G/AG/W/159  
 
13 December 2016  
(16-6798) Page: 1/48 
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 9 NOVEMBER 20161 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/158 as well as follow -up comments made du ring the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 5 December 2016:  
 
AG-IMS ID  Answer by  Question by  Notification 
Reference  Repeat 
question  
82004  Afghanistan  United States  G/AG/N/AFG/2   
82011, 82008, 82009, 
82010  Afghanistan  United States  G/AG/N/AFG/1   
82069  Brazil  United States  Article 18.6   
82014  China  Australia  Article 18.6  79057, 81053  
82032  India European Union  Article 18.6   
82053, 82052  Paraguay  Canada  G/AG/N/PRY/24   
82050  South Africa  European Union  G/AG/N/ZAF/88   
82021  Tunisia  Australia  G/AG/N/TUN/49  80023, 81085  
82068  United States  Brazil  Article 18.6   
82030  Zambia  European Union  Article 18.6  81033  
 
 
_______________  
 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared  under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  4 
1.1   Canada's market price support for dairy products  ................................ ............................  4 
1.1.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82058)  ................................ ..............................  4 
1.2   EU intervention programmes  ................................ ................................ .........................  4 
1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82023)  ................................ ................................ .... 4 
1.3   Greek coffee tax  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
1.3.1    Quest ion by Viet Nam (AG -IMS ID 82003)  ................................ ................................ ... 5 
1.4   India's export subsidies for onions  ................................ ................................ .................  6 
1.4.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS I D 82032)  ................................ ....................  6 
1.5   India's minimum support price for Kharif crops ................................ ................................  7 
1.5.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 82 005) ................................ ........  7 
1.6   India's export restriction on sugar  ................................ ................................ .................  8 
1.6.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82033)  ................................ ....................  8 
1.7   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ...............  8 
1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82013)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.7.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82059)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.7.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82012) and the United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 82001)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
1.8   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ............................ 12 
1.8.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82057)  ................................ ............................. 12 
1.8.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 82002)  ................................ .......12 
1.9   European Union's agriculture policies  ................................ ................................ ............ 14 
1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82027)  ................................ ................................ ...14 
1.9.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82028)  ................................ ................................ ...14 
1.10   India's importation of apples  ................................ ................................ ...................... 15 
1.10.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82060)  ................................ ........................... 15 
1.11   India's new crop insurance scheme  ................................ ................................ ............. 15 
1.11.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82031)  ................................ .................. 15 
1.12   India's sugar export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .................... 16 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82024)  ................................ ................................ .16 
1.13   Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs ................................ ................................ ....17 
1.13.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82062)  ................................ ........................... 17 
1.14   U.S. purchase of cheese stock  ................................ ................................ .................... 18 
1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 8202 5) ................................ ................................ .18 
1.14.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 82061)  ................................ ................................ ...18 
1.15   U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  ............................. 20 
1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82026)  ................................ ................................ .20 
1.16   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ........ 20 G/AG/W/159  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.1    Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 82069)  ................................ .....20 
1.17   U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Share programme  ................................ .......................... 21 
1.17.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 82068) ................................ ................................ ......21 
1.18   Argentina's tax policies  ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 
1.18.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 82041)  ................................ ................................ ...22 
1.19   China's regional assistance programmes  ................................ ................................ ......23 
1.19.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82014)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.20   Turkey's domestic support policies  ................................ ................................ .............. 23 
1.20.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 82056)  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.21   Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising the use of domestic dairy  ................................ .24 
1.21.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82067)  ................................ ........................... 24 
1.22   Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  ................................ ................................ 25 
1.22.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82030)  ................................ .................. 25 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  25 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ............... 25 
2.1.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/31)  ................................ ................................ ............... 25 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 26 
2.2.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/30)  ................................ ................................ ............... 26 
2.2.2    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/81)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPP ORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 27 
2.3.1    Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/1)  ................................ ................................ .................... 27 
2.3.2    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/35)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 28 
2.3.3    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 32 
2.3.4    Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/53)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 
2.3.5    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/90)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 35 
2.3.6    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/39)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 36 
2.3.7    Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/24)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 
2.3.8    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/88)  ................................ ................................ .................. 38 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ...41 
2.4.1    Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/2)  ................................ ................................ .................... 41 
2.4.2    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/89)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 41 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  41 
3.1   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 41 
3.1.1    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  44 
4.1   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 44 
4.2   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 45 
4.3   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 45 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  46 
5.1   New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 46 G/AG/W/159  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO  THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6  
1.1  Canada's market price support for dairy products  
1.1.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82058)  
In response to New Zealand's question of Canada at the 81st Committee on Agriculture 
on domestic support (AG -IMS ID 81023), Canada said that it only reports support prices 
for butter and skim milk powder (SMP) at the federal level. Can Canada explain why it 
does not include market price support provided at the provincial level given all milk 
produced in Canada, with the  exception of that exported under export subsidy 
commitments or sold as animal feed, receives the benefi t of supported domestic prices?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
In its domestic support notifications, Canada reports market price support for the only two 
products to which an administered price applies (support price): i.e. butter and skim milk powder. 
There are no additional administered prices.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted its continued interest in the way Canada reported domestic support 
particularly in light of  potential new reporting when the new milk ingredient class was 
implemented. Australia, European Union and the United States registered support for this 
question. In particular, the European Union noted its interest in identifying which products 
benefited  from the internal price support measures  and the United States was interested  in 
understanding how Canada calculated market price support for dairy.  
 
1.2  EU intervention programmes  
1.2.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82023)  
Australia notes the positive direction of reform in the European Union on domestic 
support. Australia is trying to ascertain the impact of some of the "intervention" 
programmes in the European Union. Accordingly, Australia would be grateful if the 
European Union could provide the following info rmation:  
 
a. Which products are eligib le for intervention programmes?  
b. What are the volume and value of relevant commodities that have been 
purchased through intervention programmes in years (or marketing years)  
covering 2013, 2014, and 2015?  
c. What prices were these commodities purchased for? Could the European Union 
please provide details for average purchase prices per commodity for the years 
(or marketi ng years) 2013, 2014, and 2015?  
d. What was the total value of production and total volume of production for 
commodities purchased under intervention programmes for the years 
(or marketi ng years) 2013, 2014, and 2015?  
Answer by the European Union  
 
a. Following the 2013 CAP reform applicable from 1 January 2014, intervention is open for 
the following products:  
 Common w heat (up to a maximum of 3 million tonnes);  
 Skim milk powder (up to a maximum 109,000 tonnes);  
 Butter (up to a maximum of 50,000 tonnes).  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Intervention may be opened for the following products:  
 Durum wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice and beef and veal.  
For the 2016 calendar year the limits for butter and SMP were increased to 100,000 and 
350,000 tonnes respectively.  
b. No products were bought into intervention in 2013 or 2014.   
In budget year 2015 (ended 30 September 2015), 17,254 tonnes of skimmed milk 
powder valued at EUR 29.3 million were purchased through public intervention 
programmes. In budget year 2016 (ended 30 September 2016), 347,733 tonnes of 
skimmed milk powder valued at EUR 590.1 million were purchased.  
c. All Skimmed Milk Powder buying -in operations of budget year 2015 were made at the 
fixed price (intervention price) of EUR 1,698 per tonne.  
d. Based on EUROSTAT figures, total EU production for the years 2013 to 2015 is as 
follows:  
1000 tonnes  2013  2014  2015  
Butter  2,127  2,237  2,358  
SMP 1,108  1,457  1,534 
Eurostat does not collect statistics on the value of productio n for the products in 
question.  
1.3  Greek coffee tax  
1.3.1   Question by Viet Nam (AG -IMS ID 82003)  
On 1 January 2017, a WTO -inconsistent tax on coffee is scheduled to enter into force in 
Greece. This t ax is an impermissible "other duty or charge", adopted in violation of the 
obligations of Greece and the European Union under Articles II:1(b) and II:1(a) of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT" ) 1994.  
 
The tax was included in a comprehensive  austerity Bill passed by the Greek Parliament 
on 22  May 2016. The tax will be imposed on various categories of coffee, at a rate 
ranging from EUR  2 to EUR  4 per kg net weight. Viet Nam is a major exporter of non -
roasted coffee to Greece, and will be direc tly impacted by this new, WTO -inconsistent 
measure.  
 
The new coffee tax violates Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because the deadline to 
inscribe "other duties or charges" in the EU's Tari ff Schedule expired on 15  April  1994. 
The new Greek coffee tax was clearly not inscribed in the EU's Tariff Schedule at that 
time, and so it cannot validly be imposed on imported coffee in 2017.  
 
As the coffee tax violates the WTO obligations of Greece and the European Union under 
GATT Article II:1(b), it also consequenti ally violates GATT Article II:1(a), as it provides 
less favourable treatment to imported coffee than that set out in the EU's Tariff 
Schedule.  
 
It should also be stressed that this coffee tax is not a "charge equivalent to an internal 
tax" within the meani ng of GATT Article II:2  (a). As a threshold matter, the Greek tax 
could not be considered as a "charge equivalent to an internal tax" unless the obligation 
to pay it accrues as a result of an internal event. The 22 May 2016 Greek law states that 
"coffee pr oduction" does "not include roasting, grinding or packaging of the final 
product". No coffee beans are grown in Greece. Although roasting, grinding and 
packaging of coffee occur in Greece, the Greek Parliament has stated in the law that 
these steps do not constitute "coffee production" for the purposes of the tax. In other 
words, there is no "internal" event, as defined by the Greek law. Therefore, this cannot G/AG/W/159  
 
- 6 - 
 
  be considered as an "internal" tax. It is an "other duty or charge" imposed on imported 
coffee.  
 
Could the European Union please outline what actions will be taken to ensure that 
Greece and the European Union will not be in breach of their WTO obligations with 
respect to this tax as of 1 January?  
 
Answer by the European Union  
 
On 22 May 2016, Greece a dopted a package of austerity measures including a consumption tax on 
coffee products set to apply as of 1 January 2017.  
 
Contrary to what has been suggested, Greece's coffee tax is not a customs duty under Article  II of 
the GATT, but an internal tax impos ed on consumption of coffee in Greece, thus governed by 
Article  III of the GATT. In fact, Article II:2 (a) of the GATT specifically allows WTO Members to 
impose "… at any time on the importation of any product: (a) a charge equivalent to an internal 
tax im posed consistently with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article III…".  
 
As a matter of principle, charges on consumption that apply to domestic and imported products do 
not qualify as "customs duties" just because in practice the product in question is mo stly imported. 
In addition, and to the extent that it is outside the scope of Article II, the Greek coffee tax is not 
subject to an obligation to be recorded in the Schedule.  
 
The coffee tax will start to apply on 1 January 2017. Although Greece is still i n the process of 
developing the implementation details of the tax, it is already clear that it will apply to products 
regardless of whether they are domestically produced, originated from an EU member State or 
have been imported from a third country.  
 
Follow-up: Viet Nam reiterated its view that the coffee tax could not be considered as a "charge 
equivalent to an internal tax" within the meaning of GATT Article II:2(a). As noted in its question, 
the Greek law stated that "coffee production" did "not include  roasting, grinding or packaging of 
the final product". In Viet Nam's view, given no coffee beans were grown in Greece, although 
roasting, grinding and packaging of coffee occurred in Greece, the Greek Parliament had provided 
in the law that these steps di d not constitute "coffee production" for the purposes of the tax. 
In other words, there was no "internal" event as defined by the Greek law. Viet Nam noted that 
the issue of consistency with GATT Article III:2 did not arise because the "internal tax" exemp tion 
simply did not apply. Viet Nam expressed continued interest in working with the European Union 
on the issue.  
 
Indonesia shared Viet Nam 's concern. As one of the main coffee exporters to Greece, Indonesia 
feared that this measure might potentially pre judice its commercial interests. While Indonesia 
understood the reason behind the measure adopted by Greece, Indonesia expected the 
government of Greece to consider alternative policies to address the domestic situation in the least 
trade restrictive way a nd in conformity with the WTO rules and principles. Indonesia further sought 
clarification regarding whether the nature of the measure was for balance of payment purposes 
and whether the European Union would table the measure in the Balance of Payment Comm ittee.  
 
Brazil shared the concern that its exports might be affected by the tax, given it was the largest 
supplier of green coffee beans to Greece with a share of imports of 58% in 2015. Colombia 
informed the Committee of its bilateral engagement with the  European Union on this matter. 
Switzerland flagged interest.  
 
1.4  India's export subsidies for onions  
1.4.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82032)  
According to press reports, Maharashtra State has proposed to put in place an export 
subsidy programme for onions.  
a. Could India confirm this and provide more information about this programme 
(duration, total amount and subsidy rate per tonne, number of producers 
concerned, etc.).  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 7 - 
 
  b. Could India confirm that such subsidies are planned to reduce the costs of 
marketi ng and transport of onions?  
c. Will India submit any notification relating to this programme, and when?  
d. Since export of onions in Maharashtra state is subject to state trading through 
the Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board, how would India see its polic ies 
complying with Article 20 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
e. It is also EU understanding that India is working on a market price support 
programme for onions. If confirmed, could India give any indication about the 
state of preparations of such a programme?  
Answer by India  
The information is being collected and will be shared in due course.  
Follow -up: Canada, New Zealand, and the United States registered interest in this question. 
Ukraine underlined the importance of implementing the Nairob i Decision on export competition.  
1.5  India's minimum support price for Kharif crops  
1.5.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 82005)  
The United States notes on 1 June 2016, India announced the minimum support price for 
kharif crops of 2016/17. In it s announcement 
(http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=145856 ), the Cabinet Committee on 
Economic Affairs  (CCEA) increased the minimum support price for 14  kharif 
commodit ies, including for certain varieties of paddy, jowar, and cotton, on the 
recommendation of the Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). Further 
CCEA stated the following: "However, to incentivise cultivation of pulses and oilseeds, 
the Cabinet h as decided to give a bonus, over and above the recommendations of the 
CACP  [….] there is an increasing gap between the demand and domestic supply of 
pulses and oilseeds and reliance on import is increasing. Government has, therefore, 
announced this bonus o n pulses and oilseeds to give a strong price signal to farmers to 
increase acreage and invest for increase i n productivity of these crops".  
In response to AG -IMS ID 78041, India stated "In view of the fact that procurement is 
made in respect of only a few of the crops under the MSP operations, the support given 
is limited to these crops. This is the reason why all the crops for which MSP is 
announced are not notified".  
a. In light of this information, could India please confirm that one of the main 
objectives of further increasing the minimum support prices for pulses and 
oilseeds is to limit imports?  
b. The United States notes that in response to AG -IMS ID 78041, India stated it 
sets targets for procurement for wheat and rice for the ensuing marketing year. 
Did India set procurement targets for pulses and oil seeds in 2016? If so, how 
much?  
c. Please identify whether India expects to p rocure any pulses and oilseeds.  
d. Further, what were the procurement target s for the other 14 commodities?  
Answer by India  
a. The primary o bjective of increasing the MSP of the pulses and oilseeds is to cover the 
increasing gap between the demand and domestic supply of pulses and oilseeds. 
Besides, increase in the production of leguminous pulses is envisaged with a view to G/AG/W/159  
 
- 8 - 
 
  achieving environme ntal benefits as these crops consume less water and help in nitrogen 
fixation of the soil.  
b. to (d) Market support prices are intended to provide minimum remunerative prices to 
the farmers so that they do not have to resort to distress sales. For most of the  
commodities under MSP, generally market prices rule above MSP and, therefore, 
government is not required to make any procurement or set any targets.  
Follow -up: The United States took note that India did not expect to procure any quantity of pulses or 
oilseeds as a result of the announced Kharif minimum support price for 2016. The United States 
sought clarification as regards how India justified not notifying support and procurement of 
commodities with a minimum support price while statements such as those made by CCEA clearly 
indicated that the announcement gave strong signals to producers. The European Union shared the 
U.S. concern. As a large exporter of pulses, wheat and oilseeds, Canada noted interest in this topic.  
1.6  India's export restriction on sugar  
1.6.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82033)  
Despite having granted export subsidies on sugar (cf. e.g. AG -IMS ID 81025), the Indian 
Government has now decided to tax exports of sugar in order to dissuade operators 
from exporting to international market s and instead to sell their products on the 
domestic market which suffers from inflation in sugar prices. According to Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, India should have notified in advance such a programme 
as India is a net exporter of sugar. C ould India provide information about this 
programme and its effects on other WTO Members' food security?  
Answer by India 
 
Sugar production in India has been cyclic in nature. In the past, the cyclicity has reduced as the 
sugar production has been more than  domestic consumption during last five sugar seasons. Due to 
droughts in some parts of the country, sugar cane and consequently the sugar production during 
current sugar season is estimated to be lower than domestic consumption and cyclicity has 
declined f urther. Market sentiment has resulted in an abnormal rise in domestic prices. In order to 
conserve the sugar stocks in the country, the government has imposed an export duty at 20%.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union sought India's comments as regards India's obligation to  notify the 
programme  in advance given India was  a net exporter of sugar . Australia and the United States 
indicated interest in India's sugar policies.  
 
1.7  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82013)  
In response to New Zealand's questions co -sponsored by Australia (AG -IMS ID 81055 
and AG-IMS ID  81001), Canada responded that it was premature to confirm whether 
new milk classes will be created, or to speculate on detailed elements of a final package. 
Now that several months have passed, can Canada:  
 
a. Provide an update on details of the milk classes, including definitions for each 
milk class as well as information on how prices will be set for each class and 
whether products made from these classes can be, or will be, exp orted?  
b. Provide an update of how the agreement "in -principle" between Canadian dairy 
producers and processors has progressed in the context of its ratification 
process, given its planned implemen tation date is 1 November 2016?  
c. Provide an update on the Cana dian government's consideration of the matter 
and in particular whether the ingredients strategy was discussed at the 
Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee' s October 2016 meeting?  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 9 - 
 
  d. Provide an update on how the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) will 
implem ent the dairy ingredients strategy, should it be implemented and detail 
what legislative changes will be necessary?  
e. Could Canada please advise the volume of exports made through the CDC for 
this year to date on a commodity basis?  
Answer by Canada  
 
The agr eement reached between dairy producers and processors in July 2016 was discussed at the 
October meeting of the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee. Despite the previous 
notional target implementation date of 1 November 2016, the agreement is still in  the process of 
being ratified by relevant industry entities, including provincial milk marketing boards. Details of 
this new initiative still remain to be finalized. Canadian dairy industry stakeholders have 
determined that more time will be required for this process.  
 
It is therefore still premature to confirm whether new milk classes will be created, or to speculate 
on detailed elements of a final implementation package.  
 
The Canadian Dairy Commission issues export permits for subsidized dairy product ex ports and 
reports them for the purposes of the subsidized exports in Table ES:1 and Supporting Table  ES:1 
of Canada's notification on export subsidies. Canada intends to notify the WTO of its use of export 
subsidies for the dairy year 2015 -2016 before the June 2017 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
 
1.7.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82059)  
New Zealand has been made aware, via media reports, of the conclusion of an 
"agreement in principle" between dairy farmers and processors which reportedly 
establi shes a nationwide pricing strategy for dairy ingredients. New Zealand has the 
following questions in relation to  this "agreement in principle":  
 
a. Can Canada provide details on the producer -processor agreement, including 
information on the agreement's propos ed est ablishment of a new milk class?  
b. Can Canada confirm our understanding that the price of fluid milk in this new 
milk class, used for the production of dairy ingredients, will be set based on the 
lowest world market prices?  
c. For the purposes of setting t he price of the new "ingredient " milk class, can 
Canada please provide further information on how the 'lo west price' will be 
calculated?  
d. New Zealand understands that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) conducts 
cost of production studies for dairy products  as part of its administration of 
Canada's dairy supply management system. Can Canada please provide the 
results of these studies as they relate to the new ingredient class, including 
whether the set price of the new milk class would be significantly below  the 
average cost of production for Canadian dairy farmers, and by what 
approximate amount?  
Answer by Canada  
 
The agreement is still in the process of being ratified by relevant industry entities, including 
provincial milk marketing boards. Details of this  new initiative still remain to be finalized. Canadian 
dairy industry stakeholders have determined that more time will be required for this process.  
 
It is therefore still premature to confirm whether new milk classes will be created, or to speculate 
on de tailed elements of a final implementation package.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.7.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82012)  and the United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 82001)  
In Canada's response to U.S. questions at the September Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 81009), Canada state d that the expanded Class 4(m) was extended until  
31 October  2016.  
 
a. Would Canada please provide an update on any additional extensions and 
confirm whether or not the Class 4(m) amendments are still in effect?  
In response to U.S. questions (AG -IMS ID 81009) , Canada stated that "[t]hrough milk 
class 4(m), manufacturers of these products have access to dry and liquid milk protein 
concentrates (MPC), as well as liquid skim milk and skim milk powder at competitive 
prices. The Canadian Dairy Commission publishes prices for milk class 4(m) on t he 
website milkingredients.ca".  
b. Would Canada please explain what is meant by "competitive prices" and how it 
is determined?  
In response to U.S. questions AG -IMS ID 81009, Canada stated that "[t]he 
administration of milk clas s 4(m) does not differentiate between milk or ingredients that 
were pr oduced in Canada, or elsewhere.  
c. Would Canada please explain this statement, particularly the term "does not 
differentiate"? The United States understands manufacturers have access at 
competitive prices through Class 4(m) to only milk and ingredients produced in 
Canada. By "does not differentiate", is Canada confirming that a processor 
could use domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk and imported fluid milk and 
ingredients and still qual ify for the Class  4(m) adjustment for the domestic 
liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used? By "does not differentiate", is Canada 
confirming that a processor could use domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk, 
and use imported ultra -filtered (UF) milk to mee t the minimum percentage of 
casein content derived from fluid milk in the compositional cheese 
requirements, and still qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment for the domestic 
liquid  MPC and liquid skim milk used?  
d. Would Canada please confirm that the adminis tration of Class 4(m), including 
qualifying for the Class 4(m) adjustment, would not depend on which product 
(e.g. ultra -filtered milk) is used to meet the minimum percentage of casein 
content derived from fluid milk in the compositional cheese requirement s? In 
Canada's response to U.S. questions at the September CoA (AG -IMS ID 81009), 
Canada stated, "The use of MPC, liquid skim milk and skim milk powder priced 
under milk class 4(m) is limited at different rates under each permitted specifi c 
use".  
e. Would Can ada please explain this statement? Does "rates" refer to a minimum 
or maximum level or percentage of domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk for 
which a manufacturer can qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment? Does "each 
permitted specific use" refer to th e products listed on this website 
(http://www.milkingredients.ca/index -eng.php?link=234 )? 
In response to U.S. questions (AG -IMS ID 81009), Canada stated that "[g]oods 
produced under these classes, or any milk class other than milk class 5(d), can 
be sold by any eligible processor on the domestic or export markets, and do not 
require export permits."  
f. In response to U.S. questions (AG -IMS ID 81009), Canada stated that "[i]t is 
not possible at  this stage to determine whether there have been any exports of 
dairy products from milk class 4(m) or Ontario milk class 6." Is Canada able to 
determine at this stage if there have there been exports under Class  6 or 
Class  4(m)? If so, how much? If not, a t what stage will Canada be able to make G/AG/W/159  
 
- 11 - 
 
  this determination? The United  States understands from Canada's response 
(AG-IMS ID 81009) that as of the September 2016 Committee on Agriculture 
meeting, the "agreement in principle" was in the p rocess of being rat ified.  
g. Please provide any update on the ratification or implementation o f the 
"agreement in principle".  
h. What steps will the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) have to take related to 
implementation o f the "agreement in principle"?  
i. Is Canada now able to answer  questions e and f from (AG -IMS ID 81009)?  
j. The United States understands that milk is provided by provincial marketi ng 
boards to dairy processors. What happens to milk componen ts that processors 
do not use? Are they, in whole or in part, returned to the bo ards?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) extended the application of 
amendments to Class 4(m) to 31 January 2017.  
b. Class 4(m) component prices are established on a monthly basis taking into account 
world prices.  
c. As menti oned in Canada's answer to U.S.  question (AG -IMS ID 80025), milk prices are 
not connected with the Canadian regulations on cheese compositional standards. Under 
Canada's cheese compositional standards, only milk (including ultra -filtered milk) can 
account for the milk portion of cheese. Any other substance, including milk protein 
concentrates, cannot account for the milk portion of cheese, regardless of its price or 
source. Under milk class 4(m), milk proteins from all sources, including those that were 
imported, count towards the amount of protein that can be derived from ingredients at 
the 4(m) price. This amount varies depending on the product that is being processed 
(e.g. cheese, yogurt, ice cream).  
d. Under milk class 4(m), all sources of milk protein coun t towards the amount of protein 
that can be derived from ingredients at the 4(m) price including ultra -filtered milk. 
Milk prices are not connected with the Canadian regulations on cheese compositional 
standards and are thus administered independently.  
e. Milk class 4(m) is available to manufacturers of standardized cheese, cottage cheese, 
feta, cheese curds, paneer, nutraceutical products, pet food, yogurt, fresh dairy desserts 
and ice cream. Under milk class 4(m), the amount of milk protein that can be deriv ed 
from ingredients at the 4(m) price varies depending on the product that is being 
processed.  
f. There is no export permit required for a good produced under either milk class 4(m) or 
Ontario milk class 6. For this reason, it is not possible to determine wha t volume, if any, 
of exports may have been derived from these milk classes.  
g. The producer/processor agreement is still in the process of being ratified by relevant 
industry entities, including provincial milk marketing boards. Canada understands that 
detail s of this new initiative still remain to be finalized. Canadian dairy industry 
stakeholders have determined that more time will be required for this process.  
h. As implementation details of the agreement are still being discussed amongst Canadian 
dairy indust ry stakeholders, the role of the Canadian Dairy Commission has yet to be 
determined.  
i. As implementation details of the agreement are still being discussed amongst Canadian 
dairy industry stakeholders, Canada cannot answer these questions at this time.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 12 - 
 
  j. Under  its Domestic Seasonality Programs, the Canadian Dairy Commission buys butter 
and skim milk powder from processors at established support prices.  
Follow -up: New Zealand noted its concern over the commercial impact of the proposed nationwide 
pricing strateg y, specifically how it appeared to be aimed at displacing imported products. 
Supported by the United States, New Zealand sought a copy of the full agreement between 
farmers and processors. New Zealand registered continued interest in monitoring the 
impleme ntation of the producer -processor agreement and looked forward to further engaging with 
Canada over the matter. Australia questioned the implication of Canada's new national dairy 
strategy on its WTO commitments. The European Union registered systemic inte rest in identifying 
the products that benefited directly or indirectly from this measure. In light of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision, Ukraine underlined the importance of ensuring full transparency of polices 
which might potentially subsidize exports.  
1.8  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.8.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82057)  
New Zealand remains concerned about provincial level restrictions on the sale of wine in 
Canada. Given the high number and variation in restrictions on the sale of wine in 
Quebec, British Co lumbia (BC) and Ontario, what is the Federal government doing to 
ensure that restrictions across its provinces are WTO consistent and do not discriminate 
between domestic and imported product? Can Canada explain whether it considers wine 
from different siz ed wineries to be "like"  products?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The Government of Canada has a long track record of working closely with all provinces and 
territories to help ensure consistency of liquor distribution policies with Canada's international 
trade obliga tions. This includes conveying to and meeting with them to discuss trading partner 
concerns related to the issues that have been raised. Canada has also facilitated meetings on this 
subject involving foreign governments and industry associations, in an eff ort to increase 
transparency and understanding of provincial liquor distribution policies.  
 
Under Ontario's Regulation 232/16, authorized grocery stores are immediately allowed to sell both 
domestic and foreign wine with specific requirements that will hel p all small producers compete. 
The Ontario Government's policy objectives are to support small producers and small wine 
producing industries, promote fairness and prevent market disruption, among other things. 
For example, on 13  September 2016 at a briefin g on the wine in grocery initiative led by Ed  Clark, 
Chair of the Ontario Premier's Advisory Council on Government Assets (PAC), it was emphasized 
that the policy objective of recent Ontario regulations in this area includes the sale of imported 
wine in gr ocery stores.  
 
1.8.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 82002)  
The United States continues to be concerned about wine regulations implemented in 
British Columbia (BC) that allow for sales of BC wines on regular grocery stores shelves, 
to the exclusion of imported products.  
 
a. Please provide an update on how many licenses and what type s of licen ses 
have been transferred to grocery stores in BC, both to the grocery store shelf 
model and the store -within -a-store model. We request transparency on polic y 
changes that may affec t exported products to Ontario.  
b. Please provide an update on Ontario's Regulation 232/16, including the 
information that was provided to select trading partners and industry 
representatives on 13  September by Ed  Clark, the Chair of t he Premier's 
Advisor y Council on Government Assets.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 13 - 
 
  c. Please provide an update on other alcohol policy changes under consideration 
in Ontario, including those related to mark -ups, bag -in-box wine, and Wine 
Retail Stores in grocery stores.  
The United States u nderstands from Canada's response to Australia's 
September CoA  questions (AG -IMS ID 81024) that a date has not been set for 
implementation of Quebec's Bill 88.  
d. Does Canada have an update on when implementing regulations will be 
published and timing of impl ementation? Will Quebec undertake a notice and 
comment process for implementing regulations?  
Answer by Canada  
 
There are 11 wine stores selling BC wine on grocery store shelves. There is one Liquor Retail 
Store  (LRS) application, currently under considerat ion, to move into a grocery store to sell all 
types of liquor in the store -within -a-store model. There are also a number of LRS licences that 
have been transferred to grocery store ownership but which continue to operate in separate 
locations for the time being.  
 
Ontario Regulation 232/16 is available at the following website: 
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/160232 . 
 
On 13 September 2016 Ed Clark, Chair of the Ontario Premier's Advisory C ouncil on Government 
Assets (PAC), provided a briefing on the wine in grocery initiative at the request of Drinks Ontario, 
the provincial trade association representing manufacturers, agents, importers, marketing groups, 
trade offices and distributors of b everage alcohol products in Ontario. The briefing addressed the 
Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) interpretation of the regulatory requirements for grocery 
stores operating under restricted wine authorizations. It was confirmed that the regulation all ows 
for imported wine to be sold in grocery stores operating under these authorizations and that it is 
the LCBO's role to interpret and apply the requirements of the regulation. Mr  Clark emphasized 
that the policy objective of the regulation includes the s ale of imported wine in grocery stores.  
 
Mark-ups - On 20 June 2016, the LCBO launched a pilot competitive tendering process with a 
variable mark -up component. On 11  July 2016, the LCBO issued a letter extending the deadline for 
receiving tenders but did n ot set a new deadline. There have been no further developments on this 
issue.  
 
Bag-in-box wine - On 29 August, the LCBO issued a product call to all industry associations, which 
can be found at the following website: http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%20Tender.pdf . 
 
Wine Retail Stores - Ontario amended Regulation 232/16 in July  2016 to also permit up to 
70 existing winery retail outlets that currently operate just outside a grocery store's checkout to 
move within the store and share the grocery checkout. These changes reflect the Februar y 2016 
recommendations of the PAC.  
 
The implementing regulations associated with Quebec's Bill 88 were published in Quebec's official 
Gazette on 26 October 2016 
http://ww w3.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/gazetteofficielle.fr.html . 
 
A comment period of 45  days is open to all stakeholders interested in submitting comments.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand remained concerned about Canada's policies that appeared to favour 
domestic o ver imported wine and sought an answer to the second part of its question regarding 
whether Canada considered wine from wineries of different size s to be like products. Australia and 
the United States flagged interest. The European Union noted concern on t he negati ve impact on 
imports  of Canada's practice  on trade . G/AG/W/159  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.9  European Union's agriculture policies  
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82027)  
Australia thanks the European Union for answers provided to Australia's questions on 
the new EUR  500 million support package for dairy farmers (AG -IMS ID 81058). As part 
of the package, the European Union announced EUR  150 million to "incentivise a 
reduction in milk production". Australia welcomes the direction of this programme in 
reducing milk production in the face of  low dairy prices. Can the Europea n Union provide 
information on:  
a. Which types of dairy farms or dairy producer s will be eligible for funding?  
b. Which measures are i ncluded as part of the package?  
c. What is the eligibility criteria used to determine access to f unding and  the 
amount of funding granted?  
Answer by the European Union  
a. All milk producers who delivered cow milk to first purchasers in July 2016 and who 
applied for the aid are eligible for funding.  
b. The only measure in this part of the dairy package is "r eduction of cow's milk deliveries 
to first purchasers" over a three -month period.  
c. EU aid is available to eligible applicants reducing cow milk deliveries for a three -month 
period, compared with the same period in the previous year.  
EU aid is fixed at EUR 14/100 kg of cow milk for the volume corresponding to the 
difference between the cow milk delivered during the reference period and the cow milk 
delivered during the reduction period.  
The European Union aid shall not cover more than a total volume of cow mi lk delivery 
reduction corresponding to EUR 150 million.  
Per eligible applicant, EU aid shall cover a quantity of cow milk delivery reduction that is 
no more than 50% of the total quantity of cow milk delivered to first purchasers in the 
reference period.  
The minimum quantity of cow milk delivery reduction covered by an aid application is 
1,500  kg. 
1.9.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82028)  
Australia thanks the European Union for answers provided to Australia's questions on 
the new EUR  500 million support packa ge for dairy farmers (AG -IMS ID 81058). As part 
of the package, the European Union announced EUR 350 million as conditional aid. 
Under Article  1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1613 the Commission can 
provide aid for the "application of extensive  production methods". Could the 
European  Union please explain what the "application of extensive production methods" 
means and what sort of activities a re covered by this description?  
Answer by the European Union  
The application of extensive production met hods is one of the seven engagements made available 
to member States under Regulation (EU) No. 2016/1613 to make the aid conditional for farmers. 
It depends on member States' decisions whether or not to include this activity in their measures 
and the way t o design it.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia supported the direction of the EU policy in reducing production given current 
global dairy prices. New Zealand registered  interest in this topic.  
 
1.10  India's importation of apples  
1.10.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82060)  
New Zealand understands that Visakhapatnam Port and Tuticorin Port remain closed to 
apple imports since they were originally closed in September 2015. India advised the 
WTO Council 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. New Zealand has 
raised this question in all appropriate fora within the WTO, including the SPS Committee 
and the Committee on Agriculture. At all of these venues India has failed to provide an 
explanation. New Zealand once again raises this matter, asking that India engage and 
provide information on  the trade restrictive measure.  
a. Are the two remaining ports closed to the impor t of apples due to SPS reasons?  
b. When will they reopen?  
c. When will th ese c losures be notified to the WTO?  
d. How are these closures consistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture which states that "Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert 
to any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted  into 
ordinary customs duties"?  
Answer by India  
The issue is beyond the mandate of Committee on Agriculture and scope of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. India has responded on this issue in other Committees of the WTO.  
Follow -up: New Zealand recalled that at the September 2015 CoA  the Chair had concluded this 
issue was within the  mandate of the Committee on Agriculture.  New Zealand shared that view and 
remained concerned about the continued closure of the two remaining ports. The European  Union 
and the United  States supported New Zealand's question.  
1.11  India's new crop insurance scheme  
1.11.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82031)  
According to information in the press, India implemented from July to September  2016 
a new crop insurance programme. Could India pl ease give more information about this 
programme, including which crops are covered, the eligibility criteria and the level of 
compensation (per crop). Further, could India indicate how many producers subscribed 
to this programme and the total amount of sub sidy? When does India intend to notify 
this to the WTO, including the DS:2 notification if the scheme fulfils the criteria of 
Annex  2 of the Agreeme nt on Agriculture?  
 
Answer by India 
 
With a view to provide insurance coverage and financial support to farm ers in the event of failure 
of any of the notified crop as a result of non -preventable natural calamities, pests; diseases, 
adverse weather conditions and to stabilize farm income particularly in disaster years, the 
government of India introduced a new sec tor crop insurance scheme namely "Prime Minister Fasal 
Bima Yojana (PMFBY) " from Kharif season 2016 and discontinued the of National Agricultural 
Insurance Scheme (NAIS) and the Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS).  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 16 - 
 
  The main features of the scheme are as follows:  
1. The scheme envisages coverage of all cereals, grains, oilseeds, annual horticultural/ 
commercial crops for which past yield data is available and States have the capacity to 
conduct requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (C CE) for estimates of yield to 
arrive at admissible shortfall in yield and resultant claims.  
2. The scheme is available for all farmers including sharecroppers, tenants etc., compulsory 
for loanee farmer obtaining Crop Loan /KCC account for notified crops and voluntary for 
Other/non loanee farmers who have insurable interest in the insured crop(s).  
3. As per the guidelines, the Threshold Yield (TY) will be the benchmark yield level for the 
notified crop at which insurance protection is to be given to all the insur ed farmers in an 
Insurance Unit Threshold of the notified crop. This is the moving average of yield of last 
seven years excluding yield up to two notified calamity years multiplied by the indemnity 
level. The farmer's premium is fixed at maximum Kharif sea son 2% of sum insured, Rabi 
Season 1.5% of sum insured, Annual Commercial/horticultural crops 5% of sum insured. 
The difference between actual premium and the rate of insurance payable by farmers shall 
be shared equally by the Centre and State.  
4. Budget prov ision for financial year 2016 -17 is kept at Rs.  55,010 million under PMFBY.  
5. The scheme is to cover 32.5 million insured farmers during kharif 2016 season.  
India will notify its schemes as per the requirement of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in due 
cours e. 
 
Follow -up: Canada and the United States n oted interest in the question.  
 
1.12  India's sugar export subsidies  
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82024)  
Australia thanks India for the answers provided to Australia's questions on the Minimum 
Indicative Export Qu ota Scheme raised at the 81st Comm ittee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 81062). In its response India states, "Further, after withdrawal of the 
production subsidy scheme on 19 May 2016, sugar mills will be provided subsidy based 
on ethanol supply to Oil Marketin g Companies under the Ethanol Blending Programme 
and export of sugar with equal weightage" . Australia asks India the following questions 
in relation  to the above statement:  
a. Can India please provide an explanation of how the "Ethanol Blending 
Programme" out lined in its res ponse to AG -IMS ID 81062 works?  
b. Can India please provide a reference to the legislation which underpins the 
"Ethanol Blending Prog ramme"?  
c. Can India please provide the eligibility criteria for sugar mills to access the 
subsidies referred to in AG -IMS ID 81062?  
d. How is the subsidy amount paid to sugar mills calculated?  
e. What is the total amount of sugar exported under the programme to date and 
what is the target amount of sugar to be exported by year)?  
f. India's response to AG -IMS ID 81062 states that the subsidy is provided to 
sugar mills "based on ethanol supply…and export of sugar with equal 
weightage". Can India confirm if the subsidies being provided to sugar mills 
under the Ethanol Blending Programme are contingent  upon the exportation of 
sugar? G/AG/W/159  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Answer by India  
a. and b) The Ethanol Blending Program (EBP) was launched by GOI in 2003. It was 
extended to the entire country vide notification dated 29 September 2006, except 
NE States, J and ; K, and some of the UTs. In 2012, it was decided to make man datory 
blending of  5% and subsequently increased to 10% vide Gazette Notification issued by 
MoP and NG on 2 January 2013. Under the National Bio -fuel Policy, the government 
directed OMCs to sell ethanol -blended petrol with percentage of ethanol up to 10% 
across the country. Procurement price of ethanol are fixed by government on a year to 
year basis. Accordingly, OMCs are floating Expression of Interest (EOI) from time to time 
for offering ethanol from the distilleries. In case of any shortfall in domestic supply, the 
OMCs and Chemical companies are free to import ethanol.  
c. Production subsidy are to be provided directly to farmers on behalf of sugar mills against 
their cane dues based on achievement of performance of the concerned sugar mills in 
respect of ta rgeted quantity of ethanol supply under EBP and export of sugar with equal 
weightage to both.  
d. The subsidy amount is calculated at the rate of Rs.45 per MT on actual cane crushed by 
that mill up to 19 May 2016 during the 2015 -16 sugar season.  
e. The amount of sugar exports under the scheme is about 1.67  million  MT until 
19 May 2016, the date on which the scheme was withdrawn, as against the targeted 
quantity of 3.2 million MT.  
f. Production subsidy are to be provided directly to farmers on behalf of sugar mills ag ainst 
their cane dues based on achievement of performance of the concerned sugar mills in 
respect of targeted quantity of ethanol supply under EBP and export of sugar with equal 
weightage to both.  
Follow -up: Australia and the European Union looked forward to receiving India's forthcoming 
export subsidy notification. Ukraine underlined the importance of compliance with the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition. The United  States supported the question.  
1.13  Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs  
1.13.1   Question by  New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82062)  
As New Zealand emphasised in its question to Sri Lanka at the 81st Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID  81007), New  Zealand considers the recent reduction in 
Sri Lanka's applied tariffs for dairy products to be a step in the r ight direction. 
Can Sri Lanka advise what remaining steps need to be taken to return its applied tariffs 
back in line with its WTO bindings and when these c an be expected to happen?  
Answer by Sri Lanka  
This matter was extensively  discussed at the bilateral  meeting held between the Sri  Lankan 
capital -based delegates, who attended the 4th Trade Policy Review of Sri Lanka, and the 
New Zealand delegation in Geneva on 3  November 2016. This matter has drawn the close 
attention of the capital -based authorities and  they are assessing the situation in order to explore 
further options in this regard.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand continued to question when Sri Lanka could bring the tariff s back within 
WTO bindings and invited Sri Lanka to continue to update Members at the C ommittee on its 
progress in this regard. Australia signalled on going interest and was encouraged that there had 
been discussions w ith capital based officials.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.14  U.S. purchase of cheese stock  
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82025)  
Australia thanks the United  States for answers provided to Australia's questions on the 
purchase of cheese stocks by the USDA (AG -IMS ID 81066). Australia notes that the 
USDA announced on 11  October  2016 that it will purchase another US D 20 million of 
cheddar cheese stocks. Could th e United States  please provide information on:  
a. How much cheese USDA plans to purc hase in volume and value terms?  
b. How will the USDA determine the price it pays for any  cheese that will be 
purchased?  
c. Is there a volume limit on how much  cheese the USDA will p urchase?  
d. Are there plans for USDA to purcha se any other dairy commodities?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a. Purchases will total no more than USD  20 million in value, but quantities will depend on 
prices offered under competitive bidding. For FY  2016, cheese purchases under this 
programme were 3.4  million pounds, valued at USD  7.2 million, which was less than the 
USD 20 million that was announced.  
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 may be awarded to achieve the best value to 
the governmen t.  
c. Yes, subject to the available funds, the solicitations will be for specified quantities based 
on expected competitive offer prices.  
d. There are no plans for additional Section 32C purchases of dairy commodities.  
1.14.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 82061)  
Follo w-up to AG -IMS ID 81089  
 
Canada thanks the United States for its response to questions on the USDA 
announcement of 13  August  2012 to purchase pork, lamb, chicken and catfish to 
"assist  … producers who are currently struggling due to challenging market 
cond itions  ...". In the U.S. response to a specific question on how these purchases 
conform to the provision in Annex  2, paragraph 1(b) that support … "shall not have the 
effect of providing price support to producers", the Unite d States responded that the 
USD 170 million used to purchase these commodities represented less than 1% of t heir 
total value of production.  
a. Could the United States share its view as to what share of a commodity's total 
value of production Section 32 purchases would need to meet in order  to be 
considered to prov ide price support to producers?  
b. Given that the stated aim of these purchases is to assist producers, and the 
U.S. assertion that these purchases are not providing price support to 
producers, does the United States have plans to inc rease the size or scope of 
these emergency purchases to better help its producers? Canada understands 
that USDA has also engaged in two separate purchases of cheese under Section 
32. According to the USDA website ( http://www.fsa.usda.gov/news -
room/news -releases/2016/nr_20160823_rel_0181 ), the U.S.  Government G/AG/W/159  
 
- 19 - 
 
  announced on 23 August 2016 plans to purchase approximately 11  million 
pounds of cheese (valued at USD 20 million) from private inventories to 
"… assist the stalled marketplace for dairy producers whose revenues have 
dropped 35% over the past two years." More recently, on 11  October  2016 the 
USDA announced a pledge to purchase another USD  20 million worth of cheese  
to help dairy farmers and reduce a record -setting private cheese surplus 
(http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/10/022
0.xml ). 
c. Could the United S tates elaborate on if it has purchased the cheese referenced 
in the 23 August 2016 announcement and when it expects to purchase cheese 
further to th e 11 October 2016 announcement?  
d. Could the United States clarify why these surplus purchases are necessary to  
assist dairy producers, given other support programs in place, such as the Dairy 
Margin Protection Program?  
e. As the decision to purchase cheese is meant to assist the stalled marketplace 
for producers, could the United States confirm that these purchases s erve to 
provide price support to producers?  
f. Does the United States foresee additional announcements of government 
purchases of surplus cheese to help increase market prices?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a. Purchases under Section 32C are of product s from approved processors and are made at 
market prices, based on a competitive bid process.  
b. Purchases under Section 32C provide food products from approved processors to 
schools, food banks, and households through USDA's food and nutrition assistance 
programmes. The products are purchased at market prices using a competitive bid 
process. There are no plans to increase the size or scope of Section 32C purchases.  
c. Under USDA's competitive bidding procurement process following the 23  August  2016 
announcement,  USDA purchased 3.4 million pounds of cheese totalling USD  7.2 million 
using FY  2016 funds. Because those funds are no longer available, no further purchases 
will be made pursuant to that announcement. The invitation for bids for the purchase 
announcement on 11  October  2016 will be issued in the near future.  
d. The USDA Foods programme, which purchases over 200 different products for schools, 
food banks, and households, is a separate programme from the Dairy Milk Margin 
Protection Program, which is a voluntary  risk management tool for U.S. dairy farmers. 
AMS issues solicitations and makes purchases of needed food products, at market prices, 
for the USDA Foods programme.  
e. The purchases are less than 1% of cheese production volume and are of processed food 
product s from approved vendors for distribution to schools, food banks, and households 
through USDA's food and nutrition assistance programs, and as such, have minimal 
impact on farm milk prices.  
f. There are no plans to purchase additional dairy products under Sect ion 32C.  
Follow -up: Australia and Canada would continue to monitor the issue, including how it would be 
notified in the future. The European Union and New Zealand registered interest.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.15  U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes  
1.15.1   Questi on by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82026)  
Australia notes that the USDA announced on 4 October 2016 that it will be issuing 
safety -net payments through the Agriculture Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage 
programmes. Could the United States  please provide informat ion on:  
a. What are the eligibility require ments to access these payments?  
b. How long these payments are exp ected to continue?  
c. What is the value of these payments?  
d. What commo dities do these payments cover?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
a. Producers were provided a one -time opportunity to elect the Agriculture Risk 
Coverage  (ARC) or Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programme for historical base acres on 
their farms. The election between ARC and PLC cannot be changed and is in effect for 
the duration of the 2014 F arm Bill (2014 -2018 crop years). The producer enters into an 
annual contract with USDA to enroll the base acres in the programme that was elected. 
A payment is only made if actual prices (PLC) or revenue (ARC) falls below a specified 
level. Payment is made  on a share of enrolled base acres, and no production is required 
to receive a payment.  
b. The programme is in effect for the 2014 -2018 crop years. Payments are determined 
annually and are not automatic. Producers must enrol base acres each year.  
c. The value of  payments under the ARC and PLC programmes will be notified in 
forthcoming  DS:1 notifications.  
d. Historical base of the following commodities are defined as "covered commodities " in 
the 2014 Farm Bill: barley, corn, grain sorghum, oats, peanuts, rice, soybea ns, other 
oilseeds, wheat, and pulse crops. As explained, if a payment is triggered under either 
ARC or PLC, the payment is made on a share of historical base acres of these covered 
commodities.  
Follow -up: Brazil and Canada registered interest in the progr ammes and in the forthcoming DS:1 
notification. In particular, Brazil was interested in how the United States would notify the 
programme for soybeans.  
1.16  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.16.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 82069)  
In previo us 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 order to prevent 
irregularities. Co ncerning 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 a s 2014 and may be used in 2016.  
The United States notes that the market price of wheat has de clined, effectively 
dropping below the minimum price requirements in October 2016 per Brazil' s 
specifications as prescribed in the PEP and PEPRO programmes.  A recent press release 
from Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply (MAPA) indicate d that Brazil 
will be reactivating the PEP and/or PEPRO programmes to provide compensation to both 
wheat producers and institutional buyers.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Can Brazil provide clarificat ion on the following questions:  
a. Given  that it appears PEP and/or PEPRO will be activat ed for use by wheat 
producers in 2016, can Brazil confirm that the reassessment of the programmes 
has been completed?  
b. Similarly , can Brazil confirm that there are no longer concerns regarding the 
control mechanism of the PEP programme?  
c. If so, please provid e the results of that assessment, as previously agreed.  
If Brazil can confirm that PEP and/or PEPRO will return to operation;  
 
d. When does Brazil expect the required ministerial decree to be published?  
e. How will the auction process be administered?  
f. Will wheat  that is purchased under either PEP or PEPRO be eligible for export?  
g. If so, please provide an estimate of the quantity of wheat that will be exported 
that has been purchased under either PEP or PEPRO.  
Additionally, the United States has repeatedly requeste d data on export destinations for 
PEP and PEPRO recipient products ( see AG-IMS ID 74021, 76039, 75023, 74021, 66002, 
77066).  
h. Can Brazil provide the requested data on export destinations with respect to 
the PEP and PEPRO programmes?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
Brazil  undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Canada flagged interest in the potential for PEP and PEPRO to apply to wheat given its 
commercial interest in the wheat market. The European Union and Ukraine signalled interest in the 
question . 
 
1.17  U.S. New Cotton Ginning Cost Share programme  
1.17.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 82068)  
Follow up to AG -IMS ID 80096:  
 
a. Can the United States provide additional information about the Cotton Ginning 
Cost Share programme?  
b. Will the United States notify this polic y change to the Committee on Agriculture 
in accordance with Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by the United States of America  
 
The United States undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/159  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.18  Argentina's tax policies  
1.18.1   Question by Ukrain e (AG -IMS ID 82041)  
Outstanding replies to Questions to Argentina (AG -IMS ID 80059, paragraphs d. and e.)  
 
Argentina kindly replied that due to a lack of specifics a substantive response to 
Ukraine's questions (AG -IMS ID 80059) was impossible in June 2016.  While Ukraine 
understands a specific Argentine policy aimed at improvement of agricultural land with 
aid of fertilizer subsidies may not yet be fully adopted, early awareness of potential 
scope and parameters remains desirable. An Argentine comprehensive land 
improvement policy (via fertilizer subsidies) could represent a significant farm support 
measure, given it's nearly 1.5 million square kilometres of agricultural land. Therefore, 
Ukraine reformulates the query as follows:  
 
a. Can Argentina please advise  the status of the (draft or final) law "On improving 
the use of Land for Agricultural Purposes"?  
b. Could Argentina please indicate if the (draft or final) measure would cover all 
of Argentina's agricultural land or if the cover age is limited in some fashio n? 
c. If some limitation is likely intended, can Argentina provide information on the 
general nature of such criteria and, if possible, the potential percentage of 
agricultural land it would likely cover?  
Answer by Argentina  
 
a. The draft law entitled "Law on i mproving the use of land for agricultural purposes" was 
approved by the Honourable  Chamber of Deputies in November  2015 and is currently 
waiting consideration by the Honourable  Chamber of Senators.  
b. First of all, it should be noted that the legislation refe rred to by Ukraine is still 
undergoing legislative consideration (as indicated in the reply to question a.) and may 
therefore be subject to as yet unknown changes. It is also important to bear in mind that 
the draft legislation itself, as submitted to Cong ress, stipulates that several of its main 
provisions are to be regulated in the future and once the draft text has been approved, 
which is why the measure's final scope is as yet uncertain.  
Nevertheless, Argentina should point out that the draft text as it  currently stands is of 
national scope and does not provide for any territorial limitations (the only exclusion 
being land for non -agricultural use). The beneficiaries of the draft text would therefore 
be agricultural producers that comply with certain req uirements established in the draft 
law, regardless of where their production unit is located.  
Argentina  also consider s it important to emphasize that the purpose of the draft law is to 
counter the impact of extractive agriculture, which disturbs the balanc e of nutrients and 
degrades the natural capital, and to foster the conservation and improvement of soil 
fertility on agricultural land, and the use of good agricultural practices.  
c. As indicated in the reply to question b., the measure, as currently provided  for in the 
draft text still under legislative consideration, is of national scope and therefore does not 
therefore provide for any territorial limitation.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.19  China's regional assistance programmes  
1.19.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 82014)  
Since China has not s upplied written responses, Australia resubmits its question  
AG-IMS ID 79057 and 81053:  
 
China reported an increase in expenditure from 2009 to 2010 of approximately 15% for 
Regional assistance programmes (under Other General Services). This continues a tre nd 
from 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 acti vities receive funding and can China explain how these 
activities are in accordance with Annex 2 o f the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by China  
 
As China had explained at previous meetings, the expenditures for Regional Assistance 
Programmes might cover certain programmes that should not be included in this item. Detailed 
examination is still underway, and the answer will be provided when this job is finished.  
 
Follow -up: Australia looked forward to the completion of China's review of these payments and 
requested China to inform the Committee how these programmes should be classified. Canada 
flagged interest in how Members notified Green Box measure. The European  Union supported the 
question.  
1.20  Turkey's domestic support policies  
1.20.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS I D 82056)  
Follow up to AG -IMS ID 81064 , Canada notes that it has not received a written response 
from Turkey on Canada's questions raised at the September  2016 meeting of the 
Committee (AG -IMS ID 81064). Canada's questions were as follows:  
 
Canada notes th at 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 plan in 2016 to grant 3.2  billion TL (USD  1.1 billion) in 
subsidies to livestock producers in order to increase the cattle population and 
subsequently increase meat production.  
a. Could Turkey provide information regarding how this grant to ca ttle producers 
will be applied?  
i. Will it be used by t he producer to purchas e cattle?  
ii. For producers with an existing herd of cattle what is the amount of the 
payment per head of cattle?  
iii. What other subsidies would be available to these producers? For example, 
would these producers be elig ible 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 increasing 
meat p roduction and self -sufficiency?  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 24 - 
 
  c. In 2015, the Minis try of Food, Agriculture and Livestock increased the pulse 
premium introduced in 2009 from 100  TL p er tonne to 200  TL per tonne 
in 2015. As this premium is directly linked to production it is not surprising that 
the plantings of lentils increased in  2016. What is the projected increase in 
production for crop year  2016?  
d. What other subsidies/grants are available to these producers that would 
support the production of lentil? For example, could producers receive fertilizer 
or fuel subsidies? If so, what are th e amounts of these input subsidies?  
e. What are Turkey's longer term objectives for lentil production and self -sufficiency?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
For the year 2016, the support that is granted to the livestock producers are as follows:  
 
 200 TL per head for breed ing cattle;  
 350 TL per head to the producers with an existing herd for the animals that are more 
than 4  months old;  
 500 TL per head for the animals which are registered to the race register;  
 An additional 50 TL per head for calves from bulls for which all the sperm controls are 
completed.  
Concerning the question on lentil production, in 2009, Turkey's red lentils production was 
275,000  tonnes and green lentils production was 27,000 tonnes. In 2015, the production has been 
340,000  tonnes for the red lentils and 20,000 tonnes for green lentils. The expected amount of 
production for 2016 is 350,000 tonnes for red lentils and 20,000 tonnes for green lentils. As 
indicated by these figures, there is not a significant change among the yearly productions.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the United States registered 
interest in the issue. Specifically, t he European Union was interested in the way the  scheme 
operate d. 
1.21  Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising the use of domestic dair y 
1.21.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 82067)  
At the 81st meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 81065) New  Zealand 
highlighted that regulations issued by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock 
(Communique on Fundamentals of Support and Practice for the Utilisation of Raw Milk) 
appear to establish a subsidy for the use of domestic powdered and/or raw milk in 
processed export products. New Zealand notes that Turkey has yet to provide the 
Committee with an answer to that question. In additi on to New Zealand's previous 
question to the Committee, could Turkey also explain in detail the policy objectives of 
the "Fundamentals of Support and Practice for the Utilisation of Raw Milk2 subsidy 
programme?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Taking into account the do mestic milk production, as well as offer and demand, the Ministry of 
Food, Agriculture and Livestock seasonally regulate the dairy market. The measures taken within 
this respect are not expected to increase production, or to influence external trade in dai ry sector. 
This regulation has been recently adopted and therefore it is not possible to determine the exact 
impact.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand invite d Turkey to provide full details of changes to its regulations  and to 
explain the consistency  of its subsidy with the  WTO obligation, particular ly Article 3.1( b) of the 
SCM agreement. Ukraine raised concern regarding Turkey' policies which might have potential G/AG/W/159  
 
- 25 - 
 
  export subsidy effects and called for all Members to comply with the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competit ion. The European Union and the United States signalled interest.  
 
1.22  Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize  
1.22.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 82030)  
The European Union would like to repeat its questions from the last meeting since 
no reply has y et been received (AG -IMS ID 81033).  
 
The Food Reserve Agency, according to EU information, is responsible for ensuring a 
food security stock of 500,000 tonnes (= 3 months of food consumption). During the 
2014/15 marketing year, the Food Reserve Agency seem s to have bought in the order of 
1.2 million tonnes, of which part seems to have been exported at prices below the p rice 
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 ave rage selling price in 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 a response at a later stage.  
 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFIC ATIONS  
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  
2.1.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/31)  
AG-IMS ID 82034: Question by the Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Could the European Union clarify certain issues concerning its latest MA :1 noti fication 
(G/AG/N/EU/31):  
 
a. What is the rationale for import licences for meat and egg products to be valid 
only for 150 days from the first day of the subpe riod for which they are issued?  
b. Why for certain country -specific tariff quotas importers are not requ ired to 
present certificate of origin, while for other cou ntry-specific TRQs they should?  
c. Could the European Union confirm that for CN 1602 31 there is country -specific 
allocation to Thailand? Please, provide quantities allocated to Brazil, Thailand 
and other countries under this TRQ.  
d. Could the European Union confirm that for CN 1602 39 21 it applies Erga omnes 
allocation among supplying countries? Please, provide quantities allocated to 
other countries under this TRQ.  
e. Could the European Union confirm that for TRQ for cuts of fowls of the species 
Gallus  Domesticus , frozen (CN 0207 14 10, 0207 14 50, 0207 14 70) it allocates 
country -specific shares only to Brazil and other countries? Please, provide 
quantities allocated to Brazil and other countries under thi s TRQ.  
Answer by the European Union  
 
a. The validity of import licences for 150 days is linked to the method of management for 
some of the meat and egg products quotas. Usually, the annual volumes of these quotas 
are divided into four sub -periods, with a view  to ensuring a regular flow of imports. 
Consequently, the licences issued for a sub -period are deemed to be valid from the first 
day of a certain sub -period and for 150 days, so that the operator has enough time to 
use the import licence.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 26 - 
 
  b. When a quota is c ountry -allocated, there is a requirement to present a certificate of 
origin to be able to benefit from that country -allocated quota. For quotas that are not 
specifically country -allocated, i.e. erga omnes, there is self -evidently no need for such a 
require ment.  
c. The European Union thanks the Russian Federation for spotting a typing error in the 
EU MA:1 notification concerning this TRQ. There is no country -specific allocation to 
Thailand. A corrigendum will be submitted.  
d. The European Union thanks the Russian Federation for s potting a typing error in the 
European Union  MA:1 notification concerning this TRQ. This TRQ is indeed country -
allocated to Thailand. A corrigendum will be submitted.  
e. As part of the results of Article XXIV:6 GATT negotiations, the European Union has 
bound in its schedule a country -specific allocation of part of this TRQ to Brazil. 
In addition, in accordance with Article XIII GATT, the European Union has also 
country -allocated part of this quota to Thailand since the Uruguay Round. For the de tails, 
please see Commission Regulation  (EC) No. 1385/2007.  
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/30)  
AG-IMS ID 82029: Question by the Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Could the European Union clari fy certain issues concerning its latest MA:2 notification 
for the marketing year 2013/2014 and the cal endar year 2014 (G/AG/N/EU/30):  
 
a. In-quota imports of chicken cuts, fresh, chilled or frozen was notified by the 
European Union at the level of 1,470 tonne s. According to the Eurostat data, in 
marketing year  2013/2014 EU import under the corresponding tariff lines were 
more than 12,000  tonnes. Could the European Union explain why the notified 
quantities are signifi cantly below the actual import?  
b. There is a s imilar situation for certain other agricultural products. For instance, 
in‑quota imports during the notified periods for turkey meat, fresh, chilled were 
30 tonnes, for poultry cuts and offal other than livers of turkeys, frozen – 
6,877  tonnes, for common wheat (medium and low quality) – 124,621 tonnes. 
While according to the Eurostat statistics, imports under corresponding tariff 
lines were 1,460  tonnes, 9,988  tonnes and 2,587,979  tonnes respectively. 
Could the European Union also explain why the notified quantities for these 
agricultural produc ts are below the actual import?  
c. If the reason for this situation is that the quantities indicated are based on the 
authorization to import, could the European Union clarify why it imports certain 
agricultural product s in excess of quantities for which it issues respective 
authorizations?  
d. Does "the authorization to  import" mean import licensing?  
e. Could the European Union provide the rationale for indicating quantities on the 
basis of authorization to import, and not on  the actual import basis?  
f. Could the European Union explain why for certain agricultural products 
"effective import" was used to determine in -quota import, while for other 
agricultural products authorization to import was used for the same purpose?  
Answer b y the European Union  
 
a. to c) The quantities imported within a quota can be below the total quantities imported 
under the same tariff line. The same tariff lines can be covered by different TRQs. G/AG/W/159  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Moreover imports can also take place out -of-quota, with a full  MFN duty or with a 
preferential duty.  
d. to f) As included in the notification on the administration of tariff quotas 
(MA:1,  G/AG/N/EU/31), there are TRQs allocated on a first -come first -served basis and 
other TRQs for which import licences are issued by the  competent authorities in the 
EU member States. As regards the TRQs for which import licences are issued, imports 
with the licence will take place within the TRQ, but it is also possible to import the same 
products out -of-quota under the same tariff code w ithout an import licence. Once 
licences have been issued by the member States' authorities, they have a validity of a 
few months during which imports can take place. The quantities that have been 
authorised for the issuing of licences are those notified, e ven if the imports take place 
later. As regards the TRQs managed on a first -come first -served basis, imports take 
place immediately.  
2.2.2   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/81)  
AG-IMS ID 82063: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand's WTO quota for "milk and cr eam, not concentrated, not containing added 
sugar or other matters (including flavoured milk)" has not been filled. In 2014, the fill 
rate was  76.53%.  
 
a. Could Thailand explain why the fill rate is so low?  
b. Is Thailand considering any changes in the administr ation of this quota, in 
order to boost the fill rate? If so, in which direction are the changes being 
made?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
In 2014, Thailand imported a lot of in -quota milk product, with 100% fill -rate for ready -to-drink 
milk, 98.86% for skim milk pow der, and 76.53 for raw milk.  
 
The quantity of import is determined by the demand from the private sector, and the importation 
has been administered in accordance with the import rules and regulations that have been 
announced in a very transparent manner, i n accordance with Thailand's notification 
(document  G/AG/N/THA/80).  
 
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/1)  
AG-IMS ID 82011: Question by the United States of America - General services: 
extension and advisory services  
The Unit ed States would like to congratulate Afghanistan on its first notification.  
 
The United States understands that there has been a significant decrease in expenditure 
for the measure on extension and advisory services from calendar year 2013 to 2014. 
Accordi ng to the table submitted, the expenditure for 2014 was about Afs  1.8 million. 
In 2013 and 2015, the expenditure for this measure was about AFN 21.8 million and 
AFN 20.9 million; respectively. Can Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in 
expenditure for this measure in 2014 and the sudden increase in 2015?  
 
Answer by Afghanistan  
 
Afghanistan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 82008: Question by the United States of America - General services: 
inspection services  
The United States would like to congratulate Afghanistan on its first notification.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 28 - 
 
  For the inspections services, the United States understands that when comparing 
calendar year 2015 to the previous calendar years, there has been a significant decrease 
in expenditure. In 20 13 and 2014, the expenditure for the measure was about 
AFN 26.4 million and AFN 23.1 million, respectively. In 2015, the expenditure for this 
measure is about AFN 2.8 million. Can Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in 
expenditure for this measure?  
 
Answer by Afghanistan  
 
Afghanistan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 82009: Question by the United States of America - General services: 
marketing and promotion services  
For the marketing and promotional services measure, the United  States understands 
that there is a significant decrease in expenditure from about AFN 13.9 million in 
calendar year 2013 to AFN 0 in 2015. Can Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in 
expenditure for this measure?  
 
Answer by Afghanistan  
 
Afghanistan und ertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 82010: Question by the United States of America - Domestic food aid  
For domestic food aid, the United States understands that there is a significant decrease 
in expenditure from AFN 192.4  million in calendar year 2013 to AFN 0 in 2015. 
Can Afghanistan explain the process for food aid expenditures?  
 
Answer by Afghanistan  
 
Afghanistan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.3.2   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/35)  
AG-IMS ID 82035: Question by the European U nion - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
a. According to the notification, there is no payment to small sugarcane producers 
in the northern part of Argentina. Can Argentina confirm that no such support  
was provided during 2009/2010.  
b. Could Argentina s et out the methodology for calculating the interest rate 
subsidy programme for loans to small -scale agricultural producers (Supporting 
Table DS:7), including the effective subsidy rate and market rate and the basis 
for setting these rates.  
c. Could Argentina indicate under which item the food security programme 
"Pro-huerta" is notified and the amounts concerned.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Answer by Argentina  
 
a. During the 2009/2010 period, the Ministry of Agriculture did not grant any support to 
sugar producers. In 2011/2012, Argentina be gan implementing the PROICSA 
Programme, under which support is granted to small sugarcane producers in the 
north -western part of the country. This was included in notification G/AG/N/ARG/36, 
which covers the periods 2010/2011 to 2013/2014. PROICSA is a gov ernment of 
Argentina initiative partly financed by the CAF (Development Bank of Latin America), 
which seeks mainly to grant support and technical assistance to small sugarcane 
producers with a view to improving their management capacity and ensuring their 
further integration into value chains.  
b. There is no specific methodology for calculating subsidies under the interest -rate subsidy 
programmes for loans to small -scale agricultural producers notified by Argentina in 
Supporting Table DS:7 ("Product -Specific A ggregate Measurements of Support"). These 
programmes are based on different financing agreements between the Ministry of 
Agriculture and national/provincial banks.  
Under each of these agreements, the Ministry of Agriculture undertakes to pay a 
percentage o f the interest rate paid by small -scale producers of pork, poultry meat, 
beef, milk, wheat and wine on productive investment loans. It should be noted that each 
of these loans is granted at the market interest rate applied in the relevant case by each 
of the banks with which an agreement was signed (during the 2009/2010 period 
specifically, agreements were signed with the Banco Nación, Nuevo Banco de Entre Ríos, 
Banco Provincia de Buenos Aires, and Banco Provincia de Santa  Fe). 
The interest rate subsidies p aid by the Ministry of Agriculture in the period under review 
varied between 4 and 6 percentage points of  the interest rates paid by beneficiary 
producers.  
It should be emphasized that all of these programmes were notified by Argentina in the 
2009/2010 per iod under " de minimis " levels ranging from 0.09% to 0.39% of the gross 
value of production for each beneficiary product.  
c. The ProHuerta programme has been included in Supporting Table DS:1, "Measures 
exempt from the reduction commitment: Green Box", togethe r with all the other 
programmes implemented by the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA). 
INTA programmes on the whole have been classed as measures granted under 
paragraph 2(d) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, i.e. extension and advisory 
services.  
It should be noted that the aim of the ProHuerta programme is to improve and diversify 
the diet of families, schools, institutions and social organizations through training and 
the dissemination of technologies relevant to crop productio n. 
The budget implemented for the Prohuerta programme for the perio d under review was 
$596,269 (USD 152,421).  
AG-IMS ID 82037: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In its 2009/2010 notification, Argentina notifie d payments for relief from natural 
disasters under the Agriculture Emergency Programme Law 26.509, whereas, in its 
domestic support notification for years 2006/2007 to 2008/2009 (G/AG/ARG/N/31) 
natural disaster relief payments were attributed to the Agricu lture Emergency 
Programme Law 22913. Could Argentina please explain the differences between these 
two domestic laws?  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
Argentina would first like to point out that Law No. 26.509 "Agriculture Emergency Programme ", 
which was passed in A ugust  2009, repeals Law No.  22.913. This is explained in Article 34 of the G/AG/W/159  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Law. This new Law, like its predecessor, is consistent  with the multilateral domestic support 
commitments undertaken by Argentina and, in particular, with the requirements included in 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. While the new Law maintains the key 
elements of Law No.  22.913, there are a number of differences between the two legislative texts:  
 
 When Law No.  22.913 was passed in 1983, its organizational prov isions included an 
institutional framework that has changed gradually over time and which has been 
updated through Law No.  26.509 to include new subnational States within federal 
territory.  
 The new legislation includes the possibility of assistance for agr icultural producers with a 
view to renewing their productive capacity and reducing their vulnerability to future 
events; priority is given to family producers with small -scale and subsistence -level 
production capabilities.  
 Law No.  26.509 provides for resou rces to cover the investment expenditure and 
operating costs of public bodies that develop prevention systems, land management 
measures, mitigation measures, and technical assistance arrangements for agricultural 
producers with a view to reducing vulnerabi lity. The Law provides for the development of 
projects, the organization of the beneficiary community, monitoring and information 
transfer systems, protective structures, the creation of risk maps in preparation for 
adverse events, and the implementation o f warning systems, etc. By way of contrast, 
Law No.  22.913 did not contain any provisions on the prevention of emergencies and 
natural disasters.  
AG-IMS ID 82038: Question by Canada - Direct payments: other  
In its 2009/2010 notification, in Supporting Tabl e DS:1, Argentina has notified what 
appears to be a new programme called "Support  Programme for Small and 
Medium -Sized Producers" under Annex 2, paragraph 5 of the Green Box.  
 
a. If this is a new measure could Argentina indicate when it plans to a submit a 
DS:2 notification?  
b. There are a number of activities/projects covered by this measure including 
"improvement of the rural infrastructure and environment, strengthening of 
organizations and cooperatives, research and technical assistance, inter alia". 
Could Ar gentina please elaborate on the projects under rural infrastructure 
eligible for funding and outline whether these projects include on -farm 
infrastructure? Could Argentina also elaborate on the types of projects  that fall 
under "environment"?  
c. Could Argenti na elaborate on the criteria used to determine who is a small or 
medium -sized producer?  
Answer by Argentina  
 
a. It should be noted that while the Support Programme for Small and Medium -Sized 
Producers (PAPYM) appears as a new programme in the notification sub mitted by 
Argentina for the 2009 -2010 period (G/AG/N/ARG/35), it was created under policies that 
had been implemented for small and medium -sized producers for years. The PAPYM in 
fact shares many of the objectives and dynamics of the Agricultural Social Pr ogramme 
(PSA), which Argentina has provided information on since its first domestic support 
notification for 1996 (G/AG/N/ARG/4).  
Both programmes sought to provide training and financial and technical assistance to 
small -scale producers in various province s. 
It is important to note that since both programmes were very similar, they ceased to 
function independently in 2013, instead merging to form a single programme called the 
Inclusion and Rural Development Programme (PIDER), which was established to ensure  
the continuity and integration of the aforementioned programmes.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 31 - 
 
  b. The benefits of the PAPYM were directed mainly at projects covering the following 
aspects:  
1) productive infrastructure, machinery and equipment, hand tools, systematizations, 
measurements, and  land grading;  
2) improvement of productive and social infrastructure (with the possibility of 
investment at community level and farm level) and the rural habitat;  
3) strengthening of small and medium -sized producer organizations;  
4) production -related research and  development, with the assistance of technical 
institutions that specialize in the subject;  
5) land management: land -title regularization, promotion of organizational processes 
linked to the use and administration of natural resources (irrigation consortiums,  
roads, etc.), access to water, basin studies, forest inventories;  
6) studies and technical assistance; and  
7) strengthening of cooperatives: awareness -raising and educational workshops and 
meetings, support for the operation of the organization, systematization s and 
audiovisual registers.  
Furthermore, regarding the last question included here, it should be noted that the text 
of the PAPYM contains only one reference to the improvement of the "rural habitat" 
(understood to mean the improvement of existing infrast ructure); there is no mention of 
the "environment". However, while none of the projects focused exclusively on 
environmental issues, all of them provided for and promoted the care and preservation 
of the environment as a requirement for their approval and subsequent implementation.  
c. In accordance with the legislation establishing the PAPYM, the primary agricultural 
subjects of the programme are considered to be small and medium -sized rural producers 
and the social organizations made up principally of such pr oducers, which are listed in 
the various categories of the registers that existed under the former Ministry of 
Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries.  
The registers used were the RENSPA (National Sanitary Register of Agricultural 
Producers), which belongs to  SENASA (National Agriculture and Food Quality and Health 
Service), and the RENAF (National Register of Family Agriculture), which was established 
pursuant to Resolution No.  255/07 of the former Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, 
Fisheries and Food (SA GPyA).  
Families of agricultural and forestry producers and fishermen and/or those engaged in 
artisanal, agro -industrial or tourism activities may register with the RENAF if using 
resources of agrarian origin, regardless of whether the intention of these ac tivities is 
sale, self -consumption or barter or whether it is the household's principal activity or a 
secondary activity. They are considered to be part of family agriculture as long as they 
comply with the parameters that define this type of agriculture a nd differentiate it from 
other types of agricultural practice:  
 Family agriculture producers live in rural areas or at a distance that allows daily 
contact with their farm, production establishment or fishing/harvesting zone.  
 In family farming nuclei (NAF),  the work of the production unit is carried out and 
managed mainly by individuals who are connected by family ties or who cooperate 
on an unpaid basis. For this reason the farm may have a maximum of two 
permanent salaried workers, and NAF members must repr esent more than 50 % of 
the employed workforce.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 32 - 
 
   Whether the activity concerned is the principal activity or a secondary activity, to be 
considered as part of family agriculture, the monthly off -farm income cannot exceed 
three times the rural agricultural wo rker's wage.  
 Family agriculture seeks mainly to ensure family sustainability in decent conditions 
and the sharing of not only productive activity, but values, practices and 
experiences.  
AG-IMS ID 82036: Question by Canada - De minimis  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:4, Canada appreciates the information provided on the 
value of production for those products where the support is exempted as de minimis . 
Could Argentina provide a source or sources for the value of production data included in 
its notification?  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
The data on the gross value of production included in Supporting Table DS:4 (" De minimis " 
Clause  Verification) in noti fication G/AG/N/ARG/35,  was compiled and provided by the 
National  Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC).  
 
2.3.3   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  
AG-IMS ID 82007: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States would like to thank Costa Rica for its DS:1 notification for domestic 
support. The United States understands the  hard work that goes into preparing these 
notifications and the United States appreciates the effort Costa Rica has put forth to 
notify this information in a timely manner.  
 
The United States notes the reforms stated and notified by Costa Rica to its rice sector, 
which took place in early 2015 pursuant to Executive Decree No.  38884 -MEIC 
(https://members.wto.org/CRNAttachments/2015/AGCD/CRI/GEN126 -02.pdf ).  
 
According to Cost a Rica, the administered producer price was replaced by a reference 
price, which we nt into effect on 1 March 2015.  
 
a. Please confirm the market price support figure of USD  4.06 billion was the 
support provided to rice producers only for the  months of January  and 
February  2015.  
b. Please confirm that Costa Rica reports no domestic support measures for rice 
that would qualify as Amber Box for th e months March through 
December  2015.  
Executive Decree No. 38884 -MEIC sets a "reference price" for producers at 
colones  22,139 per 73.6 kg bag of dry and clean paddy rice, equivalent to 
approximately USD  557 per metric tonne, only slightly below the applied 
administered price notified for January and March. It is noted that the Decree 
states it written in accordance with Art icle 57 of 8285 Act, which reads, 
"Article  57. When necessary and in order to promote the purchase of domestic 
production of grain, the Executive Power may implement mechanisms for 
supporting producers in price related matters, for the sale of grain to the  
domestic industry". Among the four elements the Decree considers to affect 
this control is the gap between the local price of rice and the international price 
of rice that could affect deterioration of domestic agricultural production, loss 
of competitive ness of the industrial sector, higher productivity of those who 
access imported rice (industrial sector and importers) and displacement of 
agents and rent concentration in a few operators… listed under V(c). 
Further,  VI(c) states "the parties assure/claim that the purchase and sale of 
paddy is done at the reference price". Also, VI (h) states that "Producers and 
millers cannot establish purchase/sale conditio ns in unilateral form". Article  10 G/AG/W/159  
 
- 33 - 
 
  continues that any commercial practice should not undermine the l egislative 
intent of this Decree.  
With the aforementioned information from the Decree it appears that 
Costa  Rica, while not directly administering the purchase price for producers, is 
continuing to promulgate a price support for rice producers in all but n ame 
through support to millers (e.g., set prices for consumers) to be able to 
purchase paddy rice at (or near) the stated reference price so as to avoid 
undermining the Decree. Further, looking at Costa Rica's rice market situation, 
there is no appearance of a change in de facto policy towards rice. Area 
harvested and production are both forecast to increase to levels above that 
seen in 2014, the last full year Costa Rica notified market price support for rice.  
c. Given these facts please explain how Executive  Decree No. 38884 -MEIC and 
other relevant legislation do not confer a benefit by the government, directly or 
indirectly, to producers in the form of a "market price support"?  
d. Please explain how these measures are notified in Costa Rica's DS:1 notification.  
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
In response to the specific questions posed, Costa  Rica confirms that the Aggregate Measurement 
of Support notified for the year 2015 was indeed calculated on the basis of production in the 
months of January and February of that year , when Costa  Rica was applying the previous pricing 
decree.  
 
Between the months of March and December  2015, Costa  Rica applied a reference price specified 
in Executive Decree No.  38.884 -MEIC, as notified to the Committee on Agriculture. It is important 
to note that the figures notified by Costa  Rica are in  millions of US  dollars and not  thousands 
of millions (billions), as stated by the United States in its question. It should be recalled that the 
consumer prices specified for rice in Executive Decree No.  38.884 -MEIC are established in 
accordance with Law No.  7472 (Law on Consumer Protection). The Decree specifies minimum and 
maximum prices for the various grades of consumer -ready rice, for the sole purpose of controlling 
the fluctuation of the price of this  staple product on the domestic market.  
AG-IMS ID 82015: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Australia thanks Costa Rica for its domestic support notification (G/AG/N/CRI/55), and 
requests further information on  the environmental program mes "Payment for 
environmental services in agro -forestry systems" and "Recognition of the environmental 
benefits of organic farming by micro, small and medium -sized organic producers". 
For these programmes could Costa Rica, please  provide information on:  
 
a. What are the eligibility requirements to receive payment?  
b. Are these payme nts based on production levels?  
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica thanks the delegation of Australia for its questions regarding the domestic support 
programm es "Payment for environmental services in agro -forestry systems" and "Recognition of 
the environmental benefits of organic farming by micro, small and medium -sized organic 
producers" . The WTO was notified of the launch of these programmes in documents 
G/AG /N/CRI/20 (2007) and G/AG/N/CRI/39 (2012), respectively. Payments for environmental 
services in agro -forestry systems are made under Law No.  7575 and are a form of financial 
recognition granted by the State, through the National Forestry Financing Fund (FO NAFIFO), 
to forest and forest plantation owners for the environmental services they provide, where such 
services have a direct impact on environmental protection and improvement . The basic 
requirement for joining the programme is to be a forest owner, and payments are made according 
to the number of protected trees per hectare in agro -forestry system projects. Further information 
is available at http://www.fonafifo.go.cr/psa . The programme "Recognition of the en vironmental G/AG/W/159  
 
- 34 - 
 
  benefits of organic farming for micro, small and medium -sized organic producers" seeks to cover 
the supplementary costs incurred by micro, small and medium -sized producers participating in the 
organic agriculture programme. The payment calculat ion formula does not provide for a 
production -level component; payments are calculated on the basis of a fixed component of 
USD 100 and a variable component according to the certified area, the value of the environmental 
service and the relative value of t he effort not to contaminate . Registration with the 
Ministry  of Agriculture and Livestock is required in order to participate in the "Recognition of the 
environmental benefits of organic farming" programme.  
AG-IMS ID 82039: Question by Canada - Market pric e support  
Canada thanks Costa Rica for its continued transparency with regards to its domestic 
support notifications and market price support programme for rice. Canada is pleased to 
see that Costa Rica's 2015 Current Total AMS is again within its Total AM S commitment. 
In Supporting Table DS:5 (ST/DS:5) there is a footnote that says "… the administered 
producer price was replaced by a reference price, which ente red into effect on 
1 March  2015 ". 
 
a. Could Costa Rica confirm whether the data provided in ST/DS:5 covers only 
January and February of 2015, or all of Calendar Year 2015?  
b. If ST/DS:5 covers only January and February, will Costa Rica be providing a 
revised notification that shows market price support calculations based on the 
"reference price" in p lace fr om 1 March 2015 onwards?  
c. If ST/DS:5 covers the entirety of 2015, could Costa Rica explain whether the 
reported applied administered price provided is an average of the "reference 
price" and the "administer ed producer price" it replaced?  
d. Could Costa Rica pl ease provide more information on the reference price 
mentioned in the footnote to Supporting Table DS:5? How is it determined and 
how does it differ from the applied administered price?  
e. Canada also notes that the eligible production has dropped to 11,887 t onnes 
in 2015 from 224,157 tonnes in 2014. Could Costa Rica please explain this 
change i n reported eligible production?  
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
Costa Rica thanks Canada for its question regarding the last notification on domestic support. 
The ST/DS:5 contain s information not only for January -February of 2015 but rather for the whole 
calendar year 2015. The eligible production of 11,887 tonnes corresponds only to rice production 
of January -February 2015. The reason why no eligible production and no market pric e support is 
reported from March 2015 onwards is because, since that date, the administered producer price is 
no longer in effect, to the extent it has been replaced by a reference price that serves only as a 
basis for the bargaining process between rice p roducers and processors. The reference price is 
calculated based on rice producers' average costs of production, and differs from the administered 
producer price in its non -compulsory nature. Indeed, effectively paid prices to rice producers are 
scattered around the reference price, but are not equal to it. The reported applied administered 
price in ST/DS:5 is equal to the administered producer price in force only during 
January -February  2015.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand and the United States thanked Costa Rica  for its continued transparency 
in its notifications and acknowledged the fact that Costa Rica's Current Total AMS was again within 
the limit.  
2.3.4   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/53)  
AG-IMS ID 82006: Question by the United States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for r elief from natural disasters  
The United States would like to thank Cuba for its notification on domestic support for 
the year 2015. Cuba has notified that no data is available for "natural disaster relief" G/AG/W/159  
 
- 35 - 
 
  and reported no support for that programme. The Un ited States notes that this data was 
available in previous years. What is the reason for the change in level of support in  2015  
versus previous years?  
 
Answer by Cuba 
 
In previous years, as noted, Cuba reported payments for natural or like disasters. In 20 15, 
however, no such events took place, and consequently no payments were reported in that respect.  
 
2.3.5   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/90)  
AG-IMS ID 82040: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Norway last notified market price support for beef in 2009 (G/AGN/NOR/59) and for 
eggs and sheep in 2013 (G/AG/N/NOR/78). Since shifting away from providing market 
price support for these products, Norway has notified "price compensation" 
expenditures for beef as part of other product specific support in S T/DS:7 since 2010, 
and for eggs and sheep since 2014. Corresponding to the shift away from market price 
support and the introduction of "price compensation" expenditures, reported 
product -specific AMS for these products has trended downwards. Product -speci fic 
support to sheep for instance, listed as NOK  257.9  million in 2015 equal led 
NOK 666.3  million in 2013, the last year in which market price support measures were 
notified.  
 
a. Could Norway provide more information about  its price compensation scheme?  
b. What,  if any, are the linkages between past target or administered prices and 
the cur rent price compensation scheme?  
Answer by Norway  
 
Price support for beef used in processed agricultural products (PAPs), have existed for several 
years. The scheme allows for e qual competition as regards input raw material costs for Norwegian 
producers and EU producers, for processed agricultural products subject to reciprocal free trade 
under Protocol 3 to the EEA agreement between Norway, Iceland and the European Union.  
 
It was not previously notified separately, as the support was a part of the price difference between 
the administered target price and the world market reference price.  
 
When the administered price was repealed, it was necessary to notify the budget costs of th e price 
compensation scheme separately.  
AG-IMS ID 82055: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union notes that Norway still used administered prices for wheat, barley, 
oats, rye, oilseeds, goat milk, milk  and pork in 2015. From information provided in 
Norway's answers to questions asked during previous meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the European Union understands that Norway eliminated administered 
prices for sheep meat and eggs from 1  July 2013  and for beef from 1  July 2009. 
At the 79th meeting of the Committee in March 2016, when the European Union asked if 
Norway was planning to eliminate the administered prices for any additional products, 
Norway answered that the Norwegian Government was "wo rking on a new White Paper 
on agricultural policies" and that "the remaining administered prices are among the 
issues that will be discussed". The European Union would we lcome any update on this 
issue.  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
The Government is still working on the white paper with an aim to submit the white paper to the 
Parliament before Christmas this year. Norway is therefore not in a position to give the 
European  Union an update for the time being.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 36 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 82017: Question by Australia - Direct payments: str uctural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia thanks Norway for its domestic support notification (G/AG/N/NOR/90), and 
requests further information on the two structural adjustment assistance packages 
provided through investment aids programmes, "The Agricultural Development Fund" 
and "Interest concession". Australia asks Norway the following questions i n relation to 
these programmes:  
 
a. What are the eligibility req uirements for these programmes?  
b. What "structural adjustments" do the se measures provide assistance to?  
Answer by Norway  
 
Direct support under the Agricultural Development fund and Interest Concession is aimed at 
restructuring and modernising the production in order to achieve more efficient operations as well 
as improving animal welfare. In order to be eligible to investment support or loans the investment 
has to be economically viable. The grants are not earmarked to any specific production.  
AG-IMS ID 82054: Question by the European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
Could N orway explain the reasoning and the specific provision of the Agreement on 
Agriculture which allows for a tax on pesticides to be included as a negative support in a 
DS:1 notification.  
Answer by Norway  
 
Supporting Table DS:9 - Pesticide tax  
 
The pesticide tax is deducted from the non -product specific support in accordance with Annex  3, 
paragraph 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which states that "Specific agricultural levies or fees 
paid by producers shall be deducted from the AMS." The taxes on fertilize rs and on pesticides are 
introduced in line with the "Polluter Pays Principle". They are specific to agriculture and their 
purpose is to discourage producers from excessive use of these inputs.  
 
These taxes were also included in Norway's AGST document and deducted from non -product -
specific AMS calculation.  
Follow -up: Norway noted that completing agricultural notifications for 2015 should be a doable 
goal for all Members. Norway called for all Members to submit timely notifications, particularly 
those who ha d raised questions to Norway. Australia, Canada and the European Union briefed 
Members on the reporting period covered by their latest notification. Canada noted that as 
agriculture was a shared jurisdiction in its country there were some challenges in get ting the data. 
The European Union informed Members that they would submit their next DS:1 notification and a 
DS:2 notification concerning the Common Agricultural Policy  (CAP) before the end of the year.  
 
2.3.6   Panama  (G/AG/N/PAN/39)  
AG-IMS ID 82018: Question by  Australia - Classification of measures  
Australia thanks Panama for the answers provided to Australia's questions on the 
programme termed the "Incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and 
other crops" raised at the 80th Committee on Agricul ture (AG -IMS ID 80021). In its 
response Panama notes that the programme is aimed at increasing production. Australia 
notes that programmes notified as Green Box measures must meet the fundamental 
requirement that they have "no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects 
on production" (Annex  2 of the Agreement on Agriculture). In light of Panama's 
previous response can Panama confirm that the programme has "no, or at most minimal, 
trade -distorting eff ects or effects on production"?  
 G/AG/W/159  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Answer by P anama  
 
Panama confirms that the "Incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and other 
crops" has "no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production".  
 
This assertion is based on the following:  
 
a. The programme is not ult imately designed to increase production, as the support 
consists of a package primarily intended for the structural adjustment of investment in 
Panama's main staple crops. What Panama is trying to correct are elements related to 
the following structural as pects of production:  
The use of farming practices that are often ancestral, such as slash and burn, not only 
damage the environment but lead to yields so low that producers are not even able to 
recover their production costs.  
 
Little or no utilization of c ertified seeds also results in yields so low that producers are 
unable to recover their production costs.  
 
For many crops and for certain producers, the technology used differs considerably from 
one producer group to another and one region to another, and above all in comparison 
to other countries. In the case of rice, for example, three very different technologies are 
used: slash and burn (minimum yield), mechanization (medium yield) and irrigation 
(high yield).  
 
b. In the two years since the programme was fi rst implemented, the results show that it 
has "no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production".  
Follow -up: The European Union shared the same concern as Australia.  
2.3.7   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/24)  
AG-IMS ID 82053: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Paraguay's notified spending under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture has 
declined significantly in recent years, from a high point of USD  37 million in 2012 to the 
reported USD 4 million in 2015.  
a. Could Pa raguay explain its reason(s) for the reduc tion of Article 6.2 spending 
in 2015?  
b. Is thi s the result of a policy shift?  
Answer by Paraguay  
 
Paraguay undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 82052: Question by Canada - Classification of mea sures  
In its DS:1 notification for 2012 and 2013 (G/AG/N/PRY/23), Paraguay notified the 
Programme to Promote Food Production through Family Farming and the Sustainable 
Rural Development Project (PRODERS) programmes as conforming to the stipulations 
laid ou t in Annex 2, Paragraph 2 (d) general services – extension and advisory services. 
In 2015, these programmes are notified as Annex 2, Paragraph 4 (domestic food aid).  
a. Could Paraguay explain whether there has been a substantive change to the 
administration o f the two programmes between 2013 and 2015?  
b. Could Paraguay explain the reason(s) for changing the classification of these 
two measures?  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 38 - 
 
  c. Is Paraguay planning to submit a DS:2 notification to explain the change in 
programme classification and provide inform ation on any new programmes that 
have been introduced since the release of Paraguay's last DS:2 in 2001 
(G/AG/PRY/8)?  
Answer by Paraguay  
 
Paraguay undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.3.8   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/88)  
AG-IMS ID 82050: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union would welcome further information about the Recapitalisation 
programme (RECAP) which was raised by the Eu ropean  Union in question 
AG-IMS ID 77106, during the June  2015 Commi ttee meeting. This programme appears 
to support investment for emerging farmers with through infrastructure development, 
acquisition of mechanisation, entrepreneurial support, production inputs, market access 
and integration into the value chain over a fiv e year period. All support is implemented 
through partnerships with commercial farmers. The European Union would therefore like 
to know in more detail as why South Africa considers these funds not to be agricultural 
support as indicated in its reply to que stion AG -IMS ID 77106 point b ). 
Answer by South Africa  
 
South Africa undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 82042: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
During the period 2011 -2014 South  Africa significantly increased the Green  Box 
programme funding as follows:  
 
 "Resource conservation and environmental management: to promote 
sustainable utilization of the natural agricultural resources , viz,  the soil, water 
resources and vegetation and protect the environment"  from 731,08 to 
1209,54  million Rand, or by  65.4%;  
 "Veterinary Services: to promote animal production, animal health and the 
quality of the products of animals through the determination of norms and 
standards as well as coordination and rendering of servic es" from 861,21 to 
1089,72 million Rand, or by  26.5%;  
 "Agricultural research: contribution towards agricultural research and the 
expenditure, training, depreciation, salaries and maintenance of the 
Agricultural Research Council with the overall purpose of agricultural research" 
from 1368,68 to 1711,24 million Rand, or by 25.0 %. 
a. Could South Africa please provide background and policy rationale for the 
sizable increase in fund ing for these three programmes?  
b. Further, could South Africa in particular highlight more specifically the 
measures undertaken under resource conservation  and environmental 
management?  
Answer by South Africa  
 
There has been an increase in Green Box expenditure by South Africa in recent years and 
especially in those programmes highlighted b y the Ukraine. South Africa has a relatively high 
inflation rate and that a considerable devaluation of the  South  African currency occurred in the 
period mentioned. If these expenditures are compared over a longer time frame, the increases are 
not very hig h and only slightly above the rate of inflation. As for research, a considerable catch -up 
is reflected in the expenditure statistics in recent years due to limited increases in the years G/AG/W/159  
 
- 39 - 
 
  preceding 2011. Agricultural research is a priority of government and  this is reflected in the budget 
allocation.  
 
Notwithstanding the above influences on the value of the support, increased national and 
international demand for meeting set requirements for import and export necessitated the increase 
of spending in the area  of veterinary services.  
 
The Land Care Programme is one of the biggest expenditure items under the heading resource 
conservation and environmental management. This programme seeks to conserve and improve the 
quality of natural resources by addressing issu es such as soil erosion, removal of invader plants, 
prevention of bush -encroachment and over -grazing, fencing of environmentally sensitive areas and 
training and education of the rural population in conservation practices.  
AG-IMS ID 82016: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
South Africa's expenditures under Regional Assistance Programs have increased from 
ZAR 3.26 billion in 2009 to ZAR 4.38 billion in 2011 to ZAR 5.2 billion in 2013.  
a. Please explain the rea son for this increase.  
b. Please specify any individual programmes that are included under this 
category.  
According the SA Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), "The aim of 
this programme is to provide post settlement support to the target ed beneficiaries of 
land reform and to other producers who have acquired land through private means and 
are, for example, engaged in value -adding enterprises domestically or involved in 
export."  The DAFF's website notes six priority areas including 1)  information and 
technology management, 2)  technical and advisory assistance and regulatory services,  
3) marketing and business development, 4)  training and capacity building, 5)  on/off  
farm infrastructure and production inputs, and 6)  financial support.  This p rogramme 
appears to cover a wid e array of activities.  
 
c. How does South Africa notify the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Program, 
which has an estimated budget of R1.6 billion in 2014?  
Answer by South Africa  
 
Various support programmes are grouped togeth er under the heading "Regional Assistance 
Programmes ". These programmes are targeting low -income and resource poor producers. 
High levels of poverty, unemployment and the lack of food security are prevalent in areas where 
these programmes are implemented. Taking into account South Africa's inflation rate, the 
devaluation of its currency in comparison to certain other currencies and the increases in the 
monetary value of agricultural production, the increases under the heading Regional Assistance 
Programmes do not seem excessive.  
 
The six priority areas mentioned are those of the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme 
(CASP). In the main, this programme is carried out by the 9 Provincial Departments responsible 
for agriculture in South Africa. Individua l programmes include, for example, training and capacity 
building of smallholder producers and extension offers. This training also includes the use of 
information technology in selecting suitable crops, communication of market developments. 
In some areas,  programmes related to the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure, ploughing and 
land preparations for crop planting services, provision of fertilisers, seeds and crop protection 
chemicals. This support is not linked to production quantities or produc t prices. CASP is the major 
vehicle for supporting the beneficiaries of South Africa's land reform programmes and to address 
injustices from historical land ownership policies. Depending on the programmes carried out, the 
CASP expenditure is notified under  Regional Assistance Programmes and General Services such as 
Agro-economic services, Auxiliary and associated services as well as Extension and Training.  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 40 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 82020: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
Australia thanks South Africa for its domestic support notification (G/AG/N/ZAF/88). 
Could South Africa provide further information on the eligibility requirements, the 
number of recipients and the delivery of the Subsidies for Flood disaster programme?  
 
Answer by South Africa  
 
The Disaster Assistance Scheme, in this case a flood disaster, is provided for under the Disaster 
Management Act (Act 57 of 2002), but various other acts, such as the Conservation of Agricultural 
Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983), the Na tional Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) and the National 
Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) are applicable. The assistance following a flood 
disaster for qualifying farmers involves the following:  
 
 Removal of flood debris (within certain limits, for commercial farmers, for example, 
receive a subsidy of only 50% of the costs);  
 Agricultural inputs, including seeds, seedlings and fertilizers (not available to commercial 
farmers, assistance must not exceed R50 000 per farmer);  
 Soil testing (not available to commercial farmers);  
 Soil rehabilitation (commercial farmers receive a subsidy of only 50% of the costs);  
 Repair of damaged infrastructure (commercial farmers receive a subsidy of only 50% of 
the costs).  
Please note that the subsidies for flood disaster  do not have the intention to compensate farmers 
for the loss of income.  
 
This programme is carried out by the Provincial Departments responsible for agriculture following 
the official declaration of a disaster. The expenditure notified for the 2014 report ing period does 
not necessarily relate exclusively for floods that occurred in this reporting period.  
 
Various Government Acts and regulations apply to the delivery of the funds under the Disaster 
Assistance Scheme, notably also the Public Finance Managem ent Act (Act 1 of 1999).  
 
This programme supports farmers but also communities and municipalities and it is therefore 
difficult to provide an accurate number of recipients.  
AG-IMS ID 82051: Question by the European Union - Classification of measures  
a. Could  South Africa explain more in detail the functioning of Comprehensive 
Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) and Fetsa Tlala Programme as well as 
these under which provision of Annex 2 to the Agreement on  Agriculture they 
are notified.  
b. Can South Africa expl ain under which provision of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture the Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RDP) managed 
by DRDLR are notified? The programme appears to include procurement of 
material, buildings and inputs for new farmers.  
Answer by South Africa  
Both the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) and Fetsa Tlala (in  English: 
eradicate hunger) are very broad government programmes to address challenges such as food 
insecurity, poverty and unemployment. The CASP is carried ou t by the national Department of 
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in cooperation with the nine Provincial Departments responsible 
for agriculture. Expenditure under this programme is notified under headings of Annex 2 such as 
Regional Assistance Programm es and General Services that include Extension and training and 
Agro-economic services. Expenditure on this programme is not linked to production quantities or 
prices. The Fetsa Tlala programme is carried out by various Government Departments such as G/AG/W/159  
 
- 41 - 
 
  Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (overall coordination and food production initiative) Social 
Development (Social Relief of Distress, early childhood Development, food distribution), Health 
(Food fortification, nutritional education), Education (School Nutri tion Programme – notified under 
Domestic Food Aid). Not all expenditure under the Fetsa Tlala programme is notified as a 
substantial portion of the expenditure is not regarded as agricultural support. South  Africa is still 
investigating the programmes of t he Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and will 
provide a detailed response in due course.  
 
2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.4.1   Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/2)  
AG-IMS ID 82004: Question by the United States of America - Transpare ncy issues  
It appears that Table ES:1 for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015 was not submitted. 
When will Afghanistan submit Table ES:1 notification?  
 
Answer by Afghanistan  
 
Afghanistan undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.4.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/89)  
AG-IMS ID 82047: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that Norway still provided substantial export subsidies to 
cheese in 2015. During the meeting of the Committee in June 2015 Norway indicated 
that a proposa l had been presented to the Norwegian Parliament on the abolition of 
export subsidies for cheese. Could Norway please provide an update on this issue?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway thanks the European Union for their continued interest in the phasing out of No rwegian 
export subsidies. At the CoA in June 2015, Norway informed the Committee that the government 
had submitted a white paper on globalisation and trade to the Parliament in which the government 
proposed to phase out all export subsidies (not limited to  cheese) by the end of 2019.  
 
The white paper was debated in Parliament in January 2016, i.e. after the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference, and the Parliament decided that the phasing out of export subsidies should be made 
in accordance with the timeframe of t he Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
3.1.1   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 82021: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through i nvestment aids  
Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's question , raised at the 
80th and 81st Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID  80023 and 81085). Can Tunisia 
please provide a written answer to AG -IMS ID 80023 and AG -IMS ID 81085?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
Tunisia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 82049: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
Canada notes that it has not yet received a written response from Tunisia for Canada's 
question fr om the September 2016 meeting of the Committee (AG -IMS ID 81088). 
Canada's question is again provided below:  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 42 - 
 
  In reporting year 2015, in its Supporting Table DS:5, Tunisia notified much smaller 
eligible production than in its previous notification for duru m wheat (8,500 tonnes in 
2014 and 3,500 tonnes in 2015) and barley (4,500 tonnes in 2014 and 1,000 in 2015). 
Can Tunisia explain why there is such variance between eligible production s from 2014 
to 2015?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
The delegation of Canada has requ ested that Tunisia  explain the variations in the quantities of 
durum wheat and barley produced in 2014 and 2015 (8,500 tonnes in 2014 and 3,500 tonnes in 
2015, and 4,500 tonnes in 2014 and 1,000 in 2015, respectively) that were used to calculate the 
aggreg ate measurement of support.  
It should be noted that the variation in the eligible amount between 2014 and 2015 is due mainly 
to the privatization of collection activities, with private collection cooperatives taking over from the 
Cereals Office. The amount  of durum wheat collected by the Cereals Offic e has in fact fallen from 
8,500  tonnes to 3,500 tonnes. In addition, cereal production in Tunisia remains dependent on 
climatic conditions (alternation of good production and poor production), which explains th is 
variation in the amounts produced and collected from one year to the next.  
AG-IMS ID 82022: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation  
Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's question raised at the 
81st Committee on A griculture (AG -IMS ID 81086). Can Tunisia please provide a wri tten 
answer to AG -IMS ID 81086?  
In Tunisia's response to a previous question on external reference prices, it noted it was 
investigating possible alternative options for notifying domestic suppo rt. 
a. Could Tunisia provide an update on the progress of this investigation?  
Australia also notes that Tunisia has continued to modify external reference prices in its 
most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/49). There is no legal basis in the 
Agreement of  Agriculture for modifying the fixed external reference price in this way. 
Accordingly, Australia asks that Tunisia resubmit its domestic support notification to 
show the fixed external reference price without modification and alterations, and also 
amend t he domestic support calculations accordingly so they show the amount of 
market price support. S pecifically:  
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  modifications?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
a. In regard to Tunisia's reply to a previous question on external reference prices, in which 
it noted that it was investigating possible alternative options for notifying domestic  
support, Tunisia  confirm s that such an inve stigation is under way and that Tunisia will 
submit the possible options once agreement has been reached in this respect.  
b. The following table contains the requested information concerning levels of fixed 
reference prices without any modification:  
Durum whe at Common wheat  Barley  
121.06  98.14  94.55  G/AG/W/159  
 
- 43 - 
 
  c. Regarding the question on levels of support without any modification, the following table 
shows the changes in these levels during the 2002 -2015 period:  
Year Current total AMS  
2002 119.3  
2003 132.3  
2004 138.4  
2005 134.6  
2006 124.7  
2007 144.2  
2008 127.2  
2009 152.2  
2010 59.8 
2011 55.2 
2012 205.9  
2013 257.3  
2014 309.7  
2015 452 
AG-IMS ID 82048: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada notes that it has not yet received a written response  from Tunisia for Canada's 
question from the September 2016 meeting of the Committee (AG -IMS ID 81087). 
Canada's question is again provided below:  
 
In this notification, and in previous notifications, Tunisia continues to make adjustments 
to the external r eference 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 Mem ber should also explain the steps it will undertake to correct the 
situation. In response to a question from the European Union (AG -IMS ID 80072), 
Tunisia shared figures from the Central Bank of Tunisia that showed that annual rates of 
inflation in 2014 an d 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/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 sa me reported level of 
inflation.  
 
a. Could Tunisia explain why the increase in the fixed external reference price 
between 2014 and 2015 is more than double the increase between 2013 
and 2014, when its own reported annual level of inflation is 4.9% for both 
years?  
b. Could Tunisia provide the full methodology and calculations it has used in each 
year it has adjusted the fixed external reference p rice?  
c. Could Tunisia describe what steps it will undertake to address the situation so 
that in the future it will no longer adjust  the external reference prices?  
Answer by Tunisia  
According to the delegation of Canada, Tunisia, in its notifications, continu es to make adjustments 
to the reference prices for durum wheat, common wheat, barley, and milk. Canada has also noted 
in previous meetings that when a Member is in breach of its domestic support commitments, it 
should notify unadjusted data to the Committe e for review and consideration. The Member should 
also explain the steps it would undertake to correct the situation. In reply to a question posed by 
the European Union, Tunisia shared data from the Central Bank of Tunisia showing that annual 
rates of infl ation in 2014 and 2015 were both 4.9 %. 
 
a. It should be pointed out that the external price rose by 20% from 584 to 707. If the 
fixed external reference price 584 is multiplied by 1,049  (1+ 4.9%) and by (1.21) which G/AG/W/159  
 
- 44 - 
 
  is the result of the ratio of the respectiv e exchange rates for the years 2014 and 2015 
(=1.9623/1.7001).  
b. Regarding the methodology and calculations used for each year, it should be noted that 
the methodology used by Tunisia corresponds to the formula described in the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
The difference between the administered prices and the fixed external reference prices is 
multiplied by the amount of production eligible for this support.  
The fixed external reference prices are adjusted by the rate of inflation and the exchange 
rate. If the rate of inflation is 4.9 %, the estimated difference is multiplied by 1.049, and 
if the exchange rate increases from 1.7 to 1.96 between 2014 and 2015, the result is 
multiplied by the ratio of both exchange rates, i.e. (1.96/1.7=1.21).  
c. Regarding the steps t o be taken to address this situation so that the external reference 
prices will no longer be adjusted in the future, the investigations under way will identify 
alternative options for notifying support and the steps to be taken.  
Follow -up: Australia looked  forward to receiving the additional information on unadjusted prices. 
Australia registered systemic concern on how Members notified market price support given its view 
that market price support was one of the most trade distorting forms of support . Austra lia also 
questioned whether Members had  unilateral rights to amend the prices based on inflation under 
the WTO Agreement . The European Union and the United States supported the questions, 
particularly AG -IMS ID 82022 asked by  Australia and 82048 by Canada with respect to excessive 
rates of inflation . The European Union questioned whether  the inflation rates observed during the 
years in question could be considered as  excessive .  
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 82046: Question by the European Union  
Could Egypt update Members on the progress made since the June 2015 Committee 
meeting on outstanding notifications on Domestic Sup port.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
During the Committee meeting in June 2015, Egypt shared with Members some of the challenges 
that Egyptia n government was facing in implementing its nation -wide plans to restructure the 
agricultural sector on several dimensions, including facilitating data availability and collection. 
Unfortunately most of these previously mentioned chal lenges are still prese nt today.  
 
Egypt would also like to reiterate the importance of the agriculture sector in Egypt's economy. 
Agriculture provides livelihood for 55% of the population directly employs 30% of labour force and  
contributes to 14% of the GDP.  
 
To face all these challenges and acknowledging the utmost importance of this sector, the Egyptian 
Government formulated a strategy for sustainable agr iculture development up to year  2030. 
It includes 13 programmes, with a view to achieving comprehensive restructuring of the  whole 
sector, including harmonizing and in some cases unifying agencies involved in dealing with 
domestic support. These 13 programmes include specific ones to restructure the legal framework 
in order to increase connectivity and coordination among differ ent parties. Moving in this direction, 
a couple of weeks ago the Egyptian Parliament finally approved a long standing draft legislation to 
transform the Bank of Development and Agricultural Credit to the Egyptian Agricultural bank.  
 
The new legislation wil l enter into force within 3 months.  
 
The new legislation introduces major changes in the bank mandate, which includ e that the new 
entity will merge all different banks in all provinces , and i ts board will consist of representatives 
from all ministries inv olved in agricultural sector including agricultur e finance and commodities and G/AG/W/159  
 
- 45 - 
 
  internal trade. The Egyptian government strongly believes that the new legislation will greatly 
support its efforts of linking the agriculture sector which is scattered in diffe rent governorates  and 
to provide a forum for ministries involved in agricultural domestic support  to coordinate .  
 
Finally Egypt would like to reiterate its full support and commitment to the objective of 
transparency under the Agreement on Agriculture. Eg ypt is aware of its obligations in the 
framework of the Agreement and acknowledges the importance of domestic support notifications in 
terms of providing transparency and the general i mplementation of the Agreement.  
 
Egypt also takes note of any further co ncerns raised from Members. Any further feedback received 
will be communicated to this Committee in due course.  
 
4.2  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 82045: Question by the Russian Federation  
The last MA:2 notification submitted by the European Union contained informa tion 
concerning import under tariff quotas during the marketing year 2013/2014 and the 
calendar year 2014 (G/AG/N/EU/30). Could the European Union provide the reasons for 
delay in MA:2 notification sub mission for 2014/2015 and 2015?  
 
Answer by the European  Union  
 
The European Union will forward it is MA:2 notification for calendar year 2015 – marketing year 
2014/15 as soon as the data collection has been finished and the necessary analysis/verifications 
has been finalised. This should take place before the next Committee meeting.  
 
4.3  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 82019: Question by Australia  
Australia appreciates recent discussions with Turkey on the status of its outstanding 
notifications – Turkey has not submitted an export subsidy notification since 2001, or a 
domestic s upport notification since 2002. Further to AG -IMS ID 81092, Australia ask s 
Turkey to provide updates on:  
 
a. The status of progress on Turkey's work programme to finalise and su bmit 
outstanding notifications;  
b. When Turkey will submit its domestic support  notif ication; and  
c. When Turkey will submit i ts export subsidy notification.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey is well aware of the situation that WTO Members are concerned with Turkey's notifications. 
During the past months, Turkey has created a WTO Committee within the Ministry of Food, 
Agriculture and Livestock in order to raise awareness through the Ministry about WTO  issues. 
With this committee and other organizations that Turkey is planning on WTO issues, Turkey is 
hoping to force its capital to make their decision a bout updating notifications.  
 
Turkey would like to thank especially to Canada, the United States, the European  Union, 
New Zealand, Australia and the WTO secretariat for their deep support on the technical 
infrastructure of WTO  mechanisms. Turkey is hoping to have a deep cooperation with the 
abovementioned countries in the near future so as to participate more actively in WTO issues.  
 
Lastly, Turkey would like to express the support for WTO mechanisms that have created a very 
useful forum for understanding M embers' agricultural policies.  
AG-IMS ID 82044: Question by Canada  
Canada remains concerned with Turkey's lack of timely export subsidy and domestic 
support notifications. Turkey's most recent notifications related to year 2000 for export G/AG/W/159  
 
- 46 - 
 
  subsidies and 200 1 for domestic support. In previous meetings, Turkey has indicated 
that work was underway on its outstanding notifications. Could Turkey please provide 
the Committee with an update and a specific timeline as to when it intends submit these 
missing n otifica tions to the Committee?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
See reply above.  
AG-IMS ID 82043: Question by the European Union  
Could Turkey update Members on the progress made since the September  2016 
Committee meeting on outstanding notifications?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
See rep ly above.  
AG-IMS ID 82064: Question by New Zealand  
At the 80th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 80017), Turkey 
indicated it was in the process of preparing its export subsidy notifications, which have 
not been notified since 2000. At that  time Turkey stated that it hoped to make these 
notifications available soon, however, that was around five  months ago. Can Turkey 
please provide an indicative timeframe on when it expects to complete its overdue 
export subsidy notifications, and submit th em to the Committee on Agriculture?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
See reply above.  
 
Follow -up: Australia noted willingness to provide any technical assistance that could assist Turkey 
or any other Member who had outstanding notifications. The European Union, New Zeal and and 
the United States echoed Australia's comments. New Zealand recalled Turkey's commitment in its 
Trade Policy Review meeting in March in which it undertook to provide agricultural notifications 
before the summer and sought a specific commitment from Turkey in this Committee as to when 
the notifications could  be expected . 
 
5  OTHER  
5.1  New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 82065: Question by Chile  
In its answers to Chile's questions (RD/AG/49) during the annual dedicated discussions 
on export competition of June 2016 (G/AG/W /155) New Zealand stated: " it is important 
to clarify that Kiwifruit New Zealand and ZESPRI Limited are two entirely separate legal 
entities, established under two separate pieces of legislation" and "… (the Regulations) 
establish the independent regulator  'Kiwifruit New Zealand" and define its functions ". 
 
But, Kiwifruit New Zealand's (KNZ) Board of Directors consists of five members, which 
under Article  36 (Membership) of the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 are appointed 
as follows:  
 
"(a) three members are to be elected by producers in accordance with 
regulation 37;  
(b) one member is to be appointed by New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers 
Incorporated or its successor;  
(c) one member is to be appointed by the other members, who is fully 
independent of the kiwif ruit industry and who is to act as the chairperson 
of the Board."  
There is no regulatory restriction as to who may be appointed under para . 1(a) or (b) 
above. They do not need to be independent from ZESPRI, and as it appears to be the G/AG/W/159  
 
- 47 - 
 
  case, currently they are not. Even letter (c), that is supposedly destined to fully 
guarantee the Board's independence, allows that the rest of the Board designates such 
member (which according to letters (a) and (b) may already have an interest  in 
ZESPRI).  
 
Chile is aware tha t the Cabinet has agreed to changes to the Kiwifruit Export 
Regulations 1999 in relation to the KNZ's Board composition, to ensure that is comprised 
of a mix of grower and independent directors:  
 
a. How will the New Zealand Government guarantee that the new K NZ Board 
structure is independent from ZESPRI?  
b. Which specific authority of such Board will ensure that New  Zealand 
Government complies with its international commitments, specifically those 
established under Paragraph 21 of the Nairobi Decision on Export C ompetition?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
a. The New Zealand government ensures that all its regulatory structures are consistent 
with its WTO obligations, including those stemming from the outcomes of the Tenth 
WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi. This includes t he regulations that govern the 
export of kiwifruit from New Zealand.  
After considering a request from the New Zealand kiwifruit industry, completion of a 
government initiated independent review of Kiwifruit New Zealand (KNZ), and public 
submissions on pro posed amendments to the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 
(the Regulations), in July 2016 the New Zealand government decided to amend the 
Regulations. The amendments will enable Zespri to improve alignment of its share 
ownership with kiwifruit supply, conf irm the scope of Zespri's core business activities, 
and improve KNZ's independence from the Kiwifruit industry and its accountability to 
government.  
Amendments directly affecting KNZ will require:  
 the KNZ Chair plus two of the five board members to be from  outside the kiwifruit 
industry, and to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industries, with kiwifruit 
growers electing the remaining three board members, and the Chair having a casting 
vote;  
 KNZ will be required to prepare three -yearly Statements of Intent that will be 
approved by the Minister;  
 The Ministry for Primary Industries will engage annually with KNZ to discuss 
performance against its Statement of Intent;  
 There will be independent reviews of KNZ's performance at six yearly intervals.  
The amen dments to the Regulations are currently being drafted with implementation 
expected to occur before the start of the 2017 kiwifruit export season.  
b. In its engagement with the New Zealand kiwifruit industry or KNZ the New Zealand 
government ensures they are aware of New Zealand's WTO obligations, including those 
established under Paragraph 21 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
As set out in the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999, as the independent regulator, KNZ is 
required to monitor and enforce  the non -discrimination rule, the non -diversification rule, 
information disclosure requirements, and collaborative marketing requirements.  
New Zealand will ensure that any changes to the regulatory structure, including those 
summarised above, are also con sistent with all WTO obligations. New Zealand's Kiwifruit 
Export Regulations 1999 are publically available at  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/ . G/AG/W/159  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Zespri does not receive any trade distorting subsidies, tax adva ntages, special financing, 
or preferential access to foreign exchange from the New Zealand government.  
Follow -up: Canada and t he European Union regis tered interest in this subject.  
 
 
__________