................ ............ 28 
1.29.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81050)  ................................ ................................ .28 
1.30   China's regional assistance programmes  ................................ ................................ ......29 
1.30.1    Quest ion by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81053)  ................................ ................................ .29 
1.31   Malaysia's Table ES:2 notification  ................................ ................................ ............... 29 
1.31.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81027)  ................................ .................. 29 
1.32   Thailand's export of rice from government stocks  ................................ ......................... 29 
1.32.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81 031) ................................ .................. 29 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.33   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale  ................................ ................................ .......30 
1.33.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81015)  ................................ .....30 
1.34   U.S. soybean programmes  ................................ ................................ ......................... 31 
1.34.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 81098) ................................ ................................ ......31 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  31 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 31 
2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/111, G/AG/N/CAN/112)  ................................ ............................ 31 
2.1.2    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/55)  ................................ ................................ ................... 32 
2.1.3    Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/57)  ................................ ................................ .......... 32 
2.1.4    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/86)  ................................ ................................ .................. 33 
2.1.5    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/48)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 33 
2.2   SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  ................................ ............................ 34 
2.2.1    Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/54)  ................................ ................................ .......... 34 
2.2.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/137)  ................................ ................................ ........... 35 
2.2.3    Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/55)  ................................ ................................ .......... 35 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMM ITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 36 
2.3.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/104)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 36 
2.3.2    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/51)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 
2.3.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/26)  ................................ ................................ ............... 38 
2.3.4    Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/44)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 
2.3.5    Israel (G/AG /N/ISR/55)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 40 
2.3.6    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/93)  ................................ ................................ ................. 41 
2.3.7    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 42 
2.3.8    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/108)  ................................ .............................. 43 
2.3.9    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/6)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 47 
2.4   NEW OR MOD IFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ........... 49 
2.4.1    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/54)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 49 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ...50 
2.5.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/103)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 50 
2.6   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  ....................... 50 
2.6.1    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/14)  ................................ ................................ ........ 50 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  51 
3.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 51 
3.1.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/30)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 51 
3.2   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 51 
3.2.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/28)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 51 
3.2.2    Fiji (G/AG/N/FJI/13)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .52 
3.2.3    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 52 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  52 
4.1.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 52 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.1.2    European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......52 
4.1.3    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 53 
4.1.4    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 53 
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1  Australia's Biosecurity Act of 2015  
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81045)  
Australia has recently implemented a new Biosecurity Act of 2015 (ef fective 
June  2016)2. Could Australia highlight the key changes and the impact of the new law on 
agriculture imports?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
The Biosecurity Act 2015 replaced the Quaran tine Act 1908 in June  2016 
(see G/SPS/N/AUS/363/Add.10), simplifying Aust ralia's biosecurity laws and moderniz ing 
Australia 's biosecurity system. The act has minimal impact on agricultural imports. An increased 
number of goods may no longer require an import permit. Importers can check requirements 
through Australia 's Biosecuri ty Import Conditions database (BICON, 
https://bicon.agriculture.gov.au/BiconWeb4.0 ). More information on what has changed for 
importers can be accessed online: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/legislation/new -
biosecurity -legislation/16 -june/importers .  
 
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.2.1   Question by the United States of Amer ica (AG -IMS ID 81008)  
In previous responses by Brazil to questions from the United States, Brazil stated that 
the Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) programme was suspended for a 
reassessment to address concerns regarding its control mechanism in orde r to prevent 
irregularities. Concerning the Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor  (PEPRO) 
programme, the United States notes that the programme was used for corn, cotton and 
wheat as recently as 2014. Brazil has not delivered PEP and PEPRO data that it ag reed to 
provide in June 2014 (AG -IMS ID 74021). In the September 2015 meeting of this 
Committee, Brazil stated that while it lacked a suitable system for collecting the 
information it would provide the data in September 2015. I n March and June  2016, 
Brazil  indicated that the status of this request had not changed. What is the status of 
reporting the subject data? What specific steps have been taken since March  2016 to 
develop a suitable system to collate the data?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
The status has not chan ged since March 2016. The work is still in progress, and there is no 
deadline set for its conclusion.  
 
1.3  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81054 ), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81056), and 
the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81 009)  
a. With regard to the expanded Class 4(m) that was announced by the Canadian 
Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC), the United States understands 
that the changes to Class 4(m), which were previously effective between 1  May 
and 31  July 2016, have now been extended until 31 October 2016.  
i. Can Canada please confirm that is the case?  
ii. The United States understands that the intent of the changes to Class 4(m) 
is to provide liquid milk protein concentrate (MPC) (up to 85% protein) and 
liquid skim milk to proc essors at world prices. How exactly are world prices 
                                                
2 Available at : http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/legislation/new -biosecurity -legislation  
(last visited 24/08 /2016).  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 7 - 
 
  determined? For  example, world prices of which products are considered? 
Are U.S. prices used?  
iii. Does a processor need to use a certain level or percentage of domestic 
liquid MPC and liquid skim milk to qua lify for the Class  4(m) adjustment?  
iv. Could a processor use domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk and 
imported fluid milk and ingredients still qualify for the Class  4(m) 
adjustment for the domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used?  
v. Could a processor who uses domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk, and 
who also uses imported ultra -filtered (UF) milk to meet the minimum 
percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk in the compositional 
cheese requirements, qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment for the 
domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used?  
b. Can processors who receive milk under Class  6 or Class  4(m), and whose 
production process results in excess skim milk solids, export that excess? 
If yes: 
i. Have there been such exports?  
ii. Do processors nee d approval from, or need to account to, the milk boards or 
the CDC to export?  
iii. Do the milk boards, the CDC, or the processors actually ship the exports? 
Who in Canada has the authority to export dairy products?  
iv. Are such export sales being made under a parti cular class in the milk 
classification system?  
c. In response to Australia's questions AG -IMS ID 80003, Canada states, "a s milk 
proteins are used in many different applications, including food products, 
nutraceuticals and non -food usages, Canada considers the  amended milk class 
4(m) will not have any significant impact on the o verall imports of milk 
proteins ". What does Canada's data indicate regarding import trends?  
d. Will Class 6 continue after the "agreement in principle" between Dairy Farmers 
of Canada (DFC)  and dairy processor associations is in effect?  
e. The Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) and dairy processor associations 
announced, in the press, a conclusion of an "agreement in principle" that 
includes the creation of an ingredient strategy.  
i. When does Canada e xpect any changes related to the "agreement in 
principle" to go into effect? Which authorities will be responsible for 
ratification of and implementing the agreement in principle?  
ii. If prices for dairy ingredients are set at world prices (i.e. lower than 
Canada's domestic prices), are dairy farmers expected to incur a reduction 
in revenues?  
iii. If prices for dairy ingredients are set at world prices, will a processor need 
to use a certain level or percentage of the domestic dairy ingredients to 
qualify to receive  those ingredients at world prices?  
iv. Will a processor who uses both domestic and imported dairy ingredients be 
able to qualify to receive the domestic dairy ingredients at world price?  
v. Will a processor who uses both domestic and imported dairy ingredients, 
and who uses imported UF milk to meet the minimum percentage of casein G/AG/W/157  
 
- 8 - 
 
  content derived from fluid milk in the compositional cheese requirements, 
be able to qualify to receive the domestic dairy ingredients at world price?  
vi. In order to access world -priced mi lk components, will processors be 
required to use all components of raw milk their purchase?  
f. In Canada's response to U.S.  question AG -IMS ID 80025, Canada states that 
"under both milk class 4(m) and Ontario milk class 6, a portion of the milk price 
paid to  farmers will be lower than it has been previously".  
i. Does Canada expect that, similarly, any new or modified milk class will 
include a  portion of the milk price paid to farmers that will be lower than it 
had been previously?  
ii. Will that lower cost be offset by changes that make other dairy classes at a 
higher price?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. As mentioned in the 80th Committee on Agriculture, milk class 4(m) has been  in place for 
a number of years. It  is limited in scope and is aimed at addressing demand for milk 
protein concentrates by dairy processors and further processors for specific uses 
(including standardized cheeses, pet foods and nutraceuticals). Through milk class 4(m), 
manufacturers of these products have access to dry and liquid milk protein 
concentrate  (MPC), as well as liquid skim milk and skim milk powder at competitive 
prices. The Canadian Dairy Commission publishes prices for milk class 4(m) on the 
website milkingredients.ca. Milk class 4(m) was amended as a temporary measure, 
initially scheduled to en d 31 July 2016, by the Canadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee (CMSMC) to address potential imbalances that could emerge in the market 
from the implementation of milk class 6 in Ontario. At the J uly 2016 meeting of 
the CMSMC, Canadian dairy producers and  processors agreed to extend the end date of 
the expanded milk class 4(m) to 31 October 2016.  
The use of MPC, liquid skim milk and skim milk powder priced under milk class 4(m) is 
limited at different rates under each permitted specific use. The administr ation of milk 
class 4(m) does not differentiate between milk or ingredients that were produced in 
Canada, or elsewhere.  
b. Canada 's dairy export subsidies are provided through the milk class 5(d). Under this 
class, milk components are made available at inter nationally competitive prices for the 
export of dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission issues export permits for 
subsidized dairy products accordingly and reports them for the purpose s of the 
subsidized exports in T able ES:1, and supporting table ES :1, of Canada 's notification. 
Milk class 4(m) and Ontario milk class 6 are not contingent upon export. Goods produced 
under these classes, or any milk class other than milk class 5(d), can be sold by any 
eligible processor on the domestic or export markets , and do not require export permits. 
Canada notifies total exports of dairy products in table ES:2. It is not possible at this 
stage to determine whether there have been any exports of dairy products from milk 
class 4(m) or Ontario milk class 6.  
c. Canada 's monthly imports of milk protein substances classified under Chapter 35 of the 
Harmonized System are slightly lower than they were in 2015. They compare however 
with import levels of 2014. It should be noted that import flows can be volatile. 
In addition, i t is difficult to attribute any variation in imports to a single factor.  
d. On 13 July 2016, the Dairy Farmers of Canada announced the conclusion of negotiations 
between Canadian dairy producers and processors on an agreement that includes an 
ingredient stra tegy. The decision to create a dairy ingredient stra tegy was 
industry -driven; the G overnment of Canada was not party to the negotiations. 
The agreement is in the process of being ratified by relevant industry entities. Once the G/AG/W/157  
 
- 9 - 
 
  agreement is ratified and im plemented, Ontario 's dairy farmers will have the opportunity 
to re-evaluate the purpose of Ontario milk class 6.  
e. On 13 July 2016, the Dairy Farmers of Canada announced the conclusion of negotiations 
between Canadian dairy producers and processors on an ag reement that includes an 
ingredient strategy. The decision to create a dairy ingredient strategy was 
industry -driven; the Government of Canada was not party to the negotiations. As the 
agreement is in the process of being ratified by relevant industry enti ties, including 
provincial milk marketing boards, details of this new initiative remain to be finalized. 
While 1 September had been announced as a target implementation date, more time will 
be required for this process. It is therefore premature for Canada  to confirm whether the 
strategy will have an impact on producer revenue, or to provide any further details.  
f. On 13 July 2016, the Dairy Farmers of Canada announced the conclusion of negotiations 
between Canadian dairy producers and processors on an agreem ent that includes an 
ingredient strategy. The decision to create a dairy ingredient str ategy was 
industry -driven; the G overnment of Canada was not party to the negotiations. As the 
agreement is in the process of being ratified by relevant industry entities , details of this 
new industry -driven initiative remain to be finalized. Canada does not have sufficient 
information to ans wer this question at this time.  
1.3.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81055) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81001)  
New Zealand has been made a ware, via media reports, of the conclusion of negotiations 
between dairy farmers and processors to develop a path forward for the Canadian dairy 
system. The  agreement reportedly sets in place a nationwide pricing strategy for dairy 
ingredients that will pe rmanently replace the interim programme implemented by 
Canada's Milk Supply Management Committee on 29 March 2016.  
 
According to the media, the agreement is due to be submitted for ratification and only 
the highlights of the agreement will be made public a fter final ratification, with 
1 November  2016 being the anticipated implementation date. New Zealand also 
understands that the agreement includes a proposal for a subsidy permitting surplus 
domestic skim milk to be priced at world prices when used as ingre dients and to develop 
a new strategy for dairy exports. Can Canada:  
 
a. Confirm whether it is planning to introduce a new milk class, or update its 
existing national milk class and pricing system?  
b. Provide details on the milk classes, including the definitions  and information on 
how prices will be set for each class?  
c. Confirm when the Canadian government plans  to notify these changes to 
the WTO?  
Answer by Canada  
 
On 13 July 2016, the Dairy Farmers of Canada announced the conclusion of negotiations between 
Canadi an dairy producers and processors on an agreement that includes an ingredient strategy. 
The decision to create a dairy ingredient str ategy was industry -driven; the G overnment of Canada 
was not party to the negotiations. As the agreement is in the process o f being ratified by relevant 
industry entities, details of this new initiative remain to be finalized. It is therefore premature for 
Canada to confirm whether new milk classes will be created, or to speculate on detailed elements 
of a final implementation package. Canada will notify to the WTO any change that has an  impact 
on its WTO commitments.  
 
1.3.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81049)  
There was an earlier announcement by the Canadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee to allow subsidized skim milk under Class 4 (m) to be used as an ingredient 
for "standardized cheese", which will make domestic milk proteins for cheese G/AG/W/157  
 
- 10 - 
 
  processing available at reduced prices compared to imported milk proteins. Thereafter, 
there are reports suggesting major changes in the Canadian D airy industry. Specifically, 
dairy farmers and processors will be able to buy domestic produce at reduced rates 
(as compared to present rates)3. Could Canada kindly clarify the modalities and 
operation of the new system and the likely impact of the measure  on imports?   
 
Answer by Canada  
 
On 13 July 2016, the Dairy Farmers of Canada announced the conclusion of negotiations between 
Canadian dairy producers and processors on an agreement that includes an ingredient strategy. 
The decision to create a dairy ingr edient str ategy was industry -driven; the G overnment of Canada 
was not party to the negotiations. As the agreement is in the process of being ratified by relevant 
industry entities, details of this new initiative remain to be finalized. It is therefore prem ature for 
Canada to confirm whether new milk classes will be created, or to speculate on detailed elements 
of a final implementation package. Canada will notify to the WTO any change that has an impact 
on its WTO commitments.  
 
Follow -up: For New Zealand the key issue was whether the government played a role in the 
implementation  of the ingredient  strategy . Australia , referring  to the Australia -salmon case filed by 
Canada , noted that in this case the Tasmanian provincial authorities were certainly part of a  
government of a Member. Australia was also interested in the role the Canadian  government 
played  in implementing the ingredient strategy  which had been agreed between the provincial 
authorities and Canada's dairy farmers . The European  Union and th e United  States flagged 
interest . The European Union registered particular concern about the potential import substitution 
that the strategy  could hav e. India was interested in the impact of the strategy on exports to 
Canada and  Canada' s WTO commitments.  
 
1.4  Canada's  wine sale policy  
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81046)  
Australia 's question relates to Ontario Regulation 232/16 regarding the sale of liquor in 
government stores under the Liquor Control Act. Can Canada please confirm whether 
new regulations to allow t he limited sale of wine in grocery stores in Ontario have 
entered into force?  
 
a. Can Canada please confirm whether imported wine can be sold by a grocery 
operator under the regulation?  
b. If so, can Canada please specify the conditions under which imported wi ne can  
be sold by grocery operators?  
c. Can Canada explain the policy considerations or goals behind any limitations?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Regulation 232/16 entered into force on 23 June 2016. The LCBO launched its Request for Bids 
process for these 70 authori zations on 24 June 2016. Grocery stores are expected to be authorized 
in the fall of 2016.  
 
a. An authorized grocery store operator is permitted to sell both imported and domestic 
wines under the regulation, subject to certain eligibility criteria as outline d in the 
regulation.  
b. Up to 70 grocery store authorizations will be issued for the sale of both domestic and 
foreign wine with specific requirements that will support access for small producers from 
around the world.  Thirty -five of the 70 authorizations wil l immediately be permitted to 
sell wine from anywhere in the world, with 10% of display space reserved from wine 
                                                
3 The Western Producer, New milk class created to reduce cheaper U.S. imports, available at 
http://www.producer.com/2016/06/new -milk-class-created -to-reduce -cheaper -u-s-imports/  (last visited 
24/08/2016).  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 11 - 
 
  manufactured by small wineries and 50%  of display space reserved for single -origin wine 
that satisfies at least one of the following criteria: it is quality assurance wine, it is wine 
produced by a small winery, or it is wine from a coun try that produces less than 
150 million litres of wine annually from grapes grown in that country. The other 35 of 
the 70 authorizations will be limited for an in itial three -year period to selling single -origin 
wines from anywhere in the world made by small or mid -sized producers:  
 small wineries with annual worldwide sales not exceeding 200,000 litres, or  
 mid-sized wineries with annual worldwide sales not exceedin g 4.5  million litres, 
from an appellation of origin regime that certifies less than 50 million litres of 
wine annually.  For the first three years of the authorization, 20% of the display 
must contain wine from small wineries.  A supplier would need to self -identify as 
meeting the requirements and provide documentation showing that they are 
eligible under the criteria. For full details, ple ase refer to Ontario 
Regulation  232/16 [ https://www.ontario.c a/laws/regulation/160232 ]. 
c. The Ontario g overnment 's policy objectives are to support small producers and small 
wine producing industries, promote fairness and prevent market disruption.  
1.4.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81024)  and New  Zealand 
(AG-IMS ID 81097)  
Taking into account the increasing number of restrictions in Canada and its provinces, 
the European Union would like to reiterate its co ncerns expressed during the 
CoA meetings in March and June 2016 as well in the Council on Trade in Goods on 
14 July 2016 in relation to the following issues:  
 
a. Queb ec's adoption of Legislation 88 which discriminates against non -local 
production.  
b. The limit imposed by Ontario on the sale for non -local production as well as the 
decision on 20 June 2016 introduci ng a system of variable mark -ups.  
c. British Columbia's restrictions on sales "store within store".  
d. The differentiation introduced by Nova Scotia since 2014 in the taxation 
between products of national origin and imported ones.  
e. The European Union would like to know when Canada plans to eliminate these 
trade restrictions on imported products.  
Answer by Canada  
 
The G overnment of Canada works closely with all provinces and territories to help ensure 
consistency of liquor distribution policies with Canada's inter national trade obligations. 
This includes conveying trading partner concerns related to the issues that have been flagged by 
the European Union and New Zealand. Canada would like to provide some further details 
concerning some of the items raised in this q uestion.  
 
a. Quebec adopted Bill 88 on the Development of the Small -scale Alcoholic Beverage 
Industry on  28 May 2016. A date has not yet been set for implementation.  
b. Ontario Regulation 232/16, permitting the sale of wine in authorized grocery stores, 
entered into force on 23 June 2016. Under the regulation, authorized grocery stores will 
immediately be allowed to sell both domestic and foreign wine with specific requirements 
that will help all small producers thrive.  
c. On 20 June 2016, the Liquor Control Board o f Ontario launched a pilot competitive 
tendering process with a variable mark -up component. On 11 July 2016, the G/AG/W/157  
 
- 12 - 
 
  LCBO  issued a letter extending the deadline for receiving tenders but did not set a new 
deadline.  
d. In British Columbia, a one  kilometre restric tion applies to a " store within a store " when it 
has a full license allowing it to sell beer and spirits in addition to wine given the stronger 
public health and safety concerns related to shoplifting and prevention of access to 
spirits by minors.  
e. This re striction has applied to private B.C. liquor stores for many of years. Stores selling 
only wine, and not spirits, have never been subject to the one km  rule, and this does not 
change under the new policy.  
1.4.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81003)  
New Zeal and thanks Canada for its response in the 80th regular Committee on 
Agriculture to its question on wine sales in Ontario. New Zealand is concerned with how 
the Ontario Premier 's Advisory Council 's recommendations on wine will affect product 
from small and mid-sized wineries when they are implemented later this year. 
Can Canada please clarify how the classification of small and mid -sized wineries is 
determined, and in particular, if Canada considers product from different sized wineries 
is not "like" product ? Can Canada also please provide an update on when the changes 
that benefit imported products will be implemented?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
A small winery is defined as a winery with annual worldwide sales not exceeding 200,000  litres. 
A mid-sized winery is defi ned as a winery with annual worldwide sales not exceeding 4.5  million litres 
of wine. The Ontario g overnment 's policy objectives are to support small producers and small  wine 
producing industries, promote fairness and prevent market disruption.  The criteri a for small  and 
mid-sized wineries are one component of the broader initiative. It should be noted  that in 35 of the 
70 stores grocers can immediately select and display wines that are outside  of the small and 
mid-sized eligibility requirements and, in thr ee years, t his will be the  case for all 70 stores.  For full 
details, ple ase refer to Ontario Regulation  232/16 [ https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/160232 ]. 
The LCBO launched its Request for B ids process for these 70 authorizations on 24 June 2016. 
Grocery stores are expected to be authorized in the fall of 2016. An authorized grocery store 
operator is permitted to sell both imported and domestic wines under the regulation, subject to 
certain e ligibility criteria as outlined in the regulation.  
 
1.4.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81057) and the United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81011)  
The United States remains concerned by the wine regulations implemented in British 
Columbia  (BC) that allow fo r the sales of BC wines on the regular grocery stores shelves, 
to the exclusion of imported products.  
 
a. Please enumerate how many licenses and what types of licenses have been 
transferred to grocery stores in BC.  In Canada 's response to question ID80008, 
it states that, "there is no known difference in public health considerations 
between locally produced and imported wine and spirits. " 
b. If there is no health difference between Canadian and imported wine, can 
Canada explain the policy considerations or goals for limiting wine on the 
shelves to only domestic product?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. To date, ten  pre-existing B.C. VQA licenses have been transferred to the grocery store 
shelf model.  
b. As a means of introducing the sale of alcohol into grocery stores in B.C., the  pre-existing 
framework for the sale of alcohol in B.C. was transferred directly to the grocery store G/AG/W/157  
 
- 13 - 
 
  model. The pre -existing framework for the sale of alcohol in B.C. included the exclusive 
sale of B.C. wine at a limited number of locations (grandfathered  through several trade 
agreements to which Canada is a Party) as well as private liquor stores and government 
run liquor stores that could sell spirits (i.e. hard liquor) in addition to wine. 
The regulations permitting the sale of alcohol in grocery stores  provide for the transfer of 
existing licenses to new locations. No new licenses are being created. Given the stronger 
public health and safety concerns relating to the limitation of shoplifting and prevention 
of access to spirits by minors, licensees that  are permitted to sell both wine and spirits 
are limited to the store -within -a-store model.  
Follow -up: Australia expressed two concerns over Canada's policy: (i) the arbitrary nature of the 
definition of small or mid -sized winery; and (ii) that part of th e criteria did not relate to what the 
winery produced but to the country as a whole. New Zealand  remained concerned about Canada's 
policy which  appear ed to favou r domestic over imported wine.  The European Union and the United 
States also expressed concern,  particular ly on the policy's effect on trade.  
1.5  Canada's Growing Forward policy framework  
1.5.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81047)  
India notes that in 2013 Canada renewed the 2008 Growing Forward (GF) policy 
framework with Growing Forward 2 (GF2), extending the  framework until 2018. Under 
the GF2 scheme Canada has indicated dedicating $3 billion in cost -shared funding 
toward non -Business Risk Management (BRM) strategic initiatives and contains a 
comprehensive, demand -driven suite of BRM programming.4 Could Canad a explain the 
modalities of the scheme and how are they implemented?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Growing Forward 2 (GF2) is a $3 billion policy framework a nd the third Federal -
Provincial -Territorial (FPT) Multilateral Framework Agreement on Agriculture, Agri -Food and 
Agri-Based Policy. It runs from Fiscal Year 2013 -2018 and replaces the first Growing Forward 
Agreement. More detail s on the specific program mes and expenditures will be provided in 
forthcoming DS:1 and DS:2 notifications. GF2 is funded by the federal a nd provincial/territorial 
governments. There is $1 billion dedicated to federal programming broken down into three main 
program mes: AgriInnovation, AgriMarketing and AgriCompetitiveness. The remaining $2 billion is 
dedicated to cost -shared program mes (on a  60:40 basis) delivered by provinces and territories. 
This provides significant flexibility for provinces and territories to design and deliver program mes 
that address local priorities while supporting shared national outcomes. This cost -shared 
programming  generally falls under three broad categories: Innovation; competitiveness and 
market development; and adaptability and industry capacity. The cost -shared initiatives also 
include a robust, demand -driven suite of business risk management (BRM) program mes. These 
include the AgriInvest, AgriStability, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery program mes, which help 
producers manage severe market volatility and natural disaster risk.  
 
1.6  Canada's support for the ornamental horticulture industry  
1.6.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID  81048)  
Canada has announced federal support for the ornamental horticulture industry to grow 
their domestic and international markets.5 Could Canada kindly provide additional 
details of the proposed payments and confirm if they are consistent with Canada 's 
obligations at the WTO.  
 
                                                
4 Available at http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about -us/key -departmental -initiatives/growing -forward -
2/?id=1294780620963  (last visited 23/08/2016).  
5 Market Wired, available at http://www.marketwi red.com/press -release/canadas -ornamental -
horticulture -industry -gets-federal -support -to-grow-their-markets -2151687.htm  (last visited 23/08/2016) . G/AG/W/157  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
AgriMarketing is a federal program me designed to help farmers and food processors compete in 
markets at home and abroad. It supports the agriculture industry by creating and maintaining 
access to markets and ta king advantage of market opportunities. There is $341  million in 
government projects and contribution funding during the Growing Forward 2 lifecycle (2013 -2018). 
Within the AgriMarketing program me, there is a market developmen t stream that offers up to 
$2.5 million per year in eligible funding amounts to not -for-profit organizations seeking to develop 
and implement long -term market development strategies. The funding for the ornamental 
horticulture industry is provided to the Canadian Nursery Landscap e Association  (CNLA), 
a not-for-profit federation of nine provincial landscape and horticulture associa tions representing 
over 3,800  members. These payments are consistent with Canada 's obligations at the WTO and 
will be included in the domestic support notifica tion covering the year in which payments were 
dispersed.  
 
1.7  Canada's compositional standard for cheese  
1.7.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81002)  
New Zealand thanks Canada for its responses in the 80th regular Committee on 
Agriculture. However, New Zealand r emains concerned with the lack of satisfactory 
responses with regard to Canada's dairy policies.  
 
With reference to Canada's answer, New Zealand notes that its question was not fully 
addressed. While New Zealand agrees that on the face of it the Canadian c heese 
compositional standards "require that a certain percentage of casein content in 
standardized cheeses be derived from milk, regardless of whether this milk was 
produced in Canada or not," the answer does not address the issue that imported like 
dairy ingredients are excluded contrary to basic national treatment obligations in the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT  1994). As New Zealand noted in its 
question to Canada during the 80th regular Committee on Agriculture, the Dairy Products 
Regulat ions accord "less favourable" treatment to like imported dairy ingredients by 
creating conditions that de facto require the usage of ingredients sourced from domestic 
milk. Therefore, these regulations act as an import -substitution measure, contrary to 
Article III:4 of the GATT  1994.  
 
Given that these discriminatory measures are set out in the Dairy Products Regulations 
SOR/79 -840, New Zealand again asks what steps Canada intends to take to repeal its 
WTO -inconsistent compositional standard for cheese?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada does not agree with the assertions contained in the question. As mentioned at the 
80th Committee on Agriculture, the cheese compositional standards require that a certain 
percentage of casein content in standardized cheeses be derive d from milk, regardless whether 
this milk was produced in Canada or not. Canada 's compositional standards for cheese also allow 
for the use of ingredients and do not discriminate whether these ingredients were produced in 
Canada or not.  
 
Follow -up: New Ze aland noted concern that the compositional standards created de facto 
discrimination. The European Union expressed the concern over the effects of this measure on 
current and future trade flows . 
 
1.8  Canada's STE notification on dairy products  
1.8.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81096) and the United  States  of America 
(AG-IMS ID 81010)  
In notification G/STR/N/16/CAN, Canada lists on page 2 in I.B. Description of products 
affected  04.05 Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk; dairy spreads. According 
to the Canadian  Dairy Commission (CDC) annual report for 2013 -2014 ( http://www.cdc -
ccl.gc.ca/CDC/userfiles/file/CDC_AR_web_2014_en.pdf ), the CDC exports skim milk G/AG/W/157  
 
- 15 - 
 
  powder, dairy  blends, milk protein concentrate and "other products" under a surplus 
removal programme (p.  20). 
 
The report also states that "[d]uring the 2013 -14 dairy year, the majority of dairy 
product exports were performed by private companies under permits issued by the CDC. 
The main role of the CDC was to dispose of structural surplus of solids non -fat mainly in 
the form of skim milk powder or blends containing skim milk solids." (p.  25) 
 
a. Please explain why the CDC has only notified "butter and other fats and oils  
derived from milk; dairy spreads".  
b. Please explain why statistical information was not provided for additional 
products for which the CDC is involved in import and/or export. If this was in 
error, please clarify when Canada will submit an updated notificat ion with 
complete information.  
Answer by Canada  
 
Under its STE notification, Canada notifies products for which a STE receives exclusive or special 
rights or privileges. In the case of the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), under the import regime 
in place u ntil 1 August 1995, the CDC had exclusive or special privileges with respect to butter 
imports. Since the implementation of the tariff rate quota (TRQ) for butter on 1  August  1995, 
import permits for the butter TRQ have been allocated to the CDC annually w ith the proviso that 
these imports be directed to the further processing sector. While the CDC participates in the export 
of certain dairy products, mainly skim milk powder, it does not do it under any exclusive or special 
rights or privileges. In this con text, Canada does not notify CDC exports in its STE notification.  
 
1.9  Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese  
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81004), Norway (AG -IMS ID 81051) and 
Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 81052)  
New Zealand thanks Canada for its response in th e 80th regular Committee on 
Agriculture to its question on proposed changes to Canada's WTO 20,411,866 kg tariff 
quota for cheese as part of the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement  (CETA) 
between Canada and the European  Union (EU).  
 
New Zealand remains concerned that the proposed allocation of 800 tonnes of this quota 
to the EU reduces the quantity of market access available to non-EU WTO Members to 
6,140,034  kg and appears to be inconsistent with Art icle I, and Articles XIII:1 and  2 
under the GATT.  
 
a. Can Canada please confirm if it has consulted with, and received agreement 
from, all  other non -EU interested parties t hat the EU can be allocated 
800 tonnes from the non -EU reserve of the WTO quota?  
b. What steps is Canada taking to ensure that any changes are c onsistent with 
Canada's WTO commitments and do not disadvantage other WTO members?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada does not agree with the assertions contained in the question. Canada will continue to 
administer its WTO TRQ for cheese under Canada 's Export and Im ports Permits Act in conformity 
with its WTO obligations.  
 
Follow -up: Norway noted that the answer , which  was the same as in the last Committee mee ting, 
only responded to  the first question. Norway therefore repeated the second question  and asked 
what ste ps Canada was taking to ensure that any changes were consistent with  Canada's WTO 
commitments and did  not disadvantage other WTO Members.  In Norway's view , the answer to this 
question w as an obvious "no", given that historical cheese imports to Canada from  the 
13 EU member States  were far below  800 tonnes , ranging between 250-300 to nnes. New Zealand 
and Switzerland echoed Norway's comments. The United States flagged interest in the question.  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.10  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  
1.10.1   Question by the Unite d States of America (AG -IMS ID 81012)  
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its transparency, th ough remains concerned by 
Costa  Rica's continued lack of compliance with its WTO obliga tions. In response to 
AG-IMS ID 79004, Costa Rica notes that the upcomi ng notification "will reflect the 
Aggregate Measurement of Support for 2015. Only then will it be possible to determine 
whether the amount is within the annual monetary limits of Costa Rica's bound AMS of 
USD 15.9 million ". During the June 2016 COA Costa R ica reported that in it would notify 
in a few weeks the overall aid measure applied in 2015, and it is expected to be less 
than the a nnual limit of USD 15.9 million.  
 
a. When does Costa Rica expect to have the calculations for 2015?  
 
b. Does Costa Rica exp ect to be within the annual m onetary limit for AMS for 2015?  
 
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica thanks the United States delegation for following up o n this issue. In this regard, 
Costa  Rica can  report that, on Monday, 12  September  2016, Costa Rica notified  the Committee on 
Agriculture the Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) applied by Costa Rica in 2 015. 
This notification (G/AG/N/CRI/55 circulated on 20 September 2016) indicates that, in mon etary 
terms, the 2015 AMS was of  the amount of US$4.06  million, which is below the annual limit of 
US$15.9  million.  
 
1.11  European Union's agriculture policies  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81058)  
Australia welcomes the European Union 's efforts to adopt more market -oriented 
agriculture policies, including in the dairy se ctor. Australia notes that  the 
European  Union has announced a new EUR  500 million support package for dairy 
farmers. As part of the pack age, the European Union announced EUR  350 million of 
"conditional adjustment aid". Can the European Union :  
 
a. Confirm whe n the package will come into effect?   
b. Which types of dairy farms or dairy producers will be eligible for funding?  
c. Provide more details on the measures included as part of the package?  
d. Provide more detail on the eligibility criteria used to determine acce ss to 
funding and the amount of funding granted?  
e. Confirm whether funding available to farmers is linked to production?  
f. How does the European Union  intend to ensure that these measures do not 
distort production and/or trade?  
g. Australia notes that member S tates h ave the option to match the 
EUR 350 million with their own fundi ng. What disciplines will the 
European  Union Commission set on expenditure made by member States 
matching the "conditional adjustment aid"? Will Member States be free to set 
their own e ligibility criteria for the funding, or will the eligibility criteria be 
specified by the Commission?  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
a. The seven  Regulations were published in the Official Journal on 9  September, L  242. 
See also http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/newsroom/295_en.htm . 
b. Any dairy producer having delivered cow milk to first purchasers in July 2016 and in the 
reference period (last quarter of 2015 for the first submission round) is eligibl e to 
participate in the milk reduction production programme.  
As regards the exceptional adju stment aid scheme, it is up to m ember States to define 
eligibility criteria within the overall target group constituted by milk producers and 
farmers in other lives tock sectors.  
c. See http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-2563_en.htm . 
d. See reply to question b.  
e. Within the programme providing aid for milk production reduction, the payments to 
produ cers will be directly linked to the volume of milk deliveries effectively reduced 
compared to a reference period.  
Regarding the exception al adjustment aid, it is up to m ember States to design the 
appropriate measures, as long as they fall within the positi ve list of activities described 
in the Regulation which  contribute s to market stabilisation and economic sustainability.  
f. The measures included in the July 2016 package are mainly intended to reduce the 
overall supply -demand imbalance which has characteris ed the market through year 2015 
and first half of 2016.  
g. Under the exce ptional adjustment aid scheme, m ember States have the flexibility to 
design their own support programmes, within a positive list of activities set in the 
Commission Regulation. The possi bility to grant additional national funding is limited to 
the same measures as those financed from the EU budget.  
1.11.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81061)  
According to a European Commission press release on 18 July 20166, a new support 
package of EUR  500 millio n has been announced for farmers, particularly in the dairy 
sector. It extends its coverage to a mix of incentives to reduce production, conditional 
adjustment aid, and other technical adjustments. India requests the European Union to 
provide the following  information:  
 
a. The structure and modalities of the EUR  150 million pay out to incentivise the 
reduction in production of milk.  
b. The criteria to determine the amount of aid under each of the schemes.  
c. The total additional co -fundin g by each of the member S tates.  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The scheme aims at reducing milk deliveries in the E uropean Union by about 1  million 
tonnes within a time span of 3-6 months. Farmers participating in the scheme would be 
granted EUR  14/100 kg of cow milk reduced.  
b. For the m ilk production reduction sch eme, the aid level proposed (14 c/kg milk not 
produced) is set so as to cover the difference between the income loss for not producing 
milk (milk price) and the variable (operating) costs the farmer will not incur if the milk is 
not produced. According to the Commission Short Term Ou tlook, milk deliveries in the 
                                                
6 Available at : http://europa.eu/rapid/pr ess-release_IP -16-2563_en.htm  (last visited 24/08/2016) . G/AG/W/157  
 
- 18 - 
 
  European  may increase in 2016 by 2.1 million tonnes out of which over one million 
tonnes would be absorbed by additional domestic consumption and exports (calculated 
in mi lk equivalent using milk solids content method). It is therefore appropriate to 
design  a measure catering for a production reduction of around 1.1  million ton nes. 
In consequence, the total budget allocated to the measure is €150  million.  
As regards the exc eptional adjustment aid scheme, the financia l grant made available to 
each M ember State has been calculated taking into account the main features of their 
sectors including production, market prices and the weight of small farmers.  
c. The programme providing aid for milk production reduction (worth €150  million) does 
not contemplate the possibility of additional national co -funding.  
Within the exceptional adjustment aid scheme (worth €350 million), m ember States may 
grant additional s upport (up to a maximum of  100% ) for the measures financed from 
EU budget, under the same conditions of objectiveness, non -discrimination and 
non-distortion of competition.  
1.11.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81060)  
India would like to know if additional temporary state ai d is proposed fo r the year 
2016 -17 in other sectors, specifically for the meat production sector, in furtherance of 
the statements released by the European Commissi on on 14  March  2016 and 
18 July 20167. 
 
Answer by European Union  
 
No additional support has been decided for  2017.  
 
1.11.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81005)  
New Zealand welcomes ongoing efforts by the European Union to reform the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP) to make it more market -oriented, and to reduce both the 
quantum of and the distortive nature of dome stic support. This process serves not only 
to reduce the impact of CAP on the EU 's trading partners, but also renders the EU a more 
competitive producer and exporter. These reforms have been rewarded in recent years 
through the EU 's emergence as the leadin g global exporter and producer.  
 
New Zealand is encouraged by the recent announcement that the European Union will 
grant Member States a derogation from the obligation to maintain herd sizes for coupled 
payments in 2017, allowing herds to reduce in situat ions where market forces might call 
for it. This highlights how in some cases coupled payments isolate farmers from market 
signals, and the positive role simple reforms can play in helping the sector to respond to 
supply and demand shocks. New Zealand woul d encourage the European  Union to 
consider more permanent steps it could take to decouple support from factors of 
production.  
 
New Zealand notes also the announcement of a new support package in July that 
includes the possibility of further direct financi al assistance to farmers. The September 
2015 package provided for the possibility of payments directly to producers on the basis 
of their past years production.  
 
a. Will there be the possibility for payments in the July 2016 packag e to also be 
production -linked?  
b. What steps has the European Union taken to ensure payments under the 
September and July financial aid packages are targe ted at real financial 
hardship?  
                                                
7 European Commission -Press Release, available at : http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-
806_en.htm  (last visited 23/08/2016 ). G/AG/W/157  
 
- 19 - 
 
  c. Has the Commission undertaken any work to assess the effectiveness of the 
September 2015 package, a nd if so what is likely to be different about the 
parameters of the July 2016 package?  
d. What steps has the European Union taken to ensure payments under the 
September and July financial aid packages are at best minimally trade 
distorting?  
New Zealand notes  that this is the third instalment of dairy support packages and would 
be interested in any modelling or analysis undertaken around their impact on domestic 
and international prices. New Zealand notes that in the current environment, with 
farmers experienc ing relatively low prices, production levels remain out of sync with the 
demand in the market place, and efforts to ensure a market orientation are important to 
bringing prices back towards a sustainable level. New Zealand encourages continued 
efforts b y the European Union  in support of the reform effort envisaged in the 
Agriculture on Agreement.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
a. Within the programme providing aid for milk production reduction, payments to 
producers will be directly linked to the volume of milk d eliveries effectively reduced 
compared to a reference period.  
Regarding the exception al adjustment aid, it is up to m ember States to design the 
appropriate measures and modalities of payments, as long as they fall within the positive 
list of activities des cribed in the Regulation that contribute to market stabilisation and 
economic sustainability.  
b. For the sake of subsidiarity, and in order to ensure targeting support to those farmers 
most affec ted by the market disturbance, m ember States have been given the  flexibility 
to distribute their national amount through the most effective channels on the basis of 
objective and non -discriminatory criteria, provided that the resulting payments do not 
cause distortion of competition.  
c. The exceptional targeted aid measur e adopted in September 2015 was effective so as to 
provide cash flow relief to farme rs in market disturbance times. The measures 
announced within the July 2016 package aim at incentivising a reduction of milk supply 
and enhancing the sustainability of milk  farmers.  
d. The measures included in the July 2016 package are mainly tackling the global 
supply -demand imbalance which has characterised the market through year 2015 and 
first half of 2016. The result of the expected correction in milk supply will have a po sitive 
effect on the world market thus benefitting all major milk producing regions and 
countries.  
Follow -up: New Zealand would closely monitor  the implementation and  the effect s of these 
policies . In particular,  New Zealand was interested in learning whether th e flexibility introduced in 
the third instalment of reforms would have  the desired effect, since prices and demand were 
changing over time.  New Zealand questioned whether the demand/supply imbalances that the 
European Union referred to were  in fact a  result  of excessive government intervention.  
 
1.12  India's sugar export subsidies  
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81062)  
Australia thanks India for the answers provided to Australian questions raised at the 
80th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80011), an d notes that India has confirmed 
the Minimum Indicative Export Quota scheme (MIEQ) has been withdrawn. Australia 
also notes from media reports that India has extended the production subsidy to sugar 
mills for the 2015 -16 season. Can India please explain th e relationship between the 
MIEQ and the exten ded production subsidy formula?  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 
As stated in the 80th CoA meeting, MIEQ has been withdrawn. Mills are at liberty to export sugar 
as per commercial prud ence. No subsidy was provided to  exports un der the MIEQ. Further, after 
withdrawal of the production subsidy scheme on 19 May 2016, sugar mills will be provided subsidy 
based on ethanol supply to Oil Marketing Companies under the Ethanol Blending Programme and 
export  of sugar with equal weightage.  
 
1.12.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81025)  
Follow -up to Question AG -IMS ID 80037  
 
In its reply to question AG -IMS 80037 India indicated that no payments have been made 
so far, and that the scheme was withdrawn on 19 May 2016. Could India inform whet her 
any sugar producers had obtained rights for payments before that date and if so for 
which quantities and amount?  
 
Answer by India 
 
None of the sugar producers has been given rights for receiving payment of production subsidy 
prior to the withdrawal of the scheme on 19  May 2016  
 
Follow -up: Australia welcomed India's reply that no export subsidies had been paid on sugar under 
this programme. Ukraine  flagged interest in this issue.  
 
1.13  India's importation of apples  
1.13.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81006)  
New Zealand understands that Visakhapatnam Port and Tuticorin Port remain closed to 
apple imports since they were originally closed in September 2015. India advised the 
WTO Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) on 14 July that its other ports, where food safety 
systems are fully operational, have been reopened to apple imports.  
 
a. Are the two remaining ports closed to the import of apples due to SPS reasons?  
b. When they will reopen?  
c. When will these c losures be notified to the WTO?  
d. How are these closures consistent w ith Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture which states that "Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert 
to any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted  into 
ordinary customs duties"?  
Answer by India 
 
India reiterate s that, as stated in the previous meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, the issue 
is beyond the mandate of the CoA and the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture. Necessary 
information on this  issue will be provided to the relevant WTO body concerned . India  further 
remain s committed to engaging  bilaterally to discuss the issue with New Zealand.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand  reiterated its view that this question was within the  mandate of the 
Committee on Agriculture . New Zealand noted that Global Trade Atlas indicated  that New 
Zealand's apple exports to India had declined by NZ$4 million since the ports were first closed in 
September 2015 . New Zealand  welcome d India's  recent bilateral engagements and look ed forward 
to further discussion s. The European  Union flagged con tinued concern on this issue. Canada noted 
that this issue had been raised several times at the CoA and at a number of different Committees 
including the CTG and was encouraged by the bilateral discussions between New Zealand and 
India. Canada noted its sy stemic interest in ensuring that all Members meet their WTO obligations. G/AG/W/157  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Ukraine repeated its core interest in understanding the basis for India to close the ports and 
demanded fullest clarify on this issue.  
1.14  India's export assistance programmes  
1.14.1   Question by  the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81013)  
The United States asked several detailed questio ns in September  2015 (AG -IMS ID 78007) 
and March 2016 (AG -IMS ID 79002) regarding India's export assistance programmes and 
received a general response from Indi a. While the United States understands that the 
Vishesh Krishi Gram Upaj Yojana (VKGUY – or "Special Agriculture Produce Scheme") 
scheme was discontinued on 31 March 2015, the United States is resubmitting some of its 
previous questions, noting i ts interes t in historical data.  
 
In addition, the United States also seeks more details on the new programme, the 
Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS). During the June 2016 CoA, India 
confirmed that the VKGUY programme is permanently suspended and that there has 
been a discount; for 2015/2016, the amount was 1441.49 rupees. For 2013/2014 the 
amount was 3291 rupees. India also indicated that its export subsidy notification will be 
fully compliant with the Agreement on Agriculture, and that they are compiling da ta 
sector and product wise, but matching will take some time.  
 
a. The United States thanks India for its previou s responses regarding the 
VKGUY  programme confirming that it is suspended permanently. During the 
last Committee on Agriculture  India indicated tha t its export subsidy 
notification would be fully compliant with the Agreement on Agriculture. The 
United  States would like to seek an update on the status of India 's export 
subsidy notification?  
b. Furthermore, will India notify benefits provided under the n ew MEIS in its 
export subsidy notifications?  
Answer by India 
 
As noted in previous meetings, the VKGUY programme has been discontinued. The MEIS is a 
scheme which has been operational since 1 April 2015 and the list of sectors covered is available in 
Appendix 3b of the FTP. India also notes that all of India's notifications are in accordance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture  and all relevant guidelines issued by the Committee on Agriculture from 
time to time. India is working on its export subsidy notifica tions and will file them in compliance 
with the relevant rules. India takes its WTO obligations seriously and does not foresee any likely 
scenario where Indi a would breach its commitments.  
 
Follow -up: Canada  welcomed the discontinuation of the MEIS program me and Ind ia's upcoming 
ES notifications.  
1.15  Moldova's poultry tariffs  
1.15.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81014)  
The United States is concerned with Moldova's domestic legislation establishing tariff 
rates (initially established in Act No. 13 80-XIII "Customs Tariff" from 
20 November  1997). Specifically, for many tariff lines with mixed tariffs, the domestic 
legislation does not include language "...  but not greater than x%" that is found in 
Moldova's WTO bound tariff schedule, effectively elim inating an applied tariff rate cap. 
As a result, a few of Moldova's applied poultry import duties can be and have been in 
excess of WTO bound rates. During the June 2016 CoA, Moldova responded that they 
"are aware of the issue and the inconsistencies in ac cession process. In the domestic 
language there is no maximum tariff on that line and it has not yet been amended. 
Government of Moldova will propose to amend the legislation and it should be approved 
by end of current year ". 
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 22 - 
 
  a. The United States understands  that Moldova was preparing a modification to its 
fiscal legislation that would have eliminated the issue. However, because the 
relevant parts of the law were not included in the bill submitted to parliament, 
the correction has not happened.  
b. Would Moldova provide an update on the status of Moldova 's efforts to amend 
its poultry tariff bindings?  
Answer by Moldova, Republic of  
 
Moldova thanks the United States for their interest in the domestic legislation of Moldova regarding 
the poultry line 020714 and the bound tariff rates applied by the Republic of Moldova.  
 
The G overnment of Moldova is aware of the problem which poses a challenge to the Republic of 
Moldova's WTO commitments. The Ministry of Economy in June this year has sent already a 
proposal to the Mi nistry of Finance regarding the modification o f the law number 172 of 
25 July 2014 and the approval of the combined nomenclature of goods. Moldova would like to 
ensure Members that the poultry line 020714 mentioned earlier was already included in this 
proposal. Following the Moldovan bureaucratic internal government procedure, the Ministry of 
Finance will examine the proposal and then will propose a government decision for approval.  
Afterwards the proposed amendments will be sent to the Parliament for votin g.  
 
At this point the Moldovan National authorities have initiated the process of preparing a medium -
term budgetary framework for the period of 2007 to 2019 and therefore Moldova expects the final 
approval of these amendments by the end of 2016 and beginn ing of 2017. Moldova will inform 
Members in due time about the results of this amendments.  
 
Moldova  expect s the final approval of these amendments by the end of 2016 and  beginning of 
2017, in the context of the Fiscal -Budgetary  Policy for the upcoming year . 
 
Follow -up: The United States noted interest in following the latest development s on this issue . The 
European Unio n and Ukraine registered concern  and were encouraged  by the progress made so far 
on the subject. Ukraine noted the importance for Members to  respect their market access 
commitments.  
1.16  Pakistan's increase on import duties on milk powder including whey  
1.16.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81030)  
The European Union notes that Pakistan has increas ed its applied duties on 1 July  2016 
from 20% t o 45% for milk powders and from 20% to 25% for whey powder. 
Can Pakistan explain the reasons for these increases?  
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
Pakistan appreciates European Union 's interest in Pakistan 's dairy -related tariff changes. These 
specific changes in tari ff are in compliance with Pakistan 's WTO tariff bindings. Pakistan is a net 
importer of dairy products and demand of these products will continue to increase. Import of milk 
powder increased from USD  89 million  in 2011 to USD  167 milli on in 2015 with less than 
USD 1 million  exports while imports of whey powder show a consistent trend. Pakistan is also an 
attractive destination for foreign direct investment in the dairy sector because of its liberal regime. 
Livestock and dairy farming is  at subsistence level  and 70 -80% rearing labour consists  of women. 
This measure was taken to address livelihood concerns.  
 
1.17  Pakistan's export subsidy for sugar exports  
1.17.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81028)  
Pakistan has introduced a subsidy for export of sugar – EPD c ircular Letter No . 9 of 2016 
(State Bank of Pakistan) – whereby a subsidy of 13PKR/kg (=112€/t) is guaranteed by G/AG/W/157  
 
- 23 - 
 
  the State in case the selling price of the sugar is at least 450 USD/t and the cane 
producer has been paid a minimum price of 180 PKR/40 kg.  
 
a. How would Pakistan explain this policy development in light of the 
Bali Ministerial commitment to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any 
recourse to all forms of export subsidies?  
b. When does Pakistan intend to notify this measure to the WTO?  
c. How does Pakistan see the co nformity of this measure with Article  9:4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Pakistan  
 
Pakistan appreciates the European Union's question and takes this opportunity to inform that the 
programme indicated in the question is no longer operational. It  expired on 31  March  2016. It was 
a one -time measure to address market failure and lack of infrastructure. Marketing and freight 
cost was offered to those exporters that purchased from poor farmers. This measure will be 
notified after receiving all the cla ims, last date for submitting claims is 31  October  2016. Pakistan 
fully supports all WTO Ministerial Decisions including the Bali Ministerial Decision.  
 
Follow -up: Australia  showed supported to this  question.  
1.18  Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs  
1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81063)  
Australia thanks Sri Lanka for the answer provided to Australian questions raised in the 
78th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 78022), in relation to Sri Lanka 's increase in 
tariffs for milk powder. Can Sri  Lanka pl ease outline what readjustments have been 
made in relation to its applied rate for milk powder, with respect to its WTO commitment 
levels?  
 
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
Sri Lanka wishes to inform New Zealand and Australia that there was no increase of applied dut y 
on the powdered milk products imported into Sri Lanka. Rather, it has been reduced by 90 rupees 
despite a substantial loss of revenue of 7.85 billion rupees to the government. Sri Lanka informed 
Members of its position with regard to imported powdered mi lk products during its intervention at 
the Council for Trade in Goods held on 14 July 2016. The bound rate on the powdered milk 
products is 20%. This is the single lowest bound rate that Sri Lanka maintains in its commitments 
compared to 50% bound rate app lied to all other agricultural products. As Sri Lanka repeatedly 
mentioned, the 20% bound rate on powdered milk products of Sri Lanka is the lowest maintained, 
compared to many importing countries of the same products. Sri Lanka maintains its applied rate 
at 20% ad valorem  or Rupees 135 per kg.  
 
Sri Lanka wishes to inform this Committee that this measure was a temporary phenomenon which 
was implemented taking into account world market situation and dome stic market sensitivities. 
The G overnment of Sri Lanka  needs to pay attention to the domestic powder milk industry which is 
an infant industry. This industry remains a labour -intensive cottage industry benefitting over 2.2 
million people. Inputs for this industry, such as cattle, were imported from both Austr alia and New 
Zealand. Given the need to improve the commercial viability of this industry, guaranteeing 
sustainability is a daunting task of the government. At the same time consumers consider 
imported powder milk products to be essential. Therefore the go vernment needs to balance the 
prices of milk products in the domestic market with to the needs of both consumers and the 
domestic industry. The flexible duty of 135 rupees which is currently maintained by the 
government is  intended  to balance that requirem ent. Taking into account the local currency and 
the depreciation against the U.S. dollar and other hard currencies, this flexible duty component 
may be within Sri Lanka's WTO commitments. The current import duty has not affected imports 
from any of the sup plying countries mentioned above. In fact the quantity imported has 
substantially increased over the years.  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 24 - 
 
  As mentioned in Sri Lanka's previous statements, Sri Lanka is seriously assessing the situation of 
having a lowest bound tariff on the powder milk  products and its effect on the domestic industry. 
Sri Lanka may consider further options in this regard in line with WTO disciplines.  
 
1.18.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81007)  
New Zealand is pleased that Sri Lanka continues to work towards bringing its a pplied 
tariffs for dairy products in line with its WTO bindings of 20%. New  Zealand notes that 
on 23  July Sri  Lanka reduced its Customs import duty on the importation of milk powder 
by approximately 25%, from Rs.  225/kg to Rs.  135/kg, which  New Zealand  understands 
equates to an applied rate of approximately 38%. Can Sri Lanka advise the Committee 
what remaining steps need to be taken in order for it to return its applied tariffs back 
in line with its WTO ad valorem binding of 20%?  
 
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
See reply above.   
 
Follow -up: New Zealand welcomed the bilateral discussions with Sri Lanka and invite d Sri Lanka to 
continue to update the Committee on its progress in bringing the applied dairy tariff back in line 
with its WTO bindings.  The European Union s hared the concern.  
 
1.19  Tanzania 's restriction on sugar imports  
1.19.1   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 81021)  
According to Daily News Newspaper of Tanzania in February 2016, the President of 
Tanzania had ordered authorities to control importation of sugar by revokin g import 
permits, which are usually issued to traders to import sugar for domestic consumption. 
The regime, however, does not affect the importation of sugar from a member state of 
East African Countries (EAC). It is also reported that the President direct ed that sugar 
import permits be issued by his office and that of the Prime Minister.  
 
Thailand has raised the matter for clarification on a number of occasions, to the delegate 
of Tanzania since May 2016, and to the Informal Meeting of the Import Incensin g 
Committee on 2 June 2016. However, there has been no response from Tanzania on the 
matter. While Thailand fully acknowledges Tanzania 's problems, Thailand views that 
there may be other alternative measures to be explored, which may create less trade 
distortion. In this regard, Thailand would like to ask Tanzania to confirm the validity of 
the news, and in the case that the measures were confirmed, Thailand would like to urge 
Tanzania to comprehensively consider how the measures are in compliance with the 
WTO Agreements.  
 
Answer by Tanzania  
 
Tanzania undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
1.20  Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising the use of domestic dairy  
1.20.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 81065)  
New Zealand would like to register its concern w ith the regulations issued by the 
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, as set out in the Communique on 
Fundamentals of Support and Practice for the Utilisation of Raw Milk.  
 
The regulations appear to create a subsidy directed at the use of domestic  powdered 
and/or raw milk used as raw material in processed export products, which in turn 
suggests Turkey is incentivising the use domestic goods over that of imported goods.  
 
Can Turkey inform the Committee of how such a sub sidy is consistent with its 
WTO obligations, including Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement?  If the subsidy is 
WTO  inconsistent, what steps  is Turkey taking to rectify the situation?  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 25 - 
 
   
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
1.21  Turkey's domestic support pol icies 
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 81064)  
Canada notes that there are reports that the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock 
announced higher levels of domestic support with the objective of increasing production 
in certain sectors. Of note is the p lan in 2016 to grant 3.2 billion TL (USD 1.1 billion) in 
subsidies to livestock producers in order to increase the cattle population and 
subsequently increase meat production.  
 
a. Could Turkey provide information regarding how this grant to cattle producers 
will be applied?  
i. Will it be used by the producer to purchase cattle?  
ii. For producers with an existing herd of cattle what is the amount of the 
payment per head of cattle?  
iii. What other subsidies would be available to these producers? For example, 
would these p roducers be eligible to receive feed subsidies?  
iv. What is the projected increase in the number of cattle as a result of this 
grant?  
v. What is the projected increase in meat production?  
b. What are Turkey 's longer term domestic policy objectives related to incr easing 
meat production and self -sufficiency? In 2015, the Ministry of Food, 
Agriculture  and Livestock increased the pulse premium introduced in 2009 from 
100TL per tonne to 200TL  per tonne in 2015. As this premium is directly linked 
to production it is not  surprising that the plantings of lentils increased in 2016.  
c. What is the projected increase in production for crop year 2016?  
d. What other subsidies/grants are available to these producers that would 
support the production of lentil? For example, could produ cers receive fertilizer 
or fuel subsidies? If so, what are the amoun ts of these input subsidies?  
e. What are Turkey 's longer term objectives  for lentil production and self -sufficiency?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
1.22  U.S. Global Food Security Act  
1.22.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81067)  
The United States recently enacted the Global Food Security Act which authorises 
strategic action for providing "foreign assistance to developing countries to reduce 
global poverty and hung er, achieve food and nutrition security, promote inclusive, 
sustainable, agricultural -led economic growth, improve nutritional outcomes, especially 
for women and children, build resilience among vulnerable populations, and for other 
purposes ".8 India would  be interested to know what changes the new law would bring 
                                                
8 S.1252, available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1252/text  (last visited 23/08/2016) . G/AG/W/157  
 
- 26 - 
 
  about to the destination, quantity and type of commodities that the United States 
exports as f ood aid and subsidised exports.  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Global Food Security Act will  not alter USDA 's food assistance program mes. USDA will 
continue to align its program mes with the U.S. whole -of-government strategy. The food aid 
provided by the United States is not consi dered an export subsidy.  
 
1.23  U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Share program me 
1.23.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81069)  
The United States has launched a USD 300 million cost -share assistance programme for 
cotton -ginning .9 For the purpose of calculating the production that is eligible for 
payment, could the United States clarify the cri teria to be used and how it would affe ct 
the total domestic subsidy?10 
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program was announced on 6 June  2016. This program me provided 
a one -time cost share payment based on a producer 's 2015 cotton acreage, multiplied by 40 % of 
the average ginning cost for each production region. The progr amme will be included in the 
U.S. DS:1 notification for 2015/16.  
 
Follow -up: India would continue to follow this issue with interest. Brazil noted concern in  the new 
programme and would monitor  closely its implementation.  
1.24  U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  
1.24.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81070)  
India notes that the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes 
reduce  producer risk associated with price variability when current market prices are 
low relative to historical market prices and the programmes have completed one year. 
Could the United States clarify whether they have had an influence on production 
decisions and potentially resulted in greater acreage and production than would have 
occurred in their absence?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program mes are based on 
historical production leve ls and do not require a farmer to produce a particular crop to receive a 
payment. As such, the program me is designed to have minimal effects on production decisions.  
 
1.25  U.S. increase in sugar TRQ  
1.25.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 81068)  
India notes that in the fi nancial year 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture 
announced an increase in overall sugar allotment quantity a nd raw cane sugar import 
                                                
9 USDA No. 0140.16, available at: 
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/06/0140.xml&amp;contentidonly=true  
(last visited 24/08/2016) . 
10 This is important considering that the Working Document No: 8 on Blu e Box (December 2007) 
provides the basic criteria for Blue Box classification. Direct payments under production limiting programmes 
will qualify as a Blue Box subsidy only if: "(i) such payments are based on fixed and unchanging areas and 
yields; or (ii) s uch payments are made on 85 per cent or less of a fixed and unchanging base level of 
production; or (iii) livestock payments are made on a fixed and unchanging number of head"  
(emphasis  added).  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 27 - 
 
  access .11 Could the United States elaborate on how the increased tariff -rate quota on 
sugar imports will be di stributed among supplying countries and th e structure of 
implementation?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
For response, see " Fiscal Year 2016 Allocation of Additional Tariff -Rate Quota Volume for Raw Cane 
Sugar" , 81 FR 33728 ( 27 May 2016), available at : https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR -2016-05-
27/pdf/2016 -12496.pdf  
 
1.26  U.S. purchase of cheese stock  
1.26.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81066)  
Australia understands that USDA is planning  on purchas ing cheese stocks in the 
United  States. Could the United States please provid e information on:  
 
a. How much  cheese USDA plans to purchase?  
b. How will USDA determine the price it pays for any  cheese that will be 
purchased?  
c. Is there a volume limit on h ow much cheese USDA will purchase?  
d. Are there plans for USDA to purcha se any other dairy commodities?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Based on recent market prices, USDA expec ts to purchase approximately 11  million 
pounds of cheese.  
b. USDA 's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) issues a competitive invitation for bids, 
inviting approved vendors to submit offers to fill the demand.  Offers received by the bid 
closing deadline are evaluated based on offer prices and other factors (including past 
performance),  and one or more contracts are awarded to achieve the best value to the 
government.  
c. Yes, the solicitations will be for specified quantities based on expected competitive offer 
prices.  
d. There are no p lans for additional Section 32 c)  purchases of dairy commo dities.  
Follow -up: Australia and Canada registered interest in following the i mplementation of the 
programme. The European Union also signalled interest, particularly as regards the U.S. 
announcement that one of the aims of  the programme  was to increase p rices for cheese in the 
U.S. market . 
1.27  Viet N am's increase of excise duties for wine and spirits  
1.27.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81032)  
Viet N am has recently increased its excise duties for wine and spirits: from 10% to 35% 
in the case of wine and  from 15% to 65% the case of spirits. Can Viet  Nam explain the 
reasons for this increase of excise duties as well as provide a justification for the new 
methodology?  
 
                                                
11 USDA No. 0119.16, available at : http://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/usda -increases -fy-2016-us-
sugar -overall -allotment -quantity -and-raw-cane-sugar -import -access  (last visited 23/08 /2016) . G/AG/W/157  
 
- 28 - 
 
  In addition, the European Union would like to underline the need for transparency and 
consultation of all stakeholders beforehand. The European Union would like to invite 
Viet Nam to review its reform after a period of prior consultation with all stakeholders.  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam has recently increased Special Consumption Tax -SCT ( adopted  by Parliament on 26  
November 2014 and entered into force on 1 January 2016) on certain goods like beer, wine, 
spirits. Those goods are not encouraged for domestic consumption  because of the adverse impact 
of beer and spirits consumption on human heal th and social security. The  increase of excise SCT 
complies with Viet Nam 's policy and strategy on taxation.  
 
The g overnment of Viet Nam ( specifically the Ministry of Finance) ha s provided in detail the 
justification and methodology to determine new excis e SCT duties. Government Decree No. 
108/2015/ND – CP dated 28  October 2 015 provid es detail ed guidelines for the implementation of 
some articles of the Law on Special Consumption Tax.  
 
During the preparation of the drafting and issuing  of the  amended SCT, V iet Nam consulted with a 
wide range of stakeholders , including  domestic producers and importers and domestic  and foreign 
beer, spirits, and beverages associations . 
 
A review of the reform is needed in coming years . Viet Nam would welcome  any new proposals 
and encourages Members to contact the  Ministry of Finance of Viet Nam for further information.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and New Zealand regi stered interest in this matter.  
 
1.28  Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  
1.28.1   Question by the European Union (A G-IMS ID 81033)  
The Food Reserve Agency, according to EU information, is responsible for ensuring a 
food security stock  of 500,000 tonnes (= 3 month s of food consumption). During the 
2014/15 marketing year, the Food Reserve Agency seems to have bought in t he order of 
1.2 million tonnes, of which part seems to have been exported at prices below the price 
at which it was bought -in.  
 
Could Zambia indicate the prices at which maize was bought -in during the 2014/15 
marketing year and the average selling price i n the internal market as well as the 
quantities sold on export markets from the Food Reserve Agency stocks?  
 
Answer by Zambia  
 
Zambia undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
1.29  China's environmental programmes  
1.29.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81050 ) 
Since China has not supplied written responses, Australia resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID79056: Can China please inform Members as to the types of programmes that 
receive funding for environmental programmes (under Other General Services) and who 
are th e recipients? How are environmental programmes allocated across geographic 
areas?  
 
Answer by China  
 
As China  explain ed at previous meetings, its  experts  have identified some program mes which  were 
not correctly categorized in the notification concerned. The se problems will be addressed when 
experts complete  their study . As for the recipients of the payments, please  refer to China’s  reply to 
question  AG-IMS ID 79012.  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 29 - 
 
  1.30  China's regional assistance programmes  
1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81053)  
Since China has not supplied written responses, A ustralia resubmits its 
question  AG-IMS 79057: China reported an increase in expenditure from 2009 to 2010 of 
approximately 15% for regional assistance programmes (under Other General Services). 
This continues a trend fr om previous notifications showing significant increases in 
expenditure for these programmes (more than double from 2005).  
a. Can China please explain what eligibility requirements are needed to receive 
payments under these programmes?  
b. What types of activitie s receive funding and can China explain how these 
activities are in accordance with Annex 2 o f the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by China  
 
China’s  experts are s till studying this question. China will submit its  reply once tits experts  
complete  their stu dy. 
 
1.31  Malaysia's Table ES:2 notification  
1.31.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81027)  
The European Union would like to reiterate its question for which no answer was 
provided , neither orally during the 80th meeting in June 2016 nor in writing in 
documen t G/AG/W/154.  
 
According to document G/AG/W/123, Malaysia is a significant exporter of the product 
category "eggs". Could Malaysia explain why its Table ES:2 notification does not contain 
data on the total exports of eggs?  
 
Answer by Malaysia  
 
Malaysia i s working on improving its  notification to include eggs in the future.  
 
1.32  Thailand's export of rice from government stocks  
1.32.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 81031)  
The European Union would like to reiterate its question AG -IMS ID 80045 , for which no 
answer was provided , neither orally during the 80th meeting in June 2016 nor in writing 
in document G/AG/W/154.  
 
According to the FAO, and as reported in the press, in 2016 Tha iland is expected to 
export 9.9  million tonnes of rice, which is a slightly gr eater quantity than exported 
in 2015. However , due to reduced production in 2015, a higher share of the export will 
come from government stocks.  
 
a. Could Thailand indicate the total quantity of rice exported from government 
stocks in 2015 and the average sales p rice of these quantities?  
b. Could Thailand indicate the expected quantities to be sold on export markets 
from  government stocks during 2016?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
During the period of 2015 to 31 May 2016 Thailand released rice stock to local traders for 
consum ption, trading, and industrial use through tender process. The traders may improve the 
quality of the rice with the purpose of selli ng them in the domestic market or for exportation. G/AG/W/157  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Regarding the rice for the purpose of consumption, in the case where the traders would like to 
export them internationally, the quality of the rice must be in compliance with the Thai Rice 
Standard set by the Ministry of Commerce.  
 
Thailand gives very high importance in managing rice from government stock. Releasing rice from 
the stock will be implemented  carefully each time to ensure benefit and fairness to all 
stakeholders. Several factors are taken into consideration such as the timeliness of the release, 
quality of rice, government expenditures, market situation, and sanitar y concerns.  
 
Follow -up: Pakistan, Senegal, and the United States registered interest on this subject. Canada 
noted interest in reviewing information on exports from governments stock . 
 
1.33  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale  
1.33.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 81015)  
The United States appreciates Turkey 's response to its quest ion AG -IMS ID 78008. 
The United  States resubmits the following questions:  
 
a. Could Turkey clarify whether any Members of the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) 
Board of Directors  are, or are not, appointed by or employed by the 
Government of Turkey?  
b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing 
certificate holders over the past several years.  In the past, Turkey has cited 
U.S. Department of Commerce countervailing duty decisions on pasta and steel 
pipes and tubes.  These decisions do not provide the information requested.  
The United  States appreciates Turkey confirming that that TMO sells domestic 
wheat to Turkey flour millers.  Could Turkey also confir m whether these same 
domestic flour millers export?  Could Turkey please provide wheat purchase and 
wheat sales prices for these transactions for the last three years?   
c. The United States appreciates Turkey's response on exported flour and 
imported wheat as shown in the table (A nnex 2 in G/AG/W/106; 
AG-IMS ID 73042). Are all of the quantities listed imported and exported 
through the inward processing system? If not, please elaborate on this table by 
stating how much of the imports and exports were through the  inward 
processing system.  Turkey has responded that "Vast majority of Turkish wheat 
imports and wheat fl our exports were made under IPR ". Please state precisely 
how much of the imports and exports were through the inward processing 
system.  
d. In AG -IMS ID 73 042, the United States requested data concerning both the 
quantity and quality of wheat imports and flour exports under Turkey's inward 
processing system. In response, Turkey provided data concerning only the 
quantity of such imports and exports and did no t have data to share on quality.  
Please share any information regarding the quality of the wheat imports and 
flour exports over the last three years that Turkey can provide, even if not 
data.   
e. The United States would also like to point out that Turkey has not notified its 
domestic support or export subsidies since 2002.  Notifying Turkey 's domestic 
support and export subsidies would help clarify many of U.S. questions, and 
could cut down unnecessary back and forth.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey already responded to this question at its TPR meeting held in March and at the last 
Committee on Agriculture meeting. Turkey would like to refer to those answers.  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Follow -up: As a major wheat producer and export, Ukraine noted its systemic interest in 
understanding Turkey's  policy in this area. The European Union and the United States sought 
Turkey's additional clarification on this question.  
1.34  U.S. soybean programmes  
1.34.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 81098)  
a. In its May 2016 response, the United States informed that the information  
requested by Brazil was not available a t that time. Should data for FY 2015 be 
available now, could the United States provide the total  amount of 
disbursements, in FY 2015, for soybean producers under each of the following 
programs and/or buy -up options - Marketing Loans (ML), Crop Insurance 
(CIP), Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC), Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and 
Supplemental Coverage Option  (SCO)? If complete data for FY 2015 is not still 
available, Brazil would appreciate to receive the most up -to-date inform ation.  
b. In its May 2016 response, the United States informed that the information 
requested by Brazil was not available a t that time. Should data for FY 2015 be 
available now, could the United States provide the total amount of premium 
subsidies for soybean production  disbursed, in FY 2015, under each of the 
following programs or buy -up options - CIP, ARC, PLC, and SCO? If complete 
data for FY2015 is not still available, Brazil would appreciate to receive the 
most up -to-date information.  
c. In its May 2016 respon se, the United States informed that the information 
requested by Brazil was not available a t that time. Should data for FY 2015 be 
available now, could the United States provide info rmation on the coverage, for 
FY2015, of each of the following programs and/ or buy -up options - CIP, ARC, 
PLC, and SCO - in terms of both soybean producers and soybean planted 
acreage? If complete data for FY2015 is not still available, Brazil would 
appreciate to receive the most u p-to-date information.   
d. In response to Brazil' s question on projected outlays for FY 2016 under ML, CIP, 
ARC, PLC and SCO programs and/or buy -up options, the United States declared 
that it does not provide estimated outlays for any of its programs. Could the 
United  States explain why it does not do so? Cou ld the United States provide 
information on what has been the trend of those outlays over the past ten 
years?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States of America  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Uruguay registered i nterest in this question.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.1.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/111, G/AG/N/CAN/112 ) 
AG-IMS ID 81034: Question by the European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Some TRQs present impressive quota fill (more than 110%), e.g. wheat, barley, broiler 
hatching eggs and chicken, or living chicken and meat and processed meat of chicken. 
Could Canada explain how these imports under TRQs are calculated?  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
Canada regularly notifies fill rates above 100% for several TRQs. These include wheat products, 
barley products, broiler hatching eggs and chicks and chicken. Global Affairs Canada administers 
these TRQs and monitors fill rates based on information provided  by the Canada Border Services 
Agency. For broiler hatching eggs and chicks, fill rates have been above 100% since 1995 due to 
the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) commitment has been larger than 
the WTO commitment. The NAFTA commi tment is calculated as 21.1% of the current year 's 
anticipated production. The situation for the chicken TRQ is similar: the NAFTA commitment, 
calculated as 7.5% of previous year 's production, has histor ically been larger than the 
WTO commitment. For wheat  products, the TRQ is regularly filled or over -filled and this TRQ is 
administered on a first -come, first -served basis. Wheat product imports are closely monitored: 
when imports are nearing 100% fill, the quota is closed. This method for monitoring wheat p roduct 
imports can result in the TRQ being over -filled, as it is difficult to exactly cut the quota off at the 
WTO commitment level. This slight over -fill is preferable to closing the quota too early, potentially 
resulting in an under -fill. For barley prod ucts, there is a growing demand for specialty malts used 
in beer production (mainly micro -breweries and craft breweries), which contributes to the over -fill. 
Many of the specialty malts required by breweries are not widely available in Canada and 
additiona l permits beyond the WTO commitment level may be provided on a case -by-case basis.  
 
2.1.2   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/55)  
AG-IMS ID 81035: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
Additional autonomous measures on maize and rice lead to over quota fill. O ther TRQs 
are not listed as activated  because of better market conditions.  
 
As a matter of transparency, could Guatemala also list in its notification the tariff rate 
quotas that were not activated because of better access conditions, as well as indicate 
the duty rate applied to these products?  
 
Answer by Guatemala  
 
Guatemala are committed to 22 tariff quota s in the WTO . Currently, only the quotas for maize and 
rice are still in operation. Over time, for various reasons, the use of WTO quotas has declined i n 
the domestic market.  
 
One of the reasons is that the MFN tariff generally provides better tariff treatment than the WTO 
quotas.  
 
One example is the quota for wheat (subheading 1001.90). In this case, Guatemala's commitment 
under the WTO is a tariff quota  of 5% for other wheat and 30% for soft wheat. The MFN tariff, 
however, is 0%. This also applies to other quotas, where the MFN tariff is usually lower.  
 
Another example is pork, with an in -quota tariff of 45%, while the MFN tariff is 15%. There are 
also certain dairy products with in -quota tariffs of 40% or 45%, w hile for those products the 
MFN tariff ranges between 0%, 10% and a highest rate of 15%.  
 
Annex I lists the current MFN tariff rates for products subject Guatemala’ s WTO tariff quota 
commitments.  
 
2.1.3   Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/57)  
AG-IMS ID 81036: Question by the European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union takes note of the improvement in market access in oranges and 
citrus fruit, from zero in 2014 to respectively 18% and 22% in 2015. How ever, these 
rates remain substantially low.  
Could the Republic of Korea explain why the quota fills for these products still remain 
very low? What measures could be envisaged to improve this situation?  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Answer by the Republic of  Korea  
As far as the TRQ for oranges is concerned, there is currently no difference between in -quota tariff 
and out -of-quota tariff rates, which are both 50%. Oranges are also subject to seasonal duties under 
a number of FTAs including the Korea -EU FTA. They are being imported at a pr eferential rate 
of 15-25% as of 2015. Regarding citrus fruits, TRQ is administered on a first -come -first-served 
basis. The domestic production, however, has been higher than local consumption resulting in little 
demand for import.  
2.1.4   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/ 86) 
AG-IMS ID 81099: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
South Africa's WTO -bound quota fill rates for various products have been very low for 
a number of years. In particular, Switzerland is concerned by the zero rates for "butter" 
and "cheese" in  2014. Furthermore, the fill rate for "butter" has varied considerably: 
measuring zero in 2011, it rose to 13% in 2012, but dropped again to zero in 2014.  
Could South Africa explain why these rates are so low? What impediments are causing 
these low fill ra tes and, in the case of "butter", these large fluctuations? 
Has South  Africa already considered changes in the administration of its quotas, in order 
to boost the rates? If so, in which direction are the changes being made?  
Answer by South Africa  
Permits f or full quota  quantities for butter and cheese were issued yearly to importers. Importers, 
however, often do not utilize these quotas. Both but ter (HS 0405.10) and cheese (HS  0406, 
various lines) are subject to an import tariff of R5.00 per kilogram. If th is specific duty is 
converted to an ad valorem equivalent, the level of the specific duty is very close, or, in most 
cases, below the in -quota tariff rate. For this reason, importers import  their products at the MFN 
tariff level and not at  the in -quota tar iff rate. The g overnment places no restrictions on the 
utilisation of import permits and substantial quantities of both butter and cheese are imported into 
the country.  
2.1.5   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/48)  
AG-IMS ID 81072: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Woul d Tunisia please explain the significant under fill for the milk powder and butter 
tariff quotas?  
Answer by Tunisia  
The Mission  of Tunisia  has not yet received a reply on this matter from the relevant Tunisian 
authorities. However, Tunisia  can provide a pr eliminary response  as follows : 
 
TRQs for products subject to import tariff quotas are alloc ated in accordance with the 
TRQ administration procedures laid down in Decree No.  96-1119 of 10  June 1996, as well as 
Decree  No. 2014-4512 of 30  December  2014. Pursu ant to these decrees, the Ministry of Trade 
publishes a TRQ opening notice establishing the T RQ allocation procedure, the conditions of 
admissibility of applications, and the time limits for submitting them.  
 
In this case, with regard to the products menti oned by the Members that raised questions, actual 
imports as notified in document G/AG/N/TUN/48 simply corresponded to the requests made by 
importers.  
 
Generally speaking, Tunisian notifications for the period 2005 up to 2014 show that quotas for 
several p roducts such as sheep meat, durum wheat, common wheat, barley and sugar were 
completely filled during most of the notification period.  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 34 - 
 
   
The quota for calves has also almost always been filled since 2009. Also i n the case of cheese, the 
TRQ has practically always been filled since 2005 and was even overfilled  in 2008 and 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 81073: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Tunisia has notified low (or 0%) TRQ fill rates for bovi ne meat and beans in the past 
3 years (2013 -2015). Could Tunisia provide  a reason for the persistent underfill of these 
tariff quotas?  
Answer by Tunisia  
See reply above.  
AG-IMS ID 81037: Question by the European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Some TRQs are constantly underfilled over the three years covered by this notification. 
Could Tunisia provide explanation for the underfill rates for meat, dairy products and 
beans?  
Answer by Tunisia  
See reply above.  
AG-IMS ID 81100: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
Tunisia's WTO quota fill rates for dairy products are very low in th e years 2013, 2014 
and 2015. The fill rate for "milk powder" ranges from 40% to 50%, while that for 
"cheese" does not exceed 20%. The same goes for "butter", with a rate of zero.  
Could Tunisia explain why these rates are only around half the maximum or, in  some 
cases, much lower? What impediments might account for the current low fill rates? 
Has Tunisia already considered changes in the administration of its quotas, in order to 
boost the rates? If so, in which direction are the changes being made?  
Answer by  Tunisia  
See reply above.  
2.2  SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5)  
2.2.1   Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/54)  
AG-IMS ID 81075: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia notes the Republic of Korea submitted its MA:3 notification to the Committee 
of Agri culture on 8 July 2016, some 53 days after this special safeguard was 
implemented on 16 May 2016. This is despite the trans parency obligation of Paragraph  7 
of Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture to provide such notice "as far as in advance 
as may be  practicable and in any event within 10 days of the implementation of such 
action". Would the Republic of Korea please explain this delay?  
 
Answer by the Republic of  Korea  
 
It has been eight years since the Republic of Korea last invoked the volume -based SSG in 2007. 
This might be related with the delayed notification from Korea 's relevant authorities. Apart from 
the WTO notifications, the Republic of Korea has provided  public notice on the SSG s via the 
website of Korea Customs Service as well as local new spapers in advance of invoking the volume -
based special safeguard.  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 35 - 
 
   
Follow -up: Australia noted the importance of timely notifications, particularly as it related to 
special safeguards given  that Member s' exports could be affected. Australia noted an error  in its 
question which mistakenly related  the notification in question  to an SSG action in 2016 rather than 
2015. Instead of 53 days, the notification was in fact 1 year and 2 months late. Australia 
encouraged the Republic of Korea to submit SSG notificati ons in a timely manner in the future.  
 
2.2.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/137)  
AG-IMS ID 81074: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia notes Chinese Taipei submitted its MA:3 notification to the Committee of 
Agriculture on 26 July 2016, some 29 day s after this special safeguard was implemented 
on 27 June 2016. This is despite the transparency obligation of Paragraph  7 of Article  5 
of the Agreement on Agriculture to provide such notice "as far as in advance as may be 
practicable and in any event with in 10 days of the implementation of such action". 
Would Chinese Taipei please explain this delay?  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
Chinese Taipei  certainly recognizes transparency as an  important obligation to  Members, and 
Chinese Taipei can assure Members that  its implementation and operation of any SSG measure will 
always be carried ou t in a most transparent manner.  
 
In this  particular case, there is more than one government department or agency invol ved in 
issuing notifications, therefore sometimes more time is needed to finalize such documents.  
Chinese Taipei insures  Members that it intends to issue  notific ations as early as possible without 
any delay . 
 
Follow -up: Australia noted the importance of providing timely SSG notificati ons. 
 
2.2.3   Republic of Korea (G/AG/N /KOR/55)  
AG-IMS ID 81076: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
For the calendar year 2015, the Republic of Korea appl ied volume based safeguards on 
four separate cereal products totalling around 149,020.4 kilograms. Canada notes that 
according to the g uidance on notification requirements and formats adopted by the 
Committee and contained in G/AG/2 that the information on volume based safeguard 
actions in an MA:5 notification should be derived from MA:3 notifications already issued 
after the implementati on of a safeg uard action, in this case 2015.  
 
The Republic of Korea has submitted one MA:3 (G/AG/N/KOR/54) covering these cereal 
products, however the period of application in the MA:3 does not cover the entire period 
of application notified in its MA:5 fo r all products. Also, the volumes on which the 
safeguard was applied are different between the MA:3 and MA:5.  
 
a. Could the Republic of  Korea clarify if it plans on submitting any further MA:3 
notif ications for the 2015 period?  
b. How will the Republic of Korea  better reconcile the information in its MA:3 and 
MA:5 notifications in th e future?  
c. The Republic of Korea 's MA:3 notification was issued on 8 July 2016 and was 
for the period 16 May 2015 to 31 December 2015. Could The Republic of Korea  
please explain how, g oing forward, it will improve its timeliness for issuing 
MA:3 notifications?  
Answer by the Republic of  Korea  
 
On question a . and b ., the Table MA:3 notification contains the trigger information such as  list of 
tariff lines , application period and calculati on of trigger level, whereas the Table MA:5 notification 
refers to the actual import volume based on Table MA:3 notification. That is the reason why it G/AG/W/157  
 
- 36 - 
 
  covers only a part of the applicable tariff lines. Therefore, the Republic of Korea considers it is not 
necessary to submit additional Table MA:3 notifications. However, the Republic of Korea will 
consider simplifying the Table MA:5 notification in  the future to avoid confusion.  
 
As to question c, it has been eight  years since the last volume -based SSG  was i nvoked in 2007. 
The delay in the MA:3 Table  may be resulted from  delayed notification from Korea 's relevant 
authorities. Apart from the WTO notifications, the Republic of Korea has provided public notice on 
the SSGs via the website of Korea Customs Service  as well as local newspapers in advance of 
invoking the volume -based special safeguard.  
 
Follow -up: Australia supported the question.  
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/104)  
AG-IMS ID 81023: Question by New Zealand - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In its most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CAN/104) Canada reports that in 2012 it 
provided a total of CAD 615.253 million in support to the dairy sector – namely to SMP 
and butter. This figure, however, is considerably lowe r than estimates made by the 
OECD in its annual "OECD -FAO Agricultural Outlook ". For the same period, the OECD 
estimates Canada 's average annual producer support to be worth CAD 3.018 billion – 
almost 5 times the amount notified by Canada in its  most recen t DS:1 notification.  
 
Looking at the figures provided by Canada in their latest DS:1 notification, Canada 
appears only to be reporting domestic support provided to its dairy sector that is directly 
provided by the federal government, excluding indirect dom estic support, or support 
provided by provincial governments such as the price support measures provided by the 
Ontario pr ovincial government and others.  
 
New Zealand notes that Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture explicitly requires 
price support meas ures are included in Members ' AMS calculations. Based on the above 
information, can Canada provide updated figures for its DS:1 notification that take into 
account domestic support provided by all levels of government, including the provincial 
authorities?   
 
Answer by Canada  
 
As New Zealand alludes to in its question, the OECD 's figures for Canadian market price support 
for milk equal $3.018 billion in 2012. The OECD 's methodology is different than what is used to 
compile domestic support notifications for the WTO 's Committee on Agriculture, since each have 
different purposes for estimating and measuring support. The OECD 's Market Price Support is 
measured at the farm gate level using actual producer and reference (border) prices for 
commodities in a given y ear, whereas in the AMS market price support is calculated by the 
difference between annual prices fixed by policy makers (administered prices) and world prices in 
the base period (1986 -88). The OECD 's estimate is used to monitor and evaluate current progr ess 
in policy reforms, whereas the AMS is the basis for a legal commitment to reduce domestic support 
from a historical base period, as outlined in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Canada notes that 
the effects of certain measures (e.g. import and export measures, production quotas) are not 
included in the AMS calculations, while they are included in the OECD calculations. Canada reports 
all market price support that is based on administered prices in its AMS calculation. The only 
government administered p rices in Canada are the federally set prices for Butter and SMP. To  
further illustrate this point, consider that OECD data for New Zealand has reported market price 
support in 2015 for poultry meat and eggs, but due to methodological differences, New Zeala nd 
did not report market price support for any commodity in its most recent DS:1 notification.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted the difference in OECD and WTO subsidy calculation methodologies 
and agreed with Canada's observation that measures such as New  Zealand’s notified SPS 
measures were not relevant to the WTO AMS calculations. New Zealand noted that it was in fact 
the huge difference of CAD$3.5 billion  between the OEDC estimate and the  figure notified by G/AG/W/157  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Canada that  drew its attention. New Zealand w elcomed the fact that Canada had reported  all 
market price support that was based on administered prices  and asked Canada to confirm if they 
maintained any price support – whether direct or indirect – at provincial level.  
 
2.3.2   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/51)  
AG-IMS ID 81 078: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that that support provided under infrastructural 
services related to irrigation and drainage infrastructure fluctuated over the three years 
notified . However, there was a substantial increase from USD  75.182 million in 2012 to 
USD 139.235  million in 2013. Could Colombia elaborate on the reasons for the increase 
and the types of projects undertaken?  
Answer by Colombia  
 
As part of the g overnment's peace  strategy, priority was acc orded in the 2010 -2014 National 
Development Plan to investment in public goods for the rural sector as the basis for the structural 
transformation of the Colombian countryside. Over this period the budget for programmes and 
projects in the agricultural secto r was increased significantly compared to  budget allocations in the 
past, thanks to the economic growth under way in the country at that time. This increase in 
resources helped to strengthen the institutional capacity of the ex isting programmes, extending 
their coverage and boosting the development of the rural sector. In this situation of improved 
resource availability, increased support is being provided for infrastructure as result of the 
implementation of rural development p olicies aimed at promoting the productivity and 
competitiveness of agricultural  activities, primarily of small -scale producers. Since there are 
7.6 million hectares of land in Colombia suitable for irrigation and drainage development, of which 
only 1.1  million hectares are irrigated, irrigation infrastructure has been designated as an 
investment priority. Resources have been allocated to strengthen programmes for the analysis, 
design and construction of regional irrigation and drainage systems, and for the administration, 
maintenance and operation of these systems. Once the details of previous such programmes have 
been forwarded by the Colombian Institute for Rural Development (INCODER) to the Rural 
Development Agency, it will be possible to provide more det ailed information.  
 
Institutional reform - reform of the country's rural development institutions has been assigned 
priority in the nat ional agenda to strengthen post -conflict rural development policy. 
By Decree  1985 of 2013 the structure of the Ministry o f Agriculture and Rural Developmen t has 
been amended and the Vice -Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development established to ta ckle 
new challenges in the area -based app roach to rural development. Far -reaching reforms have also 
been made to the institutio nal framework for rural development. Decrees 2364, 2363, and 2366 of 
2015 created the Rural Development Agency, the National Land Agency and the Regional 
Revitalization Agency, the institutions through which the rural development strategy will be 
implement ed on the ground. These agencies are currently being set up, legally formalized and 
equipped with information from the former INCODER.  
 
AG-IMS ID 81079: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In Supporting Table DS:2, Canada notes that the  support provided under Article  6.2 
Special and Differential -Development Programme support, in particular the incentives 
for producers to improve their production capacity increased steadily from 2011 to 
2013. Could Colombia please pro vide additional information on the types of activities 
undertaken during the reporting period?  
 
Answer by Colombia  
 
As part of the g overnment's peace strategy, pr iority was accorded in the 2010 -2014 National 
Development Plan to investment in public goods for the rural sector as the basis for the structural 
transformation of the Colombian countryside. Over this period the budget for programmes and 
projects in the agricultural sector was increased significantly compared to  budget allocations in the 
past, tha nks to the economic growth under way in the country at that time. This increase in 
resources helped to strengthen the institutional capacity of the existing programmes, extending G/AG/W/157  
 
- 38 - 
 
  their coverage and boosting the development of the rural sector. Incentives t o producers to 
increase their production capacity included the granting of loans to agricultural producers through 
the Agricultural Financing Fund (FINAGRO) to finance investment activities and to provide them 
with working capital for their production sche mes. A breakdown of these loans is available at: 
https://www.finagro.com.co/estad%C 3%ADsticas/estad%C 3%ADsticas . In addition, the Rural 
Capitalization Incentive (ICR) scheme, for  the upgrading of production infrastructure, has been 
launched through FINAGRO to subsidize the principal of loans granted to agricultural producers for 
the purposes of new investment to make them more competitive and ensure the sustainability of 
their agr icultural production. At the same time, the Colombian government has stepped up its 
technical assistance programmes for small and medium -scale producers, providing comprehensive 
support for the development of their production activities and guidance in tec hnical, commercial, 
financial, organizational and environmental matters. These programmes will be run by the Rural 
Development Agency.  
AG-IMS ID 81022: Question by Thailand - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
During the period of 2011 -2013, Columbia allocated USD  276 to 419  million as investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture as incentives for producers to improve 
competitiveness of agriculture and to develop new production projects that revive the 
country 's agriculture a ctivities.  
 
As a developing country, Thailand views that it can benefit from the study of such 
programme as it is a good example for competitiveness and production enhancement in 
the agriculture sector, and therefore would like to seek detailed information  on activities 
under such inve stment subsidies from Colombia.  
 
Answer by Colombia  
 
For investment subsidies generally available to agriculture, Colombia draws on the Agricultural 
Finan cing Fund (FINAGRO) as a second -tier institution – in other words, FINAG RO grants resources 
on an incentive basis to financial institutions so that they in turn will grant loans to agricultural 
producers to finance investment activities and to serve as working capital for their production 
schemes. When circumstances (such as n atural disasters) dictate that special attent ion be given 
primarily to small -scale producers, special temporary credit lines are set up with preferential 
interest rates for certain groups of producers or agricultural activities that require special 
attenti on. Through FINAGRO, agricultural producers can also benefit from the Rural Capitalization 
Incentive (ICR) scheme, which was created to promote the upgrading of production infrastructure, 
with incentive grants to offset the principal of loans granted to ag ricultural producers. 
ICR incentives are granted on an individual or colle ctive basis to small and medium -scale 
producers for the financing of new investment projects, to make them more competitive and to  
ensure the sustainability of their agricultural pro duction. Th e FINAGRO services portfolio is 
available at: https://www.finagro.com.co/productos -y-servicios/portafolio -de-servicios . In  
addition, under its rural developm ent programmes, the Government of Colombia is providing 
technical assistance for small and medium -scale producers, with comprehensive support for the 
development of their production activities and guidance in technical, commercial, financial, 
organizationa l and environmental matters. These programmes will be taken over and run by the 
Rural Development Agency, which will include among its functions the formulation of 
comprehensi ve plans and projects for local -level agricultural and rural development that foc us on 
such issues as technical assistance, access to production assets, land improvement and marketing.  
 
Follow -up: Canada was encouraged by the upturn of Colombia's economy which enabled the 
country to invest in rural infrastructural projects.  
 
2.3.3   European U nion (G/AG/N/EU/26)  
AG-IMS ID 81081: Question by Chile - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Chile has the following questions regarding the EU's notification on domestic support for 
the marketing year 2012/2013 (document G/AG/N/EU/26):  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 39 - 
 
  a. According t o the document Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS)12 of July  2015, the 
annual amount of VCS available (at EU level) for the 2015 ‑2020 period 
averages EUR  209 million (or EUR 309 per hectare) for the fruit and vegetable 
sector. Could the EU please break down thi s specific support for the main 
member States, including Greece?  
b. According to the Overview of CAP reform 2014 ‑2020 EU Commission13 of 
December  2013, average direct support for Greece could stand at EUR 380 
per hectare by 2020. The same document also indicat es that EU Members have 
the opportunity to assign part of the direct support to specific fragile areas of 
production (coupled support). The European Commission's report Voluntary 
Coupled Support (VCS14) of July  2015 shows that Greece notifies, specifically 
for fresh nectarines and peaches, support of EUR  162 per hectare for VCS 
support measures for 2020. Chile would be grateful if the EU could provide 
information indicating the direct support, both coupled and uncoupled, that 
Greece, and, in particular, if p ossible, nectarine and peach farmers, would 
ultimately receive.  
c. Could the EU please provide information on other programmes or types of 
coupled direct support that support the various stages of the canned fruit 
production process, specifically in respect o f nectarines and peaches, and 
Greece's participation in this support?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The detailed information by  member S tate is available in the Annex to the document 
mentioned in the question (page 10), which is also available on the Europa we bsite 
mentioned in the question . For Greece an amount of €16 million  is indicated for fruit and 
vegetables in total.  
b. In respect of decoupled direct payments, the E uropean Union does not gather 
information on amounts paid to farmers differentiating between  sector or activity. 
Therefore, the European Union is  not able to give specific information on the level of 
direct payments, both from coupled and decoupled support, received by a Greek farmer 
active in a specific sector.  
c. Direct support is granted to farm ers exercising an agricultural activity only. As far as 
direct payments are concerned, the voluntary coupled support is the  only possibility for a 
member  State to grant coupled aid to farmers belonging to a specific sector or type of 
farming. No support is  granted in the canned fruit production.  
AG-IMS ID 81080: Question by Chile - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Chile has the following questions regarding the EU's notification on domestic support for 
the marketing year 2012/2013 (document G/AG/N/EU/26):  
 
a. In document G/AG/N/EU/26, the EU notifies current total aggregate 
measurement of  support figures for the specific products nectarines and peaches 
(0.9 and 0.8 million  euros respe ctively, for the marketing year  2012/2013), 
which wou ld be related to product ma rket-withdrawal programmes. Chile 
requests that the European  Union  provide disaggregated  information on these 
figures - by programme - for the main beneficiary member States, including 
Greece.  
b. Regarding the specific direct support granted to Greece for nec tarines and 
peaches, Chile requests the E uropean Union to provide information on the 
                                                
12 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/voluntary -coupled -support -
note_en.pdf . 
13 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy -perspectives/policy -briefs/05_en.pdf . 
14 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/voluntary -coupled -support -
note_en.pdf . G/AG/W/157  
 
- 40 - 
 
  number of hectares of arable land and farmers covered by this support. Could 
the EU please provide information on the percentage of nectarine and peach 
production receivin g support that is subsequently destined for the production 
of canned fruit?  
Answer by  the European Union  
 
a. Greece does not participate in these withdrawals programmes. For these programmes 
the utilisation per product and per m ember State of the envelope ind icated is as follow:  
 Nectarines: Spain 30%, France 8% a nd Italy 62%;  
 Peaches: Spain 92%, France 2% and Italy 6%) . 
b. Greece does not participate in this prog ramme therefore  no hectares  are concerned.  
2.3.4   Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/44)  
AG-IMS ID 81083: Question by Cana da - Classification of measures  
In its previous DS:1 notifications, as well as in its DS:2 noti fication (G/AG/N/HND/40 of 
July 2014), Honduras notifies the Competitiveness and Sustainable Rural Development 
Project in the Northern Zone of Honduras (Northern  Horizons) under Article 6.2 "Special 
and Differential Treatment -Development Programs ". In its most recent DS:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/HND/44), Honduras notifies the same programme under the Green Box 
(training services).  
 
a. Could Honduras please explain the changes to the Northern Horizons program 
that resulted in t he change in classification?  
b. Could Honduras please explain how this programm e meets the criteria of 
Annex  2, paragraph 2c?  
Answer by Honduras  
 
a. The Republic of Honduras advised the Committee of th e reclassification of the measure 
"Competitiveness and Sustainable Rural Development Project in the Northern Zone of 
Honduras (Northern H orizons)". T he pr oject has been classified as a Green B ox 
programme (Supporting Table DS:1) given that it meets the cri terion established in 
subparagraph (c) of paragraph 2 (General services) of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture of including both general and specialist training facilities.  
Corrigendum G/AG/N/HND/41/Corr.1 of 4 January 2016 was circulated at the reque st of 
the delegation of Honduras.  
b. Following a question from the United States of America, this programme was 
reclassified. In response to that question and in the light of relevant research and 
analysis conducted by the authorities of the Ministry of Econo mic Development and the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, it was considered that the Northern Horizons 
programme should be classified under Annex 2, General services, paragraph (c), 
because it includes both general and specialist training services, si nce it promotes 
production methods that focus on environmental protection, gender equality and 
inclusion of rural youth and comprises the following components: human and social 
development, value chains, competitiveness and projec t management.  
2.3.5   Israel (G/AG /N/ISR/55)  
AG-IMS ID 81084: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Israel for the answer provided to Australian questions raised in the 80th 
Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80020), and welcomes Israel 's openness and 
transpa rency on the issue of breaching its Total AMS commitment level in 2011, 2012, G/AG/W/157  
 
- 41 - 
 
  2013 and 2014 (G/AG/N/ISR/55). Australia remains concerned about the nature of this 
breach, and asks Israel to provide:  
 
a. An update on what policy changes will be undertaken to e nsure its 
trade -distorting domestic support is delivered within Israel 's AMS  commitments . 
b. An update on the "concrete results" which it ref erred to in its previous 
answer  (AG-IMS ID 80020).  
c. A timeframe for when Israel 's Current Total AMS is expected to fal l below the 
Total AMS commitment again.  
Answer by Israel  
 
a. Israel intends  to gradually move away from the current distortive mechanisms of 
administered prices in its dairy and egg production, which are the main factors affecting 
its Current Total AMS. In o rder to make this major policy change meaningful and long -
lasting, constant consultations are being held with stakeholders and experts, both in 
Israel and abroad. As mentioned in Israel's previous answer in the 80th Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 8002 0), the gradual move to direct support has begun with a 
pilot attempt in direct support i n some agricultural sectors.  
b. As mentioned in Israel's previous answer in the 80th Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 80020), the results of the pilot program mes of d irect support will be 
analysed  and studied in the next fiscal year, once the effect of these suppo rt measures 
becomes  quantifiable.  
c. As mentioned in Israel's previous answer in the 80th Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 80020), it is not possible at this  stage to give a specific time frame.  
Follow -up: The United States flagged interest. The European Union signalled systemic interest in 
this topic and encouraged Israel to carry on with its project , so as to ensure that AMS 
commitments  were respected .  
2.3.6   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/93)  
AG-IMS ID 81101: Question by Peru - General services: research  
With regard to its notifications of domestic support measures in the "Research" category 
(Supporting Table DS:1), can New Zealand indicate what type of investment the Primary 
Growth Partnership is promoting and whether such investment is geared towards 
developing infrastructure and technology, among other things?  
 
Peru would also like to know if investment promoted by the Primary Growth Partnership 
is geared towards any  particular product.  
 
Answer by New Zealand  
 
The Primary  Growth Partnership (PGP) is a g overnment -industry partnership initiative that 
encourages significant programmes of research and innovation in the primary and food sectors. 
PGP is oriented toward rese arch and innovation that will boost primary sector productivity, value 
and profitability and deliver long -term economic growth and sustainability across primary 
industries.  
 
This initiative includes the whole value chain, including education and skills de velopment, research 
and technology transfer. All programmes require industry co -investment and are subject to 
assessment against key criteria – including consistency with New Zealand 's international trade 
obligations and trade policies.  
 
PGP is not target ed at any particular product. It covers the breadth of the primary industries: 
wool, dairy, fishing and aquaculture, meat, pastoral, bee keeping, forestry, wine, viticulture, G/AG/W/157  
 
- 42 - 
 
  horticulture and food processing (including nutriceuticals and bioactives). More information is 
available in notification G/AG/N/NZL/61.  
 
2.3.7   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 81088: Question by Canada - Market pri ce support: Eligible production  
In reporting year 2015, in its Supporting Table DS:5, Tunisia notified much smaller 
eligible pr oduction than in its previous notification for durum wheat (8,500 tonnes in 
2014 and 3,500 tonnes in 2015) and barley (4,500 tonnes in 2014 and 1,000 tonnes 
in 2015). Can Tunisia explain why there is such variance between e ligible production 
from 2014 to  2015?  
 
Answer by Tunisia  
 
The Mission  of Tunisia  has not yet received detailed replies on this matter from the relevant 
Tunisian authorities. Tunisia  notes, however, that the same questions and/or similar questions 
were raised at the last session of the Com mittee on Agriculture during the examination of Tunisia's 
domestic support notification for 2014. Tunisia duly replied to those questions, and those replies 
are also relevant and valid with respect to the new questions Tunisia has  just received from  
Canada  and Australia.  
AG-IMS ID 81086: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation  
In Tunisia 's response to a previous question on external reference prices, it noted it was 
investigating possible alternative options for notifying domestic support.  
 
a. Could Tunisia provide an update on the progress of this investigation?  
Australia also notes that Tunisia has continued to modify external reference prices in its 
most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/49). There is no legal basis in the 
Agreement of Agri culture for modifying the fixed external reference price in this way. 
Accordingly, Australia asks that Tunisia resubmit its domestic support notification to 
show the fixed external reference price without modification and alterations, and also 
amend the do mestic support calculations accordingly so they show the amount of 
market price support. Specifically:  
 
b. What would the level of the fixed external reference price be without any 
modifications?  
c. What would the level of market price support be without any m odifications ? 
Answer by Tunisia  
 
The Mission  of Tunisia  has not yet received detailed replies on this matter from the relevant 
Tunisian authorities. Tunisia  notes, however, that the same questions and/or similar questions 
were raised at the last session of  the Committee on Agriculture during the examination of Tunisia's 
domestic support notification for 2014. Tunisia duly replied to those questions, and those replies 
are also relevant and valid with respect to the new questions Tunisia has  just received fro m 
Canada and  Australia.  
AG-IMS ID 81087: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
In this notification, and in previous notifications, Tunisia continues to make adjustments 
to the external reference prices for durum wheat, common wheat, barley and  milk. 
Canada has noted in previous meetings that when a Member is in breach of its domestic 
support commitment it should notify unadjusted data to the Committee for review and 
consideration. The Member should also explain the steps it will undertake to co rrect the 
situation. In response to a question from the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80072), 
Tunisia shared figures from the Central Bank of Tunisia that showed that annual rates of 
inflation in 2014 and  2015 were both 4.9%.  
 
In its 2014 notification (G/AG/N/ TUN/47), Tunisia adjusted its fixed external reference 
prices upwards by almost 10% from the prices notified in its 2013 notification G/AG/W/157  
 
- 43 - 
 
  (G/AG/N/TUN/45). In its 2015 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/49), Tunisia adjusted its 
fixed external reference prices by over 21 % from the prices listed in its 2014 
notification, despite the same reported level of inflation.  
 
a. Could Tunisia explain why the increase in the fixed external r eference price 
between 2014 and  2015 is more than double the increase between 2013 and 
2014, wh en its own reported annual level of in flation is 4.9% for both years?  
b. Could Tunisia provide the full methodology and calculations it has used in each 
year it has adjusted the fixed external reference price?  
c. Could Tunisia describe what steps it will underta ke to address the situation so 
that in the future it will no longer adjust the external reference prices?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
The Mission  of Tunisia  has not yet received detailed replies on this matter from the relevant 
Tunisian authorities. Tunisia  notes, however, that the same questions and/or similar questions 
were raised at the last session of the Committee on Agriculture during the examination of Tunisia's 
domestic support notification for 2014. Tunisia duly replied to those questions, and those replie s 
are also relevant and valid with respect to the new questions Tunisia has  just received from  
Canada and  Australia.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union signalled systemic interest in the issue of excessive inflation and 
underlined the importance of Members res pecting their d omestic support commitments. Australia 
sought for further information and questioned whether Tunisia's actions were acceptable under the 
WTO. Norway and the United States flagged interest in this subject. Like Canada, Norway was also 
concern ed that Tunisia did not provide unadjusted rates for the external reference price and the 
negative market price support for two products resulted from this. Canada noted its ongoing 
concern on how Tunisia calculated its current total AMS and the use of sel f-adjustments to modify 
excessive rates. New Zealand supported the previous interventions.  
2.3.8   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/108)  
AG-IMS ID 81089: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. On 13 August 2012, U.S. Agriculture Secret ary Tom Vilsack announced the 
USDA 's intent to purchase up to USD  170 million of pork, lamb, chicken and 
catfish for federal food nutrition assistance programmes. Secretary Vilsack said 
that, "these purchases will assist pork, catfish, chicken and lamb pro ducers 
who are currently struggling due to challenging market conditions and the high 
cost of feed resulting from the widespread drought. The purchases will help 
mitigate further downward prices, stabilize market conditions, and provide high 
quality, nutri tious food to recipients of USDA 's nutrition programs ". 
i. Can the U.S. confirm that any or all of this USD 170 million commitment was 
spent in fiscal year 2013 and if it comprises part of the notified USD  747 million 
Section 32 Program funding directed towar d domestic food aid?  
ii. Given that the stated aim of these meat purchases is to assist livestock 
producers, and to "mitigate further downward prices [and] stabilize market 
conditions ", could the United States explain how this support conforms to 
the provision  in Annex 2, paragraph 1(b) that support … "shall not have the 
effect of providing price support to producers "? 
b. According to a Congressional Research Service Report  from 18  November  2014, 
USD 200 million was used in FY 2013 for "emergency removals " of surpl us 
commodities and provided as a "bonus " to schools (over and above their 
"entitled " amounts) and to other designated domestic food assistance 
programs under the USDA 's Section 32 Program (named from Section 32 of the 
Act of August 24, 1935 (P.L.74 -320, as  amended; 7 U.S.C. 612c). The report 
also states that Section 32 purchases are intended to fulfill two requirements G/AG/W/157  
 
- 44 - 
 
  (under other federal laws): "(1) provide commodities to the National School 
Lunch Program and other domestic food assistance programs; and ( 2) support 
farm prices (by buying and diverting additional "bonus " commodities to these 
food programs). "  
i. Could the U.S. state whether Section 32 expenditure for "emergency 
removals " in FY2013 are included as part of its domestic food aid 
expenditures in S T/DS:1 and explain how purchases intended to support 
farm prices comply with the provision of Annex 2, paragraph 1(b) that 
support … "shall not have the effect of providing price support to 
producers "? 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a.  
i. Yes, expenditures  for this program me are included in the notified total for the 
Section 32 program me funding for domestic food aid. Some of the expenditures 
announced on 13  August 2012 may have occurred in FY2012, in which case they 
would have been included in the previous  notification as FY2012 expenditures.  
ii. Section 32 purchases are made at current market prices and make up a very small 
share of the value of production of purchased commodities.  Purchases of pork, 
catfish, chicken, and lamb of $170 mil lion made up less than  1% (0.76%) of the 
total value of production of these commodities in 2013.  
b.  
i. Yes, those expenditures are included in the notified total for the Section  32 
program me funding for domestic food aid. Se e response to Question 1 above.  
AG-IMS ID 81039: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In Supporting Table DS:4, does the figure in the line Livestock 3) VoP  include any of the 
amounts mentioned in the same table under "beef cattle and calves", chickens, dairy, 
deer (in capti vity), equine, hogs and pigs or sheep and lambs?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The expenditures reported in the Livestock commodity category are not included in the individual 
livestock commodity categories.  
 
AG-IMS ID 81038: Question by the Europe an Union - General services: other  
Risk Management Agency – Standard Reinsurance  
 
Could the United States of America  explain why this measure has gone from 0 in 2012 to 
USD 2.9 billion in 2013. Which risk is covered by these measures and how is the 
underwr iting gain calculated?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Underwriting gains and losses are the share of gains and losses from each year 's insurance 
underwriting that go to private insurers under the terms of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement. 
These gai ns and losses are reported on the Risk Management Agency website: 
http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/budget/15costtable2.pdf . In 2012, private insurers accepted 
losses of $5.135  million,  which would have appeared as a negative entry in Supporti ng 
Table  DS:1. The United States  adheres to the convention of reporting negative expenditures as 0, 
thus the underwriting losses for 2012 were reported as underwriting gains of 0. In 2013, private 
insurers received $2.878  million in gains, which are reported as expendi tures in Supporting 
Table  DS:1.  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 45 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 81040: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
Could the United Sta tes explain more in detail how the Farm Credit Program works?  
 
a. The European Union would be interested in getting more information on how 
the subsidy element included in the notification is calculated.  
b. In the operation of the loans under the programme, ho w does the United  States 
ensure the payment is limited to the amount required to compensate for the 
structural disadvantage?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The subsidy reported for Farm Credit (which includes credit provided under the FSA Loan 
Program ) is composed of the value of below -market interest rates times the value of 
loan obligations for direct loans, and the subsidy rate (as estimated by the U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB)) times the value of loan obligations for guaranteed 
loans. The OMB subsidy rate includes defaults net of recoveries and interest rate 
subsidy, less fees.  
b. Participants in FSA loan program mes do not receive payments. The Farm Service Agency 
(FSA) provides direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers who are u nable to 
obtain financing from commercial credit sources.  Examples of eligible recipients include 
1) beginning farmers, who cannot qualify for conventional loans because they have 
insufficient financial resources or farming experience; 2) farmers who have suffered 
financial setbacks from natural disasters or who have l imited financial resources, 
and 3) socially disadvantaged  (SDA) farmers, ranchers, or agricultural producers who 
have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of his or he r identity 
as a member of the group without regard to his or her individual qualities. SDA groups 
are women, African Americans, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Asian 
Americans and Pacific Islanders.  
AG-IMS ID 81090: Question by Canada - Other  product -specific AMS/EMS  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:6 (ST/DS:6):  
 
a. Footnote 2 of ST/DS:6 explains that several programmes, including the 
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) were terminated at the end of 
FY2011, under provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill , then extended through FY2013 
under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 but not funded. 
The programmes were then restored in the 2014 Farm A ct and cover losses 
beginning 1  October 2011.  
i. Could the Uni ted States explain how over USD  1.6 billion of paym ents under 
the LFP in 2013 were provided when the programm e was not funded 
in FY2013?  
ii. The U.S. 2014 Farm Act restored the four supplemental disaster 
programmes listed in the footnote and those programmes cover eligible 
losses beginning from October 2011. C ould the United States describe how 
payments from 2011 to 2014 were/are administered to recipients? I.e. were 
back -payments covering 2011 -2014 paid in a lump sum to  producers 
in 2014 or later?  
b. The United States notes that species -specific payment data for  the Livestock 
Forage Disaster Program (LFP) or for the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, 
Honeybees, and Farm -Raised Fish Program (ELAP) is not available. As a result, 
ST/DS:4 includes aggregated measure of support figures for "livestock ", with 
a corresp onding de minimis  calculation, as well as aggregated measures of 
support for products which are eligible for payments under the LFP program. 
As such, with species -specific data, we expect that the calculated AMS figures G/AG/W/157  
 
- 46 - 
 
  for alpacas, beef cattle &amp; calve s, chickens, deer, hogs and pigs, turkeys 
and other poultry, etc. could be much higher.  
i. Although the United States notes that species -specific data is not available, 
the United States notified payments under the ELAP for beef cattle and 
calves under ST/DS :6. Could the United States please explain how 
species -specific data is available for certain payments within ELAP for beef 
cattle and calves, but not for other payments under the programme or for 
other species, such as hogs and chickens?  
ii. Could the United States explain how species -specific data is available for 
insurance premium subsidy payments (ST/DS:7), but not for payments 
made under LFP and ELAP?  
iii. With the data presented, it is impossible to know whether most or all of the 
payments made under the LFP i n 2013 (equal to USD 1.6 billion) were given 
to producers of a single specific species. This figure is greater than the 
value of production reported for several of the species eligible for payments 
under the LFP and ELAP. Could the United States explain wh ether it intends 
to notify species specific data for these payments to increase transparency 
and be consistent with the constituent data and methodology criteria under 
Article 1 (h) (ii) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a.  
i. Payments for the LFP and the other standing disaster program mes are reported by 
program me year, even if issued in a subsequent fiscal year.  Therefore, payments 
made in any fiscal year that are attributed to losses in program me year 2013 are 
reported as 2 013 payments.  
ii. Producers submitted applications with required documentation for losses under each 
program me according to different filing schedules, but all beginning 15  April 2014: 
for LFP and LIP, applications for losses occurring between 1  October  2011 a nd 
31 December  2014 were due by 30 Jan uary 2015; for ELAP, applications for losses in 
program me years 2012 and 2013 (1  October  2011-30 September  2012 and 
1 October 2012-30 September  2013) were due by 1  August 2014 and for losses 
during program me year 2014 by 1 November  2014; for TAP, applications for losses 
from 1  October  2011-31 December  2014 were due the later of 31  January 2015, 
90 days after the disaster event, or when loss is apparent.  Payments were made on 
a rolling basis as applications were approved , beginning in FY2014.  
b.  
i. Reporting of ELAP payments under beef cattle and calves was an error and will be 
corrected in a revised 2013 notification.  
ii. Data for crop insurance program mes and FSA disaster assistance program mes are 
collected by different agencies  and for different purposes and do not always include 
the same types and levels of detail.  
iii. The U.S. notifications make use of the best currently available data, and the 
United  States  will adjust notifications if additional data become s available.  
Follow -up: Canada and the European Union continued to question how the programme mentioned 
in AG -IMS ID 81089 would meet the criteria of Green Box given  the intent of the purchase was to 
mitigate further downward price s and stabilize market conditions .  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 47 - 
 
  2.3.9   Viet Nam (G /AG/N/VNM/6)  
AG-IMS ID 81091: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:4, Canada notes that in 2013, Viet  Nam reported "Total  
AMS" (Column 5 Calculated AMS (before de minimis ) equ alling VND 20,499.6  billion. 
In 2009, the corresponding figure was $9,971.7  billion. This represents a significant 
(more than double) increase in support in less than five years. Could Viet  Nam provide 
more detail about the policies and programs being pursued and the domestic cha nges 
that have led to such an increase?  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam's AMS increased during  the period of 2009 -2013 due to the increase in both specific and 
non-specific support .  
 
The government has sp ed up the process of implement ing the agricultural re structuring 
program me and new rural development program mes. There has been an increase in  varieties of 
support in both crops and livestock of the restructuring cropping and livestock patterns  and 
support for producers recovering and reproducing after adver sely affected by natural disasters  
such as  drought s, flooding, cattle and poultry disease outbreak s.  
 
At the local level, provinces have separate programmes that have provided a variet y of support . 
For instance, these programmes provide support  for renova tion of old gardens of crops  such as  
coffee, cashew nut, pepper, and tea, and they introduc e new agricultural production methods  and 
new crop varieties to cope with climate change .  
 
A new policy was introduced to support farmers producing rice following  Decree No. 42/2012/ND -
CP of 11 May 2012 on management and use of paddy (farming land ).  
 
There has been increased irrigation fee exemption to famers , which contributed to the increase of 
the non-exempt direct payments of specific direct support . The increas e was the result of  
expansion  of cultivated areas ( such as  third and/or winter crops or  change s in the  mode of 
production)  
AG-IMS ID 81044: Question by the European Union - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Can Viet  Nam explain more in detail the quantities of rice 
bought into the national food reserve and whether any quantities of rice stocked is sold 
directly or indirectly on the export markets?  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Annually, the Government of Viet  Nam has spent budg et on food and agricultural inputs for 
national reserve for the purpose of national food security (food is reserved by National Reserve 
Department; agricultural inputs like paddy  rice, maize others varieties and veterinary vaccines, 
disinfectants are reser ved by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development). The Prime Minister 
decided to purchase the stockpile based on the current situation. The food purchase for stockpile 
varies from year to year. The stockpile is used/released only in emergency situation s and is 
release d to assist people and localities in circumstance s of natural disasters and disease outbreaks 
or other emergency cases. The food purchases by the governm ent are based on market rules.  
AG-IMS ID 81102: Question by Peru - Direct payments: in come insurance and income 
safety -net programmes  
With reference to Supporting Table DS:1, under the measure type "Government financial 
participation in crop insurance schemes", Peru would like more information about the 
measure "Government support for parti cipating pilot programme in agr iculture 
insurances during 2011 -2013". Is this p rogramme directed towards small -scale 
producers? Is it still in operation?  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam undertook to provide a response  at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 81094: Quest ion by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1: a s part of its payments for relief of natural disasters, 
for which payments more  than doubled from 2009 to 2013,  Viet Nam reported a pilot 
agricult ure insurance programme that was in effect from 2011 -2013.  
 
a. Does Viet Nam plan to submit a DS:2 notification to explain this pilot 
programme and any other new programs for which it considers to be exempt 
under Annex 2 and/or Article 6.2?  
b. Could Viet Nam e xplain how the insurance pilot programme works, and how it 
complies with the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 8?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
a. Viet Nam has notified all programmes considered to be e xempt under Annex 2 and 
Article  6.2, there are no other programmes wh ich have not been listed in the 
notification. A pilot agriculture insurance programme is not yet a permanent programme . 
Its term s and conditions comply with Annex 2, paragraph  8, therefore it is listed under 
DS:1. 
b. Viet Nam has implemented the agricultural insurance pilot programme in the period of 
2011-2013. The purpose of the pilot programme is to assist agricultural producers to 
actively participate in production and overcome the los s and damage of natural disasters 
and epidemics so as to ensur e social se curity  in rural areas  and to  promote agricultural 
production. Insurance  has been implemented under t he pilot programme in 
20 provinces , with the participation of  over 304 ,000 households . The programme  covers  
several commodities as follows: i)  rice in Nam D inh, Thai Binh , Nghe An, Ha Tinh , Binh 
Thuan , An Giang , Dong  Thap provinces;  ii ) cattle, pigs and poultry in Bac Ninh, Nghe 
An , Dong Nai, Vinh Phuc , Hai Phong , Thanh Hoa , Binh Dinh ,  Binh Duong and Hanoi 
provinces; and  iii) aquaculture basa/tra/pa ngsius, tiger shrimp and white leg shrimp in 
Ben Tre, Soc  Trang , Tra Vinh , Bac Lieu and Ca Mau provinces.  
The programme targets poor and low income farmers. The government has also 
provided support of partial insurance fees to farmers. Levels of support of insurance fees 
were also different. The terms and conditions of the pilot agricultural insurance 
programme comply with the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 8 in terms of payment, 
determination of loss and damage, and compensation.  
 
The government ha s reviewed the pilot agricultural insuran ce programme  of 2011-2013. 
There have been good lessons learned from difficulties encountered during the 
implementation of the pilot programme. For the period of 2015-2017, t he government 
has decided to discontinue  the pr ogramme  for aquaculture and continue for products 
such as rice, poultry, and cattle.   
AG-IMS ID 81095: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:7, Viet Nam reports "variety support " for rice, corn, 
vegetables, coffe e, pepper, cashew nuts, tea, buffalo, cow, pig, and poultry. 
The notification states that mainly low income and poor farmers benefit from these 
programmes. Could Viet Nam provide more detail about the "variety support " referenced 
in Supporting Table DS:7 a nd explain whether there is a different programme for each 
product or if there is an overarching program that covers all of the products ? 
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
There are overarching programmes  that maintain  and reproduce the  original varieties of some 
typical products  and support s various  crops and livestock for producers wh o have been damaged  
by natural disasters and disease.  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 49 - 
 
   
Variety support programmes are different in localities. Localities have provided various support  
schemes in the case of rejuvenati ng new plants, introduc ing hybrid varieties, and cultivat ing on 
new reclamation land and shifting cultivations,  so as to cope with climate change.  
 
The policies mainly apply  to low income and poor farmers. However, during the implementation 
those policies ha ve been enlarge d to apply to other farmers as well. It was very difficult to 
separate support made available to low income, poor and limited farm -size farmers from that to 
other better off farmers who also benefit from this policy. Therefore a major part o f the 
above -mentioned support for low income and poor farmer 's figures should be not ified in 
Supporting Table  DS:2.  
AG-IMS ID 81043: Question by the European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Regarding rice support in Supporting Table DS:7, could Vie t Nam give further details 
about direct support according to decree 42, such as which type of measures, support 
price level and quantity eligible?  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
It is not a price support programme.  
 
To ensure national food security, t he Government o f Viet Nam issued Decree 42 in order to set 
rules for the management and use of rice -farming land in rice -growing areas nationwide and to 
strictly protect wet -rice farming land during the land use planning period of the government . 
 
The programme aims at e ncouraging farmers to engage in rice production , limiting the use of 
wet-rice farming land for non -agricultural purposes to the greatest extent possible, encoura ging 
land reclamation and expansion  of rice farming , transforming  other rice -farming land into wet-rice 
farming land and support ing rice producers who have suffered from  natural disasters or pests . 
 
Below are two t ypes of support for annual rice production under the Degree:  
 
 VND 500,000 ha/year for organizations, households or individuals producing rice on wet -
rice farming land;  
 VND 100,000 ha/year for organizations, households or ind ividuals producing rice on 
rice-farming land other than upland rice land which is spontaneously expanded  and is  
not under the planning of rice-farming land use.  
Follow -up: The United States expressed interest in a number of the questions, especially with 
respect t to Vie t Nam's support policy on rice.  
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.4.1   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/54)  
AG-IMS ID 81093: Question by Canada - Direct payme nts: decoupled income support  
Israel notified a measure called "support to encourage Israeli workers in Agriculture " 
as exempt from reduction commitments based on  the criteria outlined in Annex  2, 
paragraph  6 (decoupled income support). The description no tes that this is a 
"… payment program for producers employing Israeli workers ". 
 
a. Does every employer who was eligible to employ foreign workers in 2012 
receive a payment? If not, what is the c riteria to receive payments?  
b. Could Israel explain how a labour -related payment to an agricultural producer 
does not affect production or income?  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Answer by Israel  
 
a. Every employer who was eligible to employ foreign workers received a payment for each 
new Israeli wor ker employed, up to a limit of five  workers.  
b. It is tr ue that the payment to producers is labour -related, but its purpose is not to affect 
production or income but to compensate for some inherent disadvantages in the 
employment of new Israeli workers, such as trans portation to remote areas, etc … 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSID Y COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 ) 
2.5.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/103)  
AG-IMS ID 81029: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States appreciates Australia 's ES notification and would like to ask a 
clarification question. The quantity for wine listed under Table ES:2 for calendar year 
2014 is in tonnes. Could Australia clarify if this is supposed to be measured in liters?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks the United States for its question and clarifies that litres is  the correct unit of 
volume. A corrigendum will be submitted to the WTO Secretariat to correct this.  
 
2.6  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.6.1   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/14)  
AG-IMS ID 81020: Question by the United States of Ameri ca - Quantity and 
concessionality of food aid  
a. In the 3rd section of the NF:1 Notification, the Russia n Federation reported 
contribution to the WFP fund for the implementation of school feeding 
programmes in Armenia, Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan. Can the 
Russia n Federation clarify if the contributions were made in additio n to those 
reported in Table 1?  
b. Of all food aid, can the Russia n Federation specify the value of the quantity 
provided made in -kind, cash or food vouchers?  
c. If in -kind food aid was provide d, can the Russia n Federation presents a 
breakdown by commodity and by recipient countries?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Contribution to WFP fund for implementation of school feeding programmes in Armenia, 
Kyrgyz  Republic and Tajikistan, as well as other  program mes mentioned in the 3rd section of 
Russia 's NF:1 notification were made in addition to those reported in Table 1 of the notification. 
In 2015 the Russia n Federation  provided cash -based food aid through  contributions to WFP, UNDP 
and FAO within the  volumes reported in Russia 's NF:1 notification. In 2015 the Russia n Federation  
did not apply food vouchers as one of the food aid instruments. In -kind food aid was provided in 
case of emergency situations in response to humanitarian crisis.  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 51 - 
 
  3  DEFERRED REP LIES TO QUESTIONS ON  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
3.1.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/30)  
AG-IMS ID 81026: Question by the United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States notes that there continues to be signifi cant TRQ under -fill for grains, 
specifically wheat, corn, and rice. The United States is concerned that issues affecting 
TRQ administration may be the cause for chronic TRQ under -fill. The United States is 
re-submitting questions c. and d. from the March 2 016 CoA session ( AG-IMS ID 79006 
and 80093) since they were not addressed in China's response. Please also provide 
details on the market conditions for these commodities in these years (2013 and 2014), 
including:  
 
a. the percent of private sector TRQ re -alloc ations by MT; and, the percent of STE 
sector TRQ re -allocations by MT?  
b. The percent of private sector TRQ imports under initial TRQ allocations by MT; 
and, the percent of STE TRQ imports under initial TRQ allocations by MT?  
Answer by China  
 
China  explained the market conditions for wheat, corn and rice at the 80th Regular CoA Meeting in 
its reply to the questions by relevant M ember s, including the United States . As for the remaining 
concerns of the United States, experts w ill continue to work on them. China  will come back to this 
question when the answer is ready.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union flagged interest. Canada noted its commercial interest in the TRQ 
fill for wheat.  
3.2  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
3.2.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/28)  
AG-IMS ID 81077: Que stion by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Since China has not supplied written responses, Australi a resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 79055:  
 
China reported in its notification for the calendar years 2009 and  2010 (G/AG/N/CHN/28) 
a 10% increase in expenditure under public stockholding. Australia notes the European 
Union had also sought further detail at the 77th and 78th Committees on Agriculture.  
 
a. Can China explain how expenditure under this programme is determined and 
what is the  method by which wheat, corn, rice, vegetable oils and sugar are 
procured and distributed?  
b. What is the price that these products are procured at and how much production 
is procured ? 
c. What is the total p roduction of these commodities?  
d. What is the explanatio n for the increase in public stockholding exp enditure 
between 2009 and 2010?  
Answer by China  
 
The questions concerning public stockholding have been asked and replied a t a number of 
meetings of this C ommittee. The expenditure is determined by adding up all  the relevant 
expenditures in the Final Account of the State Revenue and Expenditure, such as costs of storage G/AG/W/157  
 
- 52 - 
 
  and cost s of interest. The purchase is made at the price reflecting market conditions, and the 
quantity is decided by the status of supply and de mand. As for the total production of these 
commodities, please visit the website of National Bureau of Statistics ( http://www.stats.gov.cn ). 
 
3.2.2   Fiji (G/AG/N/FJI/13)  
AG-IMS ID 81082: Question by Canada - General service s: other  
Canada notes that it has not received a written response from Fiji for Canada 's question 
from AG IMS ID 80075 on its DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/FJI/13). Canada 's question is 
again provided below:  
 
Canada welcomes Fiji 's DS:1 n otification covering years 2010 -2015. Could Fiji provide 
more information on the "income security " aspect of the "Export Promotion " program 
that is listed for each of the years notified? In particular, how does the Government of 
Fiji provide a farmer with income security and w hat is the basis for a payment?  
 
Answer by Fiji 
 
Fiji undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
3.2.3   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 81085: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's question raised at the 
80th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80023). Can Tunisia please provide a written 
answer to AG -IMS 80023?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
Tunisia  undertook to provide an answer at  a later stage.  
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 81016: Questio n by the United States of America  
When can the United States expect China to provide more recent domestic support 
notifications to bring its WTO notifications up to date?  
 
Answer by China 
 
The preparation of the notification is still underway. It will be notified once the preparation  is 
completed.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and Japan shared the U.S. concern and looked forward to China's notifications. 
The European Union called for all Members' e fforts in keeping their notifications up -to-date, in 
particular  domestic support notifications .  
 
4.1.2   European Union  
AG-IMS ID 81041: Q uestion by Russian Federation  
The last MA:2 notification submitted by the European Union contained information 
concerning imp ort under tariff quotas during the marketing year 2012/2013 and the 
calendar year 2013 (G/AG/N/EU/24). Could the European Union provide the reasons for 
delay in MA:2 notifications submission for 2014 and 2015? When the European Union 
plans to notify inform ation concerning its import under tariff quotas during the last 
marketing and calendar years in accordance with procedures described in the 
Notification Requirements and Formats (G/AG/2)?  G/AG/W/157  
 
- 53 - 
 
   
Answer by European Union  
 
The European Union's  MA:2 notifications f or marketing year 2013/2014 and for calen dar year 2014 
were circulated to WTO M embers on 2 September 2016 ( G/AG/N/EU/30 ). The Russian Federation 
and other WTO Members therefore have now the opportunity to review thi s notification together 
with the European  Union's  MA:1 notification which was circulated  on the same 
day (G/AG/N/EU/31 ). 
 
Concerning the notification for marketing year 2014/2015 and calendar year 2015, the 
European  Union  is currently preparing them.  
 
4.1.3   Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 8101 7: Question by Europea n Union  
Follow -up to question AG IMS ID 80082  
 
Thailand's latest Domestic Support notification concerns 2008. In its reply to question 
AG-IMS 80082, Thailand informed Members that the question had been transmitted to 
the authorities in Bangkok. Could Thail and indicate whe n more up -to-date notifications 
will be forwarded to the WTO?  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
Thailand is in the process of gathering information. Thailand will update Members on the progress 
once Thailand had received more information from  capital.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union called for all Members' efforts in keeping their notifications 
up-to-date, in particular  domestic support notifications . 
 
4.1.4   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID  81092: Question by Australia  
Australia is concerned that Turkey has not submitted an export subsidy notification 
since 2001, or a domestic support notification since 2002. In response to the 
U.S. quest ion (AG -IMS ID 80057) and the EU 's question (AG -IMS ID 80084) Turkey 
responded that it had "started a work programme to notify its agricultu re domestic 
support programme on a gradual basis  …" Au stralia asks Turkey to provide:  
 
a. an update on the progress of the work programme.  
b. An update on when Turkey will submit its  domestic support notification.  
c. An update on when Turkey will submit i ts export subsidy notification.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 81018: Question by Canada  
Canada remains concerned with Turkey 's lack of timely export subsidy and domestic 
support notifications. Turkey 's most rec ent notifications related to implementation year 
2000 for export subsidies and 2001 for domestic support. In previous meetings, Turkey 
has indicated that work was underway on its outstanding notifications. Could Turkey 
please provide the Committee with a s pecific timeline as to when it intends to complete 
and submit these missing notifications?  
 G/AG/W/157  
 
- 54 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 81019: Question by United States of America  
Turkey remains seriously overdue i n notifying its domestic support and export subsidies. 
When does Turkey plan to submit its domestic support an d export subsidy notifications?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union called f or all Members' efforts in keeping their notifications 
up-to-date, in particular  domestic support notifications . G/AG/W/157  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Annex I – Current MFN Tariff rates for products subject to Guatemala 's WTO tariff quota 
commitment s 
Heading  / 
subheading  Product  Current MFN 
tariff 
0808 Apples, pears and quinces, fresh  15% 
1005 Maize (corn)  Yellow 15%  
White 20%  
Other 0%  
1006 Rice 23.7%  
1101.00.00  Wheat or meslin flour  10% 
0201 Meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled  15% 
0202 Meat of bovine animals, frozen  15% 
0203 Meat of swine, fresh, chilled or frozen  15% 
0207 Meat and edible offal, of the poultry of heading 0105, fresh, chilled or frozen  5%‑15% 
0401 Milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter  15% 
0402.9  Milk and cream, concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 
Other  10%‑15% 
0403 Buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yogurt,  kephir and other fermented or acidified milk 
and cream, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening 
matter or flavoured or containing added fruit, nuts or cocoa  15% 
0404 Whey, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening 
matter; products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether or not containing added 
sugar or other sweetening matter, not elsewhere specified or included  0%‑10% 
0405 Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk  5%‑15% 
0406 Cheese and curd  0%‑15% 
0713 Dried leguminous vegetables, shelled, whether or not skinned or split  0%‑30% 
0806 Grapes, fresh or dried  0%‑15% 
1001.90.00  Other wheat  0% 
1001.90.00  Soft wheat  0% 
1007 Grain sorghum  0%‑20% 
1201 Soya beans, whether or not broken  0% 
1208 Flours and meals of oil seeds or oleaginous fruits, other than those of mustard  5% 
1511 Palm oil and its fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modifie d Crude 5% 
Refined 15%  
1507 Soya‑bean oil and its fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified  Crude oil 0%  
Refined oil 
15% 1512 Sunflower ‑seed, safflower or cotton ‑seed oil and fractions thereof, whether or not 
refined, but not chemica lly modified (all products)  
1512.2  Cotton‑seed oil and its fractions  
1515.2  Maize (corn) oil  
1701 Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose  20% 
2304 Oil‑cake and other solid residues, whether or not ground or in the form of pellets, 
resulting f rom the extraction of soya ‑bean oil  5% 
2401 Unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse  0%‑5% 
2402 Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes, of tobacco or of tobacco substitutes  0%‑15% 
2403 Other manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes; "homogenized" or 
"reconstituted" tobacco; tobacco extracts and essences  0%‑15% 
1001 Wheat and meslin  0% 
 
__________