G/AG/W/168  
 
6 October 2017  
(17-5407) Page: 1/36 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 17 -18 OCTOBER 20171 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
4 October  2017 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/22.  
 
 
_______________  
 
  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their righ ts and  obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
1.1   Argentina's Reintegros programme  ................................ ................................ ................  5 
1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85034)  ................................ ..........................  5 
1.2   Canada's new programmes on dairy sector  ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
1.2.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85010)  ................................ ..............................  5 
1.3   EU intervention stocks of skim milk power  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.3.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85059)  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.4   India's quantitative restrictions  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
1.4.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85060)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.5   Indonesia's new regulation on milk  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85013)  ................................ .............  6 
1.6   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  7 
1.6.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 85069)  ................................ ................................ ........  7 
1.7   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  ................................ .............................  8 
1.7.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85036)  ................................ ..........................  8 
1.8   Brazil's Reintegra programme  ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85035)  ................................ ..........................  8 
1.9   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
1.9.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 85049)  ................................ ................................ ..... 8 
1.10   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class ................................ ................................ .............  8 
1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85051)  ................................ ................................ .. 8 
1.10.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85052)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.10.3    Question by A ustralia (AG -IMS ID 85053)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.10.4    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85054)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.10.5    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85055)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.10.6    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85056)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.10.7    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85002)  ................................ ........................... 10 
1.10.8    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85003)  ................................ ........................... 10 
1.10.9    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85004)  ................................ ........................... 10 
1.10.10    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85005)  ................................ ......................... 10 
1.10.11    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85006)  ................................ ......................... 11 
1.10.12    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85008 ) ................................ ......................... 11 
1.10.13    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85011)  ................................ ......... 11 
1.11   Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese and domestic support  ................................ ........... 14 
1.11.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85009)  ................................ ........................... 14 
1.12   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 
1.12.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85057)  ................................ ........................... 15 
1.12.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85012)  ................................ .......... 15 
1.13   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 G/AG/W/168  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.13.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85064)  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.14   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 
1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85071)  ................................ ................................ .16 
1.15   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  ................................ ................................ .....16 
1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 8 5039)  ................................ ....................... 16 
1.16   U.S. dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....16 
1.16.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85079)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  18 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 18 
2.1.1    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/3)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 18 
2.1.2    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/39)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 18 
2.1.3    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/92)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 
2.1.4    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/80)  ................................ ................................ ................... 19 
2.2   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ .......19 
2.2.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/152)  ................................ ................................ ........... 19 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 19 
2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 19 
2.3.2    Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/26)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 
2.3.3    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 
2.3.4    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/59)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 
2.3.5    Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/54)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 20 
2.3.6    India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 20 
2.3.7    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/60, G/AG/N/ISR/61)  ................................ ................................ ....27 
2.3.8    Jamaica (G/AG/N/JAM/16)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 
2.3.9    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/191, G/AG/N/JPN/219)  ................................ ................................ 28 
2.3.10    Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19, G/AG/N/JOR/20)  ................................ ................................ 29 
2.3.11    Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8, G/AG/N/MLI/8/REV.1)  ................................ .............................. 29 
2.3.12    Senegal (G/AG/N/SEN/6)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 30 
2.3.13    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/15, G/AG/N/TUR/16)  ................................ ............................... 30 
2.3.14    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/26)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 32 
2.3.15    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109) ................................ ............................. 32 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ........... 33 
2.4.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/220)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 33 
2.4.2    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/16)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 33 
2.5   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  ....................... 35 
2.5.1    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/89)  ................................ ................................ .................. 35 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  35 
3.1.1    Kyrgyz Republic (AG -IMS ID 85047: Question by Canada)  ................................ ............ 35 
3.1.2    Nigeria (AG-IMS ID 85037: Question by European Union)  ................................ ............. 35 
3.1.3    Turkey (AG -IMS ID 85007: Question by New Zealand)  ................................ ................. 35 G/AG/W/168  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  35 
4.1.1    New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 35 
4.1.2    United States of America  ................................ ................................ .......................... 36 
 
  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  Argentina's Reintegros programme  
1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85034)  
The EU seeks information on the Argentinean Reintegros programme and would like to submit the 
following questions to Argentina:  
 
a. The decree 1341/2016 mentions that the purpose of reintroduction of Reintegros is to 
promote exports of processed ag goods (the list attached to the decree also contains 
non-processed products (e.g. beef)). EU understands that the list includes all products 
that can benefit from Reintegros upon their exportation as final products, and not as 
inputs to any other product. Could Argentina confirm? What is the reason for including 
only these products and not the whole agricultural sector?  
b. The rates are uniform with in a sector and in many cases the same across different 
sectors and hence they seem to not to be individually calculated on a case by case basis 
(i.e. per transaction). Could Argentina explain how these rates are established?  
c. Argentina lists the following  taxes that can be the basis for Reintegros: stamps, banks 
credits and debits, fuels, gross income, municipal taxes, whereas footnote 58 in 
item g) in Annex I of ASCM (illustrative list of export subsidies) lists "indirect taxes": 
sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory and 
equipment taxes, border taxes and all taxes other than direct taxes and import charges. 
"Direct taxes" include interests. Could Argentina explain why bank credits and debits are 
included in the list of  indirect taxes?  
d. Does Argentina apply the system of Reintegros for exports for all third countries?  
e. Could Argentina explain why are imported inputs totally excluded from the calculation of 
Reintegros (deducted from FOB value of exports)?  
f. Could Argentina e xplain what is the formula for the calculation of a particular tax rate 
and how Argentina ensures that the value of Reintegros is not in excess of those levied 
in respect of the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic 
consumptio n? 
g. Could Argentina provide some details of the use of the programme: which sectors are 
profiting the most from this measure and to which destination and how Argentina 
expects the programme use to evolve in the future?  
h. The system of Reintegros was set at ze ro rate before the abovementioned decree. What 
is the reason for the reintroduction of the measures and what is the expected duration of 
it? When were the exporters benefitting from Reintegros the last time before the current 
reintroduction of Reintegros? How the application of Reintegros economically affected the 
Argentinean exports in the past?  
i. Is the information on the amount of reimbursed taxes publicly available for a given 
sector? Is there a maximum budget allocated to this measure? Will Argentina be  able to 
provide information on the amount reimbursed to exporters of agricultural goods to a 
particular destination, i.e. to the EU? Is such information being collected?  
1.2  Canada's new programmes on dairy sector  
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85010)  
The Canadian Federal Government Budget 2017 includes investment of CAD$350 million in two 
new programmes to support the competitiveness of the dairy sector. The two programmes are:  
  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 6 - 
 
   CAD$250 million over five years (beginning 2017 -18) for a Dairy Farm Invest ment Program 
that provides targeted contributions to help Canadian dairy farmers improve their 
productivity through upgrades to their technology and systems.  
 CAD$100 million over four years (beginning 2017 -2018) for a Dairy Processing Investment 
Fund to h elp dairy processors modernise operations, improve efficiency and productivity, 
and diversify product to pursue new market opportunities.  
Based on publically available information, these programmes appear to be domestic support 
measures designed to direct ly help dairy processors, and which are intended to be exempt from 
reduction commitments.  
  
a. Can Canada provide more detail about the nature of each programme, to enable 
WTO Members to understand whether the programmes have nil, or at most minimal, 
trade -distorting effects or effects on production?  
b. New Zealand understands that the timing of adoption of the measures is dependent on 
the effective date that CETA will come into force, however the Federal Government has 
already included the investment in its 20 17 Budget. Noting that Members are required to 
notify such measures as far as practicable in advance of being adopted, can Canada 
please advise when the two new programmes will be notified via DS:2 to the WTO?  
1.3  EU intervention stocks of skim milk power  
1.3.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85059)  
Canada notes that the European Union commission has 375,000 MT of skim milk power (SMP) in 
intervention stocks as of July 2017, which it has yet to sell. What are the plans for the 
European  Union to release this product o nto the market in a way that does not distort either 
domestic or world prices?  
 
1.4  India's quantitative restrictions  
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85060)  
India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry announced a quantitative restriction on 21  August  2017 
of 300,000 tonnes annually for beans of the species Vigna mungo Hepper or Vigna radiata Wilczek 
(http://dgft.gov.in/Exim/2000/NOT/NOT17/Notification%20No.22(e).pdf ).  
  
a. What wer e the circumstances behind the imposition of the quantitative restriction and 
has India notified the quantitative restriction to the WTO? If so, to which committee?  
b. Has India applied quantitative restrictions to any other agricultural commodities?  
1.5  Indones ia's new regulation on milk  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85013)  
Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture recently issued a regulation (Minister of Agriculture Regulation 
No. 26, 2017, on "Milk Supply and Distribution") that requires local mi lk processors to procure 
local milk, and requires dairy product importers to fund activities to promote milk consumption. In 
addition, the regulation requires that both entities invest in the local dairy sector at the farm level. 
The penalty for failing to  comply with this regulation includes withholding import recommendations 
for dairy products.  
  
a. Please explain how this regulation will be implemented, specifically how much local milk 
processors must procure or how much they must invest to comply with the regulation.  
b. Please explain how this regulation is consistent with Indonesia's WTO obligations,  
including those related to local content requirements.  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.6  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.6.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 85069)  
Direct Export Subsidies - Sugar  
 
Please provide information on eventual direct payments, allocated through export quotas by the 
Pakistan i government, for the export of sugar by Pakistan.  
  
a. How long have any direct payments for export been provided to farmers?  
b. What is the methodology for the allocation of export quotas to specific producers in each 
crop season?  
c. What is the value, per ton ne, of the direct payments made by the Pakistani government 
related to sugar exports, for the current crop season and for the last four crop seasons?  
d. Does the Pakistani government intend to present updated notifications or include in the 
coming notificati ons subsidies relative to sugar exports?  
e. Could the legislation that provided the basis for these payments be made available?  
f. What is the legal basis, under the Agreement on Agriculture, for eventual direct 
payments for the export of sugar made by Pakista n  
Inland Freight Subsidies for Exports - Sugar  
  
Please provide information on eventual payments for inland freight costs provided by the Pakistani 
government for the export of sugar by Pakistan.  
  
g. How long have any payments related to the cost of inlan d freight for exports of sugar 
been provided to farmers?  
h. Are the payments related to the cost of inland freight for exports of sugar allocated for 
every exporting producer?  
i. What is the value, per tonne, of the payments related to the cost of inland freig ht for 
exports of sugar, for the current crop season and for the last four crop seasons?  
j. Does the Pakistani government intend to present updated notifications or include in the 
coming notifications subsidies relative to payments related to the cost of inl and freight 
for sugar exports?  
k. Could the legislation that provided the basis for these payments be made available?  
l. What is the legal basis, under the Agreement on Agriculture, for eventual payments 
related to the cost of inland freight for sugar exports made by Pakistan?  
Domestic Support Programs – Sugar  
  
m. How are eventual payments related to exports or to the cost of inland freight for sugar 
exports associated with eventual minimum price policies put in place by the Pakistani 
government?  
n. According to market sources, Pakistan has accumulated a large amount of sugar stocks. 
Could the Pakistani government please inform if these stocks could be directed to foreign 
markets, with the aid of any eventual incentives for exports?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.7  Russian Federation's railway su bsidy for exports  
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85036)  
The EU has learned from various sources that the Russian Federation intends to apply a discount 
of 10.3% on railway tariffs for exported grains originating in Voronezh, Orel, Tambov, Orenburg,  
Saratov, Novosibirsk and Omsk regions. The total value of the discount would be around 
3 billion  RUB (43.4m EUR) according to the estimations of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture and 
it concerns wheat, rye, oats, barley, corn, rice, buckwheat, beans, pe as, beans and other grains. 
The measure would be effective from 1 October 2017 until 30 June 2018.  
 
How would the Russian Federation see this measure complying with Article 9(e) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition?  
 
1.8  Brazil's Reintegra programme  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85035)  
In the context of the 75th CoA meeting, Brazil explained that its REINTEGRA programme is 
designed to offset the costs to exporting companies arising from residua l indirect taxes 
accumulated throughout the production chain which could not be reimbursed by the traditional 
methods. Furthermore, Brazil stated that the 3% rate was defined respecting the maximum 
amount required to prevent the restitution of residual ind irect taxes exceeding the amount levied 
in respect of like products sold for domestic consumption.  
 
a. Could Brazil specify which are the taxes, together with the tax rates, levied in respect of 
like products sold for domestic consumption?  
b. Could Brazil also provide some practical examples on the calculation of total amount of 
taxes reimbursed on exported products, compared to the amounts levied on products 
sold domestically, in order to verify that the former won't exceed the latter?  
1.9  Brazil's domestic support  programmes  
1.9.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 85049)  
Ukraine has closely followed a long series of Members ' questions to Brazil regarding the 
PEP/PEPRO  programmes. Ukraine also took special note of recent Brazilian policy changes, which 
expanded the coverage for this programme. Devaluation of the Real may account for part of the 
strong increase in Brazil's current exports of products covered by PEP/PEPPRO. It does not appear, 
however, that the devalued Real fully account for and represent recent strong additio nal 
exports.  Ukraine kindly requests Brazil to provide meaningful insight as to how PEP/PEPRO is 
connected with or supports the recent strong export performance of these products in general and 
for corn in particular.  
 
1.10  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85051)  
Following Australia's questions on Canada's milk ingredient class at the 84th Committee on 
Agriculture, Australia understands that some elements of the National Ingredients Strategy 
continue to be under discussion.  
  
a. Can Canada confirm if all provinces have now completed the regulatory processes 
necessary to implement Class 7?  
b. Can Canada list any provinces which have not implemented Class 7?  
c. Can Canada confirm if any elements of the National Ingredient Strategy rema in under 
discussion by the provincial milk marketing boards? If yes, what are those elements?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.10.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85052)  
In responding to Australia's questions at the 83rd and the 84th Committee on Agriculture, Canada 
avoided providing any assurance that the new ingredient Class 7 is consistent with Canada's 
WTO obligations. Australia asks:  
  
a. Will the Record of Decisions be made publically available?  
b. If the Record of Decisions is not made publically available, what assurance can Canada 
provide Members that the new milk Class 7 is consistent with Canada's WTO obligations?  
1.10.3   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85053)  
At the 83rd and 84th Committee on Agriculture the United States and New Zea land asked questions 
(AG-IMS ID 83039 and AG -IMS ID 84025) about the rules for Class 7 eligibility of whole milk 
powder. Canada responded that the rules were still being negotiated between dairy producers and 
processors, and that the public availability of  the information was yet to be determined. Can 
Canada please provide an update on:  
 
a. When and how the rules will be established?  
b. Where this information will be made publically available?  
1.10.4   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85054)  
The following questions rel ate to the use and disposal of Class 7 milk and excess skim milk:  
  
a. Milk priced under Class 7 accounted for a high (between 23% and 44%) share of liquid 
milk, proteins and other solids in the three months of February to April 2017. Has there 
been any poli cy or market changes that will alter the trajectory in the remaining months 
of 2017?  
b. How will skim milk priced under Class 7 be disposed of if there is insufficient domestic 
market demand to accommodate it?  
1.10.5   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85055)  
Statist ics Canada reports that exports of SMP were 11,227  MT for July 2017 (compared to 
4,244  MT for July 2016) and 42,110  MT for the year to July 2017 (compared to 10,725  MT for the 
year to July 2016). Could Canada explain:  
 
a. Why have exports of SMP increased so  significantly in 2017 compared to previous years?  
b. Milk allocated to Milk Class 5(D) Export Subsidy Commitment Class dropped by 73% in 
April 2017 compared to April 2016. Please explain the decrease and how it might relate 
to the increase in SMP exports.  
1.10.6   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85056)  
Canada's response to Australia's question at the 84th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 84012) 
advised that information on milk utilisation and sales for all milk classes is available on the 
Canadian Dairy Informat ion Centre website: http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff -
fcil&amp;s2=msp -lpl&amp;s3=mps -vlv&amp;menupos=1.1.7 . Prior to 24 August 20 17, 
Agricultural Industry Market Information System (AIMIS) data for "Milk Utilization and Sales in 
Canada" was displayed for February -April 2017, i.e. the period after Class  7 was implemented, 
however no data was made available on this website for the per iod May -July 2017. Australia 
understands that on 24 August 2017, AIMIS "Milk Utilization and Sales in Canada" data for 
February, March and April 2017 was removed. Australia understands that on 28 August 2017 the 
following message was on the website: "Dairy  sales data from February 2017 onward are not 
comparable to past data. For this reason, sales data are not available post January 2017. An G/AG/W/168  
 
- 10 - 
 
  updated reporting system is being developed to better meet client needs. We apologize for any 
inconvenience this may cause and thank you for your patience".  
 
a. Can Canada please explain why the implementation of Class 7 would result in dairy sales 
data no longer being comparable to past data?  
b. Is data on the production volumes of Class 7 milk available elsewhere?  
c. Can Can ada please advise when the updated reporting system will be available?  
1.10.7   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85002)  
Following New Zealand's questions at the 84th Committee on Agriculture New Zealand understands 
that some elements of the National Ingredients Strategy continue to be under discussion.  
 
a. Can Canada confirm if all provinces have now completed the regulatory processes 
necessary to implement Class 7?  
b. Can Canada list any provinces which have not implemented Class 7?  
c. Can Canada confirm if any elements of the National Ingredient Strategy remain under 
discussion by the provincial milk marketing boards? If yes, then what are these?  
1.10.8   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85003)  
In responding to New Zealand's questions at the 83rd and the 84th Committee on Agriculture, 
Canada avoided providing any assurance that the new ingredient Class 7 is consistent with 
Canada's WTO obligations. New Zealand asks again:  
 
a. Will the Record of Decisions be made publically available?  
b. If the Rec ord of Decisions is not made publically available, what assurance can Canada 
provide Members that the new milk Class 7 is consistent with Canada's WTO obligations?  
1.10.9   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85004)  
At the 83rd and 84th Committee on Agriculture the  United States and New Zealand asked questions 
(AG-IMS ID 83039 and 84025) about the rules for Class 7 eligibility of whole milk powder. Canada 
responded that the rules were still being negotiated between dairy producers and processors, and 
that the public  availability of the information was yet to be determined. Can Canada please provide 
an update on:  
 
a. When and how the rules will be established?  
b. Where this information will be made publically available?  
 
1.10.10   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85005)  
The follo wing questions relate to the use and disposal of Class 7 milk and excess skim milk:  
  
a. Milk priced under Class 7 accounted for a high (between 23% and 44%) share of liquid 
milk, proteins and other solids in the three months of February to April 2017. Has t here 
been any policy or market changes that will alter the trajectory in the remaining months 
of 2017?  
b. How will skim milk priced under Class 7 be disposed of if there is insufficient domestic 
market demand to accommodate it?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.10.11   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85006)  
Statistics Canada reports that exports of SMP were 11,227  MT for July 2017 (compared to 
4,244  MT for July 2016) and 42,110  MT for the year to July 2017 (compared to 10,725  MT for the 
year to July 2016). Could Canada explain:  
 
a. Why have exports  of SMP increased so significantly in 2017 compared to previous years?  
b. Milk allocated to Milk Class 5(D) Export Subsidy Commitment Class dropped by 73% in 
April 2017 compared to April 2016. Please explain the decrease and how it might relate 
to the increa se in SMP exports.  
1.10.12   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85008)  
Canada's response to New Zealand's question at the 84th Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 84030) advised that information on milk utilisation and sales for all milk classes is 
available on the  Canadian Dairy Information Centre website: 
http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff -fcil&amp;s2=msp -lpl&amp;s3=mps -
vlv&amp;menupos=1.1. 7. Prior to 24 August 2017, Agricultural Industry Market Information 
System (AIMIS) data for "Milk Utilization and Sales in Canada" was displayed for 
February -April 2017, i.e. the period after Class 7 was implemented, however no data was made 
available on this website for the period May -July 2017. New Zealand notes that on 
24 August  2017, AIMIS "Milk Utilization and Sales in Canada" data for February, March and 
April 2017 was removed. New Zealand also notes that on 28 August 2017 the following message 
was o n the website: "Dairy sales data from February 2017 onward are not comparable to past 
data. For this reason, sales data are not available post January 2017. An updated reporting system 
is being developed to better meet client needs. We apologize for any in convenience this may cause 
and thank you for your patience."  
 
a. Can Canada please explain why the implementation of Class 7 would result in dairy sales 
data no longer being comparable to past data?  
b. Is data on the production volumes of Class 7 milk available elsewhere?  
c. Can Canada please advise when the updated reporting system will be available?  
1.10.13   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85011)  
a. In Canada's answer to the U.S. question (AG -IMS ID  ID 84107), Canada states that 
"some elements of the National Ingredient Strategy continue to be under 
discussion.  Certain elements under discussion include milk class 7 complete auditing, 
tracking, and reporting rules/guidelines, and further details relat ing to billing ratios."  
i. When are these elements final or when will they be?  
ii. How will this information be made publically available?  
iii. What specific details relating to billing ratios or other items are still under discussion 
and when will those details be f inalized?  
iv. Please explain in detail any elements that have been finalized so far relating to milk 
Class 7 auditing, tracking, reporting rules/guidelines, and billing ratios.  
b. In Canada's answer to the U.S. question (AG -IMS ID 84107), Canada notes that some,  
but not all, Canadian provinces have publically notified Orders from milk marketing 
boards on new milk pricing through their respective Royal Gazette process.  
i. Have the remaining provinces publically notified Orders?  
ii. Have all Canadian provinces amended pro vincial regulations to reflect changes 
implemented by the National Ingredient Strategy? For example, has Ontario G/AG/W/168  
 
- 12 - 
 
  amended DFO Milk Pricing Regulation of the Milk Act, R.S.O.1990 to reflect changes 
implemented by the National Ingredient Strategy?   
- If not, wh ich provinces have not amended regulations that implement the 
National Ingredient Strategy?  
- If not, when will these provinces amend regulations that implement the 
National Ingredient Strategy?  
c. Canada states in AGIMS ID 83039 that "The rules for whole milk powder are subject to 
discussions amongst industry stakeholders. When and where this information will be 
made public is to be determined". Similarly, Canada responded in AGIMS ID 83039 that 
"industry discussions on the future parameters for transactions be tween milk buyers 
involving class 7 ingredients in liquid form are not yet concluded."  
i. Have the rules for whole milk powder or Class 7 ingredients in liquid form, including 
eligibility requirements, been established?  
- If so, where is this information publi cally available?   
- If not, when does Canada expect these to be available?  
- Please explain the rules for whole milk powder.  
- Please explain the rules for transactions between milk buyers involving 
class 7 ingredients in liquid form.  
d. The United States notes tha t Canadian processors have purchased butterfat at newly 
implemented Class 7 prices.   
i. If the rules for whole milk powder are still under discussion amongst industry 
stakeholders, how were these quantities of butterfat determined to be eligible for 
Class 7 prices?  
ii. Please provide the quantity of butterfat for which processors have received Class  7 
prices each month since February 2017.  
iii. Please explain for what end uses such butterfat was used.  
e. In Canada's answer to the U.S. question regarding Class 7 pricing formulas 
(AG-IMS ID 84107), Canada states that "[a] processor margin is also deducted in the 
calculation of milk class 7".  
i. Please provide and explain the exact formula or methodology that is used to set the 
manufacturing cost allowance (also known as "proc essor margin").  
ii. How much is the processor margin for milk class 7? Has this processor margin 
changed over time, and if so, by how much?  
iii. Where is this formula or methodology publically available?  
iv. Please provide and explain the exact formula or methodology t hat is used to 
calculate the processor margin that is used to set component prices of 
subclasses  5(a), 5(b), and 5(c).   
v. How much are the current processor margins that are used to set component prices 
of subclasses 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c)?  Have these margins c hanged over time, and if so, 
by how much?  
f. In Canada's answer to the U.S. question regarding Class 7 pricing formulas 
(AG-IMS ID 84107), Canada states that "[t]he prices under milk class 7 for butterfat, 
protein, and other solids are determined based on world prices."   G/AG/W/168  
 
- 13 - 
 
  i. Please provide the source from which Canada is obtaining these world prices.  
ii. Please provide the world prices (in USD or Canadian Dollars) that Canada has used 
each month to set the prices under milk class 7 for butterfat, protein, and other  
solids.  
g. Recognizing that the provincial milk marketing boards set milk prices, some of which are 
calculated by the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), please provide a complete list of 
milk subclasses (e.g., 5(a)) for which the CDC acts as an administrator t o calculate the 
class price.  
h. Canada recognizes in AG -IMS ID 84107 that classes 5(a), (b), and (c) are based on 
world prices.  Are there any other class or subclass prices based on world prices?  If so, 
which classes or subclasses?  
i. Has the CDC completed and i mplemented the National Registration System and/or the 
Provincial Billing Mechanism Certification Program?  
i. If yes, please describe how this system and program me will operate.  
ii. If no, when will this system and program me be finalized and implemented?  
iii. What mea sures or guidance harmonizes billing and audits across provinces?  
j. In the example provided in AG -IMS ID 84107 question "j", where Class 2(a) has a 
within - class end -use price adjustment of "70% of Protein priced at Class 2(a) price and 
30% of protein priced  at Class 7 Price", would a processor be eligible for any proteins at 
Class 7 prices if:  
i. 10% of proteins used to meet Canada's cheese compositional requirements for a 
minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were from imported 
ultrafilt ered (UF) milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were 
Canadian -sourced proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices?  If so, what percentage 
of Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class 7 prices?  
ii. 30% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements for a 
minimum percentage of casein content derived from f luid milk were from imported 
UF milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were Canadian -sourced 
proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices?  If so, wh at percentage of 
Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class 7 prices?  
iii. 50% of proteins used to meet Canada's cheese compositional requirements for a 
minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were from imported 
UF milk and the r emaining proteins used in the product were Canadian -sourced 
proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices?  If so, what percentage of 
Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class 7 prices?  
k. In AG -IMS ID 84107, Canada states that "[i]t is the busines s decision of a processor to 
use, and report the use, of milk class 7."  
i. Please confirm that processors are required to report the specific end use of Class  7 
components  (i.e., which of the eligible components/ingredients/products the 
components were made i nto) to the Canadian Dairy Commission, or any other 
federal or provincial government body, in order to calculate the amount of such 
proteins that will be charged at Class 7 prices.  
ii. Please provide a breakdown by month of how much protein is being used 
(i.e. reported) to process Class 7 ingredients into other dairy products, and how 
much protein is being used to process Class 7 protein ingredients that are being sold 
on the marketplace.  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 14 - 
 
  iii. Of the Class 7 -priced protein that is being sold on the marketplace (i.e. , NOT being 
further processed in dairy products), what percentage each month is exported and 
what percentage remains on the domestic market?  
l. Has Class 4(m) been revoked in each Canadian province?   
i. If so, which ones?  
ii. If not, where do provinces get Class 4(m ) prices since they are no longer published 
on the CDC website?  
iii. Has Class 6 been revoked in Ontario? Please provide a copy of the documentation or 
measures revoking Class (m).  
m. The United States notes that Canada's exports of skim milk powder (040210) was over 
8 million kilograms in May 2017 and approximately 11 million kilograms in June 2017 
(an 879 % increase from the same month the previous year).   
i. Please report the monthly volumes and value of skim milk powder that was exported 
to each country since Febr uary 2017.  
ii. Please report the monthly volumes and value of skim milk powder that was sold 
domestically in Canada since February 2017.  
iii. How does Canada explain this increase in exports?  
n. The United States appreciates Canada's response that the Canadian Dairy C ommission 
does not announce the level of butter and skim milk powder that is eligible to receive the 
applied administered price.  
While we disagree with Canada's position that the milk to produce butter sold through 
classes 5a, 5b, 5c, and for exports, and skim milk powder sold through classes 5a, 5b, 
5c, and 4m and exports, does not benefit from the applied administered price and is 
therefore excluded from eligible production, we ask Canada:  
i. How market price support and eligible production will be calculate d after the 
introduction of Class 7, which covers milk used to produce skim milk powder.  
ii. If all skim milk powder produced under Class 7 or that is exported will be excluded 
from eligible production? We note that very little milk is utilized in classes 5a,  5b, 5c, 
5d, and 4m since Class 7's introduction, while at the same time Canada's exports of 
skim milk powder have sharply increased.  
1.11  Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese and domestic support  
1.11.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85009)  
Can Canada provide an  update on:  
 
a. the implementation of the Canada -EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement  (CETA) regarding the reallocation of 800 MT of the WTO cheese TRQ to 
the EU?  
b. the allocation of the $350 million in domestic support that was announced in anticipa tion 
of CETA?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.12  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.12.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 85057)  
New Zealand reiterates its concerns with Canada's wine regulations, including the introduction of 
the "store within a store" model in British Columbia which excludes importe d wines from being sold 
on regular grocery store shelves.  
 
a. Can Canada provide an update on how many grocery stores in British Columbia, since 
1 April 2015, have been licenced to sell wine under the 'store within a store' model?  
b. Can Canada provide data on  the total volume (in litres) and the total value of wine sales 
in British Columbia grocery stores for the 12 -month period to 30 September 2017, 
including a breakdown of domestic versus imported wine sales?  
1.12.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 85012)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that are continuously 
available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO Wines category."  
 
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Esse ntial list) in order to 
be solid in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justi fication?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer and wine 
authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been distributed to operators 
of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulati on 232/16, how many authorizations have 
been distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization that permits 
the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine 
boutique inside the store, wine offered for s ale in the boutique)?   
1.13  India's pulses policies  
1.13.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85064)  
Follow up question to India:  
 
In response to Canada's questions on India's pulse policies aimed at self -sufficiency during the 
7 June 2017 meeting of the Committee on Agri culture (AG -IMS ID 84044), India noted that the 
government procures pulses at a minimum support price (MSP) for buffer stocks. Canada notes 
that recent media reports indicate that the government of India is aiming to dispose of 
approximately 1.9 million to nnes of buffer stocks of pulses before the arrival of the 2017 -18 crop.  
  
a. Could India indicate what percentage of these stocks it expects to be taken up by 
various governmental agencies and how much will be disposed of on the Indian market?  
b. Could India i ndicate if pulses from buffer stocks will be exported? If so, what is the 
estimated volume?  
c. Reports indicate that there will be a bumper 2016 -2017 pulse crop. Could India indicate 
what volume of this crop it expects to procure?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.14  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 85071)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its question at the June CoA regarding the 
30 June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO General Council's waiver decision of 
24 July 2014 (WT/L/932) . Australia seeks an update on the Philippines' tariffication efforts to date.  
 
1.15  Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
1.15.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 85039)  
Thailand at the WTO Committee on Agriculture of March 2017 informed Members that it is a 
temporary measure put in place to relieve the situation of market oversupply of corn. At the CoA 
of June 2017, Thailand further indicated that it was reviewing the increased importation at a 
reasonable level and having consultation with stockholders in find ing a satisfactory measure.  
 
a. Could Thailand share with WTO Members the result of its internal review and any 
decision taken?  
b. As the end of calendar year 2017 is now approaching, could Thailand please clarify if this 
measure will be continued in 2018?  
1.16  U.S. dairy policies  
1.16.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 85079)  
a. 1.   According to a document titled "Classification of Dairy Products" on the website of 
the California Department of Food and Agriculture available here: 
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy/pdf/InfoPack/ClassificationDairyProducts.pdf , certain 
products such as yogurt are classified under milk Class 2, unless the products is "sold 
outside the U.S.", in which case the  products are then assigned to Class 4a.  
i. Could the United States please clarify if this is related to milk class pricing in 
California? If not, please describe what this pertains to.  
ii. Could the United States also please explain if milk handlers (or proces sors) would be 
paying a different minimum price for the milk they purchase contingent on the 
destination (domestic use, or for export) for the yogurt being produced? Canada also 
notes that prices, or component prices, paid for milk under Class 4a may be lo wer 
than Class 2 prices in certain months of the year.  
iii. Does the United States have similar type of regulation for Federal Milk Marketing 
Orders?  
b. According to a news article in from Dairy Herd Management 
http://www.dairyherd.com/news/industry/proposed -changes -fluid-milk-pricing -and-why-
farmers -need-care, the "Farmer cooperatives and processor trade organizations are  
currently considering a f arm bill request to change the beverage milk price to the simple 
average of the advanced Class III and IV milk prices plus 74 cents per hundredweight". 
Canada would like to understand the authority and involvement that the Federal 
Government, specifically the USDA, has over milk pricing, production, and marketing in 
the United States.  
i. Canada understands that processors pay for their milk based on their end -use 
through milk class pricing. How are all the milk class prices established?  
ii. What would be the milk  class used for liquid ultrafiltered milk?  
iii. What would be the milk class used for liquid whey?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 17 - 
 
  iv. What is the role of the UDSA or any other Federal, or State level government or 
delegated authority, in setting the prices for milk classes (I through IV).  
v. What are the functions of the Milk market Administrators Office of the USDA?  
vi. What is the role of the UDSA or any other Federal, or State level government or 
delegated authority in determining the payments to producers in a Federal Milk 
Marketing Order (FMMO) ?  
vii. How are milk producers paid for their milk in the Upper Midwest FO.30, Mideast FO. 
33, and Northeast FO.1? What role does the USDA have in this?  
viii. What is the uniform price or blend price?  
- How is it calculated?  
- Is the calculation different for differen t FMMOs? If so, what are the 
calculations for each FMMO?  
- Who calculates and determines the uniform/blend price on a monthly 
basis?  
- What is the producer settlement fund? How does it work?  
- Is the calculation of the uniform/blend price different among FMMOs? If so, 
how is it calculated in the largest milk producing FMMOs (Upper Midwest 
FO.30, Mideast FO. 33, and Northeast FO.1)?  
c. The United States mentioned in the answer to Canada's question from the 
84th Committee on Agriculture, that: "Manufacturers who opt to not pool their 
manufacturing milk are free to contract for milk purchases at prices they negotiate 
privately with suppliers."  
i. Does this mean that for all milk producers who sell their  raw milk for the production 
of Class I milk, the handler is required to purchase the milk at no lower than the 
Class I price?  
ii. Is milk ever 'pooled' by milk producers, or is it just manufacturers or handlers that 
pool payments of the use of their milk (i.e . a pricing pool)?  
iii. Are there any instances where a milk producer would get paid less than a blend 
price, or a price below the cost of producing their milk?  
iv. What is the amount of milk by volume and value that is pooled vs. not pooled for use 
in all the mi lk classes (I -IV) in the Upper Midwest FO.30, the Mideast FO.33 and the 
Northeast FO.1 for the latest available year?  
v. Are there any instances where pooling is not required for Class I (fluid) milk in any of 
the Federal Milk Marketing Orders? What about fo r the state of California?  
vi. Are dairy cooperatives (i.e. producer -handlers) required to pool Class I fluid milk, 
and/or pay the Class I price, and under which authority?  
vii. What are the reasons and ways that a milk handlers would not pay the minimum 
Class I price?  
viii. How does the U.S. Dairy Forward Pricing Program under the 2014 Farm Bill work? 
What is the usage rate among dairy producers of the program me for the most recent 
year?  
ix. What data was used to calculate the reference price for sunflower? Is this 
information publically available?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 18 - 
 
  2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.1.1   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/3)  
AG-IMS ID 85080: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
According to Table MA :2 in G/AG/N/KAZ/3, the fill -rate for Kazakhstan's tariff quota KAZQ001 for 
fresh, chilled or frozen beef in 2016 was 10%. Could Kazakhstan indicate the reason(s) for this low 
fill-rate? 
AG-IMS ID 85040: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
KAZQ0 01 and KAZQ003 TRQs are largely underfilled. Could Kazakhstan explain the reason for the 
very low fill rates for its TRQs KAZQ001 and KAZQ003 respectively on beef and on poultry?  
 
2.1.2   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/39)  
AG-IMS ID 85083: Question by Thailand - Transparenc y issues  
From table MA:2 Year 2014 and 2015, Malaysia notified numbers of TRQs products were not 
opened, for example, live swine, meat, milk, coffee beans, wheat, cane sugar, and 
unmanufactured tobacco.  
 
a. Please explain why the TRQ were not opened for those  products?  
b.  Despite notifying that TRQs were not opened for tobacco, there were total imports of 
31.8 million Kgs for unmanufactured tobacco and tobacco refuse in 2015. Please provide 
explanation to the situation?  
AG-IMS ID 85082: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
a. Thailand notices that there was 0% fill rate for live poultry (Tariff number 010594190) in 
the notification for 2014, would Malaysia provide reasons to this zero filled rate?  
b. Thailand notices that there was 0% fill rate for the following p roducts under TRQ in the 
notification for 2015:  
 Meat of swine, fresh, chilled or frozen (Tariff number 020311000, 020321000);  
 Live poultry (Tariff Number 010511900);  
 Birds' eggs, in shell, fresh, preserved or cooked (Ducks eggs) (Tariff 
Number  040719100,04 0729100,040790200)  
i. Please provide reasons to this zero filled rate?  
ii. Are there any initiatives to allow a higher fill -rate in the future?  
2.1.3   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/92)  
AG-IMS ID 85041: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The three TRQs NORQ091, NORQ 092 and NORQ093 on apples were presented in previous years as 
one unique quota. In the notification covering year 2016, Norway is presenting the three TRQs  
separately. Could Norway explain this change in its notification?  
AG-IMS ID 85014: Question by Unite d States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States thanks Norway for its 2016 MA2 notification. There are a number of product 
commodities with low TRQ fills including pork (02032101) 0%; turkey (02072500) 0%; poultry 
(02071200) 31%; eggs (04072100) 32%; and white and red cabbage (07049040) 10%. Please 
provide explain the reason for the low fill rates in the products listed above.  
 G/AG/W/168  
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.1.4   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/80)  
AG-IMS ID 85042: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
a. Switzerland is notifying f ill rates above 100%. Could Switzerland remind the Membership 
how it calculates the quota fill rates?  
b. On a similar question raised by Argentina at the COA meeting of 26/09/2002 on 
Switzerland's notification G/AG/N/CHE/28, Switzerland replied that it had e xtended the 
TRQs concerned. Could Switzerland confirm that all TRQs with a quota fill rate above 
100% have seen their volumes extended and on the same conditions as recorded in its 
Schedule?  
c. In the event that the fill rate above 100% is not the result of the extension of the 
volume but is resulting from an autonomously import duty lower or equal to the in -quota 
rate concerned, could Switzerland indicate which quotas would be concerned by such 
measure and which are the currently autonomously applied rates?  
d. Having in mind a possible future harmonisation of Members' notifications on quota fill 
rates, could Switzerland share its view on a possible practice which would be to indicate 
100% whenever the Schedule commitment is met?  
2.2  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.2.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/152)  
AG-IMS ID 85086: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
According to the Table MA:3 notification (G/AG/N/TPKM/152), Chinese Taipei applied the volume -
based SSG for other chicken cuts between 9 Jun e and 31 December 2017. The statistics provided 
by Chinese Taipei to calculate the trigger level indicates that imports decreased significantly 
between 2014 and 2015. Notably, imports as percentage of consumption only amount to 0.58% 
over the three year re ference period. Could Chinese Taipei please explain why under these 
circumstances it is necessary to apply the SSG? Did these imports pose a risk to national 
production? Could Chinese Taipei indicate the primary origins of imported chicken cuts?  
 
2.3  DOMESTIC  SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 85015: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
a. Australia notified product specific Amber Box support for "live cattle exports," which was 
noted as assistance through concessional loans and financial advice grants to pastoralists 
and service business which were affected by the temporary suspension of li ve cattle 
exports to Indonesia. Please explain how eligibility for this programme was determined.  
b. Australia notified product specific amber box support for "live cattle exports" with a 
comparison against the value of production for only "live cattle for e xport." Please 
explain the basis for not comparing against all live cattle.  
2.3.2   Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/26)  
AG-IMS ID 85095: Question by Canada - General services: other  
Canada noticed that payment listed under "General Management and Coordination Services: 
Facilitates the initiation and review of agricultural policy affecting all programmes and projects of 
the Ministry" decreased by 90.6% going from BDS 54.0 millio n in 2014/15 to 
BDS 5.2 million  2015/16. Could Barbados please explain this significant change in e xpenditures?  
 G/AG/W/168  
 
- 20 - 
 
  2.3.3   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)  
AG-IMS ID 85096: Question by Canada - General services: training services  
Canada notes a noticeable decrease in expenditure under Training Services for "Training services 
provided by the National Training Institute"  which went from USD 14.2 mill ion in 2015 to 
USD 9.2 million in 2016. Could Costa Rica please explain this significant change in support?  
 
2.3.4   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/59)  
AG-IMS ID 85016: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Costa Rica re ported the abolishment of its market price support for rice as of February 2015 with 
the introduction of new reference prices. In response to AG -IMS ID 82039, Costa Rica notes the 
reference price is based on rice producers' average costs of production and is non -compulsory. 
However, Costa Rica goes on to state that effective prices paid to producers are scattered around 
the reference price. The United States would note that the annual average producer price was 
slightly lower in 2015 and 2016 compared to pr evious years, but remained nearly constant in both 
years. However, these prices remain more than twice as high as the border price. Further, it is 
reported that the reference price continues to function as a de facto reference price according to 
the OECD a nd others.  
  
a. Please explain why domestic prices of rice for producers remain significantly higher than 
international prices.  
b. Noting that there is also no notified spending related to domestic food aid, please 
confirm the government of Costa Rica does not finance, directly or indirectly, the lower 
prices paid by consumers compared to the high prices paid to producers for rice. Pl ease 
provide additional details that would help Members further understand this situation.  
2.3.5   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/54)  
AG-IMS ID 85017: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The United States ap preciates Cuba's timely notification of its domestic support measures despite 
not having all the data available yet. For the measure "Compensation from the state Budget for 
inputs by agricultural producers," please explain:  
  
a. How the "Compensation from th e state Budget for inputs by agricultural producers" 
programme is implemented;  
b. How payments to producers are determined; and  
c. The eligibility requirements for producers, including how Cuba defines "low -income or 
resource -poor producers."  
2.3.6   India (G/AG/N/IN D/11)  
AG-IMS ID 85106: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes that since India's last notification (which covered the years 2004 -2011) a number 
of General Services measures spending has increased astronomically. Extension and advisory 
services, which was valued at US$115.47 million in 2010 -11, increased to US$601.51 million 
in 2013-14. Marketing and promotion services which was  valued at $33.23 million in 2010 -11, 
increased to US$600.93 million. Infrastructure services which was at US$324.75 million 
in 2010-11, increased by more than six times in one year to be US$2,128.02 million in 2011 -12. 
Can India:  
 
a. provide details of the programmes included in these measures  
b. provide details for the events or circumstances behind this rise in spending  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 21 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85102: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
All supporting Tables DS:4 in G/AG/N/IND/11 notify supp ort for basic products, falling under 
De Minimis , or 10% or less of the annual Value of Production for the product in question as 
mandated by the Agreement on Agriculture Part IV, Article 6, Paragraph 4 (a) (i) and 
Paragraph  4 (b).  
 
a. For each product notif ied in the Supporting Tables DS:4 for each year covered by the 
notification, could India provide the products Value of Production for the year in 
question?  
b. For the Non -product specific AMS notified in each year, could India provide its aggregate 
Value of Production for the year in question?  
AG-IMS ID 85089: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes the addition of an "Insurance Premium Subsidy" under India's non -product -specific 
AMS. Canada asked questions on India's pro posed crop insurance scheme at the Committee on 
Agriculture meeting in 9 June 2016 (AG -IMS ID 79051). In their response, India provided a web 
link which it claimed provided the details on the programme. However, Canada was unable to find 
the requested info rmation.  
  
a. Could India please list the crops or other products covered under this new programme?  
b. Could India indicate if producers under this new crop insurance scheme will be able to 
choose the level of coverage?  
c. What are the eligibility criteria to receive a payment under this programme?  
AG-IMS ID 85093: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Could India provide the value of production (VoP) data for each product used to calculate the 
de minimis  threshold listed in Supporting Table DS: 4 for 2011 -2012, 2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014? 
Would India consider routinely including VoP data information in its notifications in order both to 
facilitate the review process of the Committee on Agriculture and  to increase transparency?  
AG-IMS ID 85100: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that for the 2011 -2012 to 2013 -2014 reporting period, the following measures are 
no longer included under General Services in India's ST/DS:1:  
  
 Crop insurance scheme previously notified under Payments fo r relief from natural 
disasters;  
 Dry land farming / rain -fed farming and Provision of loan at concessional rates and debt 
waiver previously notified under Structural adjustment assistanc e provided through 
investment aids;  
 Soil conservation in catchment areas of river valley projects and Integrated watershed 
management previously reported  under Environmental programmes.  
Could India confirm whether or not these programmes have been terminat ed? Have they been 
replaced by other measures and if so, which ones?  
AG-IMS ID 85043: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Value of Production – Total and per product  
 
The notification from India does not contain any fig ures on the Value of Production. Whilst not an 
obligation, nevertheless, the notification guidelines (the Handbook on agricultural notifications) 
suggest that: "Irrespective of the Supporting Table used for justifying de minimis  claims, what is, 
however, a lways expected by Members is the inclusion of relevant VoP data (i.e. of relevant 
products for product specific de minimis  or total agricultural production for non -product specific G/AG/W/168  
 
- 22 - 
 
  de minimis  claims) in the notification. The information can be included as a footnote or in an 
additional column in Supporting Table DS:4; there is no defined format."  
 
a. Could India therefore provide figures for the total Value of Production for the agricultural 
sector and the Value of Production per product in Supporting Table DS:4.  
Total Production for products subject to market Price Support  
b. Could India indicate total annual production for the products indicated in Supporting 
Table DS:5?  
Local government support  
 
c. Could India indicate which part of the notified subsidy is paid  from central government 
funds and what part, if any, is paid by sub -national governments?  
Input Subsidies  
 
d. Could India indicate separately the subsidy per year for:  
 Irrigation ; 
 Fertilisers ; 
 Electricity ; 
 Diesel/fuel subsidies . 
AG-IMS ID 85020: Question by  United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
India notifies that all product -specific and non -product specific support notified for each year 
covered by notification G/AG/N/IND/11 is de minimis .  
  
For each notified de minimis  exemption in this notification, please provide the corresponding value 
of total production for each commodity, as well as the total value of agricultural production, used 
to make the determination, including the relevant calculations.  
AG-IMS ID 85018: Questi on by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States would like to thank India for its efforts to complete its domestic support 
notifications through 2013/2014.  
 
Supporting Table DS:1  
 
The United States notes sever al changes, including the discontinuation of a number of measures, 
the addition of new measures, and substantial changes in notified values, to the measures notified 
by India between 2010/11 in G/AG/IND/10 and the subsequent years notified in G/AG/N/IND/11 .  
 
a. Does India plan to submit a DS:2 notification to notify any new or modified measures 
reported as exempt?  
b. Please explain the reason for the notified budgetary outlays for "Extension and Advisory 
services" support increasing significantly, nearly fivefo ld, between MY 2010/11 and MY 
2011/12.  
c.  India has notified a new measure for "Inspection services" in MY 2011/12 without the 
required DS:2 notification. In light of this:  
i. Please provide an explanation of the measure is implemented,  
ii. How the measure meets the exemption requirements of Annex 2, and  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 23 - 
 
  iii. Whether a DS:2 notification will be provided.  
d. Please explain the reason for the notified budgetary outlays for "Marketing and 
Promotion services" support increasing significantly, more than  1,300%, between MY 
2010/11 and MY 2011/12.  
e. Please explain the reason for the increase in notified budgetary outlays for 
"Infrastructural services" support at levels in MY 2011/12 that were more than six times 
higher than levels notified in MY 2010/11.  
f. It is noted that a number of Green Box measures including, "dry land farming/rain -fed 
farming," "provision of loans at concession rates and debt waiver," "soil conservation in 
catchment areas of river valley projects," and "integrated watershed management" are 
no longer notified by India. It is the U.S. understanding that all of these measures may 
not have been terminated after MY 2010/11. For example, it appears that India has 
continued to implement the "integrated watershed management" programme according 
to documentation in India's Union Budget and a 2015 India Cabinet Committee on 
Economic Affairs approval of the consolidation of the program into a larger programme.  
i. Please indicate if and whether any or all of these measures of have been replaced by 
other measures and if so, where these are notified in India's notification.  
ii. If not, please verify that all of these measures have been terminated.  
g. India notes that for a ll measures notified under General Services the data is sourced 
from various boards and the Ministry of Agriculture, while India's previous notification 
only indicated the Spice Board and Ministry of Agriculture as the source. Please confirm 
whether this c hange indicates any change in how the measures are implemented and 
funded.  
AG-IMS ID 85103: Question by Canada - General services: inspection services  
Canada notices the new addition of Inspection services under "General Services". As India has not 
report ed any amounts under Inspection services in its ST/DS:1 since the 2003 -04 reporting 
period, could India please provide details on the programmes notified under this item? Could India 
advise when they intend to submit a DS:2 notification for these programme s to show how they 
meet the policy specific criteria of paragraph 2 e) of Annex 2?  
AG-IMS ID 85101: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
Canada notes a significant increase in support under Infrastructural services notified in In dia's 
STDS:1 which averaged USD 1,854 million in the 2011 -2012 to 2013 -2014 period compared to a 
total of USD 324.75 million in 2010 -11. Could India please provide details on this significant 
increase in support for Infrastructural services? Is this the re sult of a new initiative?  
AG-IMS ID 85097: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/11 notifies over US$14 billion per annum in public 
stockholding for food security purposes support as "Gre en Box" measures exempt from reduction 
commitments.  
  
a. The Agreement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 states, "The volume and 
accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to pre -determined targets related solely to 
food security." For each of the years a nd commodities covered by the notification, could 
India provide:  
i. The pre -determined targets and when these were established;  
ii. An explanation of how these targets were established in compliance with the 
requirement of a sole focus on food security.  
b. The Ag reement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 further states, "Food purchases by 
government shall be made at current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be G/AG/W/168  
 
- 24 - 
 
  made at no less than the current domestic market price for the product and quality in 
question." For each of the years and commodities covered by the notification, could India 
provide:  
i. The price at which the commodity was purchased;  
ii. The market price for each commodity at the time of purchase;  
iii. The price at which sales from food security stock s were made;  
iv. The domestic market price for the commodities sold from food security stocks at the 
time of their sale?  
AG-IMS ID 85105: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
The criteria in paragraph 3, Annex 2, Public stockho lding for food security purposes states that the 
"…volume and accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to pre -determined targets and relate 
solely to food security." Could India please provide the specific pre -determined target volumes for 
the crop(s) acquired for public stockholding for each of the report ing years (i.e. 2011 -2012, 
2012-2013 and 2013 -2014)?  
AG-IMS ID 85087: Question by Thailand - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
From Supporting Table DS:1 Year 2011 -1014, please provide mo re details on Public Stockholding 
for food Security purposes, for instance, condition and products covered under the programme.  
AG-IMS ID 85098: Question by Canada - Article 6.2 (Spe cial and Differential 
Treatment /Development Programmes)  
Several measures p reviously notified under Supporting Table DS:2, (Special and Differential 
Treatment) are no longer included in India's most recent DS:1 notification. They are as follows:  
  
 Previously notified under Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture: 
Government programmes on livestock and poultry improvement/breeding  Loans under 
tea development under Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture.  
 Previously no tified under Agricultural input subsidies to low income or resource poor 
producers: Small farmers development assistance  Grant -in-aid given for production of 
planning material of cardamom (both small and large) - Programme for replanting of 
senile and unec onomic cardamom gardens/tea gardens  Grant -in-aid given for post -
harvest development of spices.  
For each of these items, could India please indicate the status of these programmes? Have they 
been terminated or replaced by another measure?  
 
AG-IMS ID 85099 : Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Supporting Table DS:2 of G/AG/N/IND/11 notifies between US$25 and US$22 billion per annum in 
Agricultural input subsidies to low income or resource poor producers as Special and Differential 
Treatment "Development Programmes." The Agreement on Agriculture Part IV Article 6 
Paragraph  2 states, "… input subsidies generally available to low -income or resource -poor 
producer in developing country Members shall be exempt from domestic support reduction 
commitments…"  
  
According to the 2005/06 Indian Agricultural Census, there are over one million large 
(10+ hectares) holdings in India, over 5.3 million medium holdings (4+ hectares to 10 hectares) 
and over 11.2 million sem i-medium holdings. 58.68% of land sown in India is owned by holdings 
of Semi -Medium size and above.  
  
a. Can India indicate whether their input subsidy programme benefits these holdings?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 25 - 
 
  i. If so, can India indicate whether it considers the producers working t hese holdings to 
be low -income or resource -poor producers?  
ii. If not, can India indicate how the program mes are structured to avoid their benefits 
flowing to these holdings?  
b. Can India indicate why they have used the quantum of farm holdings held by low -income 
and resource poor farmers, rather than the amount of land held by such farmers as their 
explanatory note in Supporting Table DS:2?  
AG-IMS ID 85094: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
The notified amo unts of support for input subsidies under Supporting Table DS:2 which includes 
irrigation, fertilizers and electricity, appear to be progressively decreasing. However, if the 
amounts shown in U.S. dollars were converted to India rupees using the exchange r ates noted at 
the bottom of Supporting Table DS:1, there is a steady increase in the amount of input subsidies.  
  
Could India provide a breakdown of the amounts for irrigation, fertilizers and electricity that are 
captured under the heading "other input s ubsidies"?  
AG-IMS ID 85019: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
a. India's notification now notes that 99.15% of farmers are low -income or resource poor. 
In response to AG -IMS ID 75021, In dia stated there is a trend that the average size of 
farms, by landholding, decrease in each subsequent Census, and that 99% of farms 
have inadequate resources to generate enough income to maintain a minimum standard 
of living. Concurrently, India has incr eased agricultural production in India, exports, and 
marketed surplus of major commodities. India is now one of the world's largest 
agricultural producers and exporters of a number of major and minor commodities.  
i. Please provide additional information beyo nd that provided in previous 
CoA responses, including relevant statistics, to help Members understand this 
dichotomy.  
ii. Please include any available statistical information with regards to the size and 
ownership structure of the farms that contribute to the  sizeable marketed surplus.  
b. Please explain what mechanisms exist in India's domestic support measures to ensure 
that the programmes benefit low -income or resource poor farmers only. Given the 
sizeable market surplus of commodities in India, does India hav e any statistical 
information or other relevant information it can share with Members to better 
understand the level of input subsidies provided to producers by size of operation and 
income level?  
AG-IMS ID 85107: Question by Australia - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
As Australia has previously noted (AG -IMS ID 75017), Article 1(h)(ii) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture provides that the level of support actually provided should be "calculated in accordance 
with the provisions of this Agreement, inc luding Article 6, and with the constituent data and 
methodology used in the tables of supporting material incorporated by reference in Part IV of the 
Member's Schedule". India's constituent data and methodology used in the tables of supporting 
material inc orporated by reference in Part IV of the Member's Schedule is India's  AGST 
(G/AG/AGST/IND). India's AGST sets out all domestic support measures, including AMS, minimum 
support prices, external reference prices and total market price support, in Indian rupe es (INR). 
India's notification (G/AG/N/IND/10) is in US dollars (USD) rather than Indian rupees (INR). The 
choice of currency can lead to marked differences in some indicators. Can India explain why it has 
used USD instead of INR in G/AG/N/IND/11?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 26 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85092: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Canada notes that market price support (MPS) is newly available for sunflower starting 
in 2012-2013. It is unclear how India's reference price for this product is derived since it is not 
calculated in India's base data under G/AG/AGST/IND.  
  
a. Could India indicate what reference period was used to calculate the reference price for 
sunflower?  
b. What data was used to calculate the reference price for sunflower? Is this information 
publically available?  
AG-IMS ID 85088: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
From Supporting table DS:5 Year 2011 -2012, please explain how to arrive with co -efficient of 1.5 
and 2.35.  
AG-IMS ID 85021: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Supporting Tabl e DS:5  
  
a. In G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies market price supports for several commodities; 
however, the list of commodities for each year differs. Further, certain commodities have 
been aggregated into larger categories compared to previous notifications an d 
India's  AGST.  
i. Please explain the basis for aggregating these commodities despite separate applied 
administered prices being announced.  
ii. For each year covered by this notification, please provide a list of all announced 
minimum support prices (e.g., appl ied administered prices) for each commodity 
announced, whether procurement occurred or not.  
b. The United States notes that India used the same methodology to calculate market price 
support as in its previous notifications, including the use of procurement a s eligible 
production. As noted in previous questions (AG -IMS ID 75062) to India in this 
Committee, this differs from India's AGST where total production of a given commodity 
was used as eligible production. In response to AG -IMS ID 65061, India explains i ts 
reason for why it considers procurement to be the appropriate measure of eligible 
production, but did not confirm that India doesn't place any preset limit on the amount 
of production that may be procured from farmers. While India notes in response to A G-
IMS ID 75062 that India procures marketable surplus and, it did not clarify any pre -
established limit.  
i. Please confirm that India doesn't place any preset limit on the amount of production 
that may be procured from farmers.  
ii. Please clarify the basis for changing the notification methodology related to eligible 
production between India's AGST and subsequent notifications, including any specific 
changes to Indian policy that contributed to this change.  
AG-IMS ID 85029: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 84071. "In response to AG -IMS ID 83009, India states 
that 'the government does not procure in all states, and hence entire production is not covered.' 
Please provide the details of the specific l egislation, regulations or other measures that limit the 
eligibility of procurement of eligible product from all states."   
AG-IMS ID 85104: Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
All supporting Tables DS:5 and DS:7 in G/AG/N/IND /11 notify Market Price Support programmes 
for a range of products.  
 G/AG/W/168  
 
- 27 - 
 
  a. Could India indicate the methodology used to arrive at the Eligible Production value for 
each product covered?  
b. The Cotton Corporation of India indicates on its website that India is the largest producer 
of cotton in the world, producing 5.88 million MT in 2016 -17. Can India therefore explain 
why the Eligible Production for cotton in 2011 -12 was only 1,000 tonnes?  
AG-IMS ID 85090: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
Canada notes that India reported market price support for pulses for years 2012 -2013 
and 2013-2014 where the eligible production was 100,000 metric tonnes and 50,000 metric 
tonnes, respectively. These volumes are a fraction of the average 18 million metric tonnes 
produced for these years. Could India elaborate on how it determines the volume of pulses eligible 
to receive the support price?  
AG-IMS ID 85091: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
The eligible production for sunflower is very low in both 2012 -2013 at 1,000  tonnes 
and 2013-2014 at 4,000 tonnes. Could India please explain how eligible production is calculated 
for sunflower?  
AG-IMS ID 85022:  Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
The United States notes that in G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies a new non -product specific 
measure: "insurance premium subsidy."  
 
a. Please provide an overview of how this measure is implemented.   
b. Please explain how the budgetary outlays are calculated.  
2.3.7   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/60, G/AG/N/ISR/61)  
AG-IMS ID 85084: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Ukraine understands Israel's food security concern to ensure certain domesti c production for at 
least certain products. The level of Israel's support in terms of VoP for eggs, however, is very high, 
at 60%. Furthermore, Israel essentially exhausts its AMS through this policy of supporting 
domestic egg and milk production. Сould Is rael elaborate on prospective policy for the egg sector?  
AG-IMS ID 85085: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Concerning G/AG/N/ISR/60, Canada recognizes Israel's efforts in bringing its domestic support 
back into compliance with its WTO domes tic support commitment after exceeding its Total AMS 
commitment for 2011 to 2014 (G/AG/N/ISL/55). At the 7 June 2016 Committee on Agriculture 
meeting, Canada questioned Israel on the breach of their Total AMS commitment for 2011 to 2014 
and requested detai ls on their proposed alternate model to provide support to the agricultural 
sector (AG -IMS ID 80087). Israel responded that it was not in a position to provide additional 
details on its proposed alternate model but was hoping to have concrete results in th e next fiscal 
year.  
  
a. Could Israel provide a status update on the development of this alternate model and 
provide an overview of its operation?  
b. What are the proposed time frames to implement these new support measures?  
AG-IMS ID 85023: Question by Unite d States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
Concerning G/AG/N/ISR/60,  
 
a. In G/AG/N/ISR/55, Israel notified that it exceeded its Final Bound Total AMS for each 
year covered. For 2015 and 2016, Israel notified lower but still relatively high levels 
compared to Israel's commitment levels. Israel noted in G/AG/N/ISR/55, which was 
submitted in April 2016, that Israel has an ongoing reform of its domestic support and 
market access measures for dairy products and eggs, which would reduce Israel's Total 
AMS and promote more Green Box type measures.  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 28 - 
 
  i. What accounted for the decrease in no tified support in 2015 and 2016?  
ii. Please provide an update on the aforementioned reform process, including the 2016 
pilot programme noted in AG -IMS ID 80103 and 80064, and how this is accounted 
for in G/AG/N/ISR/60 for 2016.  
iii. If Israel has not yet begun im plementing these reforms to reduce support levels, 
please explain what intermediary measures Israel will take to ensure it does not 
exceed its WTO commitments again.  
b. Noting Israel's response to AG -IMS ID 80103, it remains unclear as to the justification 
used by Israel to make an adjustment to the applied administered price actually received 
by producers. While Israel notes paragraph 9 of Annex 3 to the Agreement, this 
paragraph refers to how a Member would have made the necessary adjustments to the 
fixed reference price. Please provide further clarification to Israel's thinking with this 
regard.  
c. It is noted that Israel has made adjustments to its applied administered p rice for milk, 
as explained in G/AG/N/ISR/55 which notes the quality differences between the two 
stated time periods. It is noted that Israel provided in response to AG -IMS ID 80103 the 
unadjusted rates for 2011 -2014, with additional clarity provided in AG -IMS ID 80064 as 
to the change in quality improvement.  
i. Please provide the adjustment factor used to report the modified applied 
administered price in 2015 and 2016.  
ii. Please further elaborate on how the exact price adjustment factors were determined.  
iii. What is the reason Israel did not provide this adjustment factor in its notification?  
d. Israel has notified for a number of years the measure "Dairy farm reform."  
i. Please provide additional details with regard to what is included in this measure and 
how it is i mplemented.  
ii. Please explain whether there is any correlation in the support notified under this 
measure and the 2016 pilot programmes for dairy noted previously by Israel.  
2.3.8   Jamaica (G/AG/N/JAM/16)  
AG-IMS ID 85024: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States understands that Jamaica's Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has a primary 
policy document for the sugar industry entitled "Jamaica Country Strategy for the Adaptation of 
the Sugar Industry 2006 -2020." Please explain if and how any measures stemming from this 
policy document are notified in this notification.  
 
2.3.9   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/191, G/AG/N/JPN/219)  
AG-IMS ID 85081: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Japan's notifi cation for 2012 (G/AG/N/JPN/191), the amount for total value of production (VoP) 
used to determine the de minimis  threshold in Supporting Table DS:9 is listed as "provisional 
data". Could Japan indicate when they will provide the actual amount for total VO P?  
AG-IMS ID 85025: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Between Japan's last domestic support notification (G/AG/N/JPN/191) and G/AG/N/JPN/219, 
"extension and advisory services, research programmes, and infras tructural services for 
technological improvement of agriculture" budgetary outlays are reported as increasing threefold. 
Please explain the cause for this increase in outlays.  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85078: Question by Canada - Payments based on 85 % or less of the base  
level of production  
In 2014 (G/AG/N/JPN/219), amounts for Japan's Direct Payments for Rice reported in Supporting 
Table DS:3 decreased by 52% going from $155.9 billion yen to $74.7 billion yen. Could Japan 
please explain the reason for this significant re duction in its blue box support?  
AG-IMS ID 85077: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Concerning G/AG/N/JPN/219, Canada notes that amounts reported for beef and veal and meat of 
swine under Deficiency payments in Supporting Table DS:6 are e xactly the same in the 2013 and 
2014 reporting years. This is also the case for Payments related to volume or production reported 
for beef and veal – they are exactly the same in 2013 and 2014. Could Japan confirm that the 
amounts for the items described a bove are correct?  
 
2.3.10   Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19, G/AG/N/JOR/20)  
AG-IMS ID 85026: Question by New Zealand - Excessive rates of inflation  
Following  its questions at the 83rd Committee on Agriculture where New Zealand asked Jordan to 
submit amended DS:1  notifications with data that has not been adjusted for inflation 
(AG-IMS ID 83059), Jordan responded with "in due course, Jordan will provide unadjusted number 
for the notification years 2013 and 2014". New Zealand also reiterates its request that Jordan 
submits future notifications with data that has not been adjusted for inflation; and submit 
supporting documentation, which can include domestic support data that has been adjusted for 
inflation, as well as other information pertaining to the nature and ma gnitude of inflation and 
demonstrating its impacts on the ability of the Member in question to abide by its domestic 
support commitments.  
 
Can Jordan please provide an update on when it will submit its domestic support notifications 
without inflationary adjustments for years 2013 and 2014?  
 
2.3.11   Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8, G/AG/N/MLI/8/REV.1)  
AG-IMS ID 85001: Question by European Union - Transparency iss ues (including Table 
DS:2)  
Mali notifies that in 2016 it granted subsidies for agricultural inputs in compliance with the criteria 
set out in Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to the latest version of the 
Director General's Evolving Ta ble on Cotton Development Assistance (WT/CFMC/6/Rev.22) Mali 
has been indicated as a beneficiary country of several programmes/projects/activities targeting the 
cotton sector. For example several programmes have been implemented in Mali with the aim of 
improvement of productivity and sustainability of cotton areas, fostering agricultural productivity in 
Mali etc. Are these programmes covered by the notification by Mali for 2016?  
AG-IMS ID 85027: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States again appreciates efforts by Mali to update and revise its notifications. The 
United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 83091, which was repeated in AG-IMS ID 84096. This takes 
note of the revised notification G/AG/N/MLI/8/Rev .1, which does include one measure listed under 
input subsidies for low -income or resource -poor producers.  
  
The United States would like to note the positive steps taken by Mali over the past few years to 
bring its domestic support notifications up to da te, and Mali's continued efforts to notify this 
Committee of its measures on a regular basis. This step toward increased transparency is to be 
commended. The United States notes that Mali had a number of domestic support measures from 
2004 to 2012 (see not ification G/AG/N/MLI/2), some of which included seeds, fertilizer, rural 
equipment; however, in subsequent years, 2014 and 2015 in G/AG/N/MLI/7 and 2016 in 
G/AG/N/MLI/8, Mali did not notify any domestic support measures. The United States understands 
that, in 2015, a number of measures were approved by Mali's Council of Ministers. One example is 
the Ministry of Rural Development's Irrigation Development programme in the Bani Basin and 
Selingue, with an objective of building hydro -agricultural infrastructure  to allow for the 
development of land for agricultural production of crops including rice.  
  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 30 - 
 
  a. Have any of these measures related to agriculture been implemented since being 
approved by the Council of Ministers?  
b. If so, in what year(s) did implementation of  these measures begin?  
c.  To gain a better understanding of Mali's agricultural situation, please explain the reason 
for not notifying any domestic support measures since 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 85028: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies availab le to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In G/AG/N/MLI/8/Rev.1, Mali notified a single measure, input subsidies for low -income or 
resource -poor producers under Article 6.2 for the year 2016. This appears to be a new measure 
that was not notified in prev ious years.  
 
a. Will Mali be submitting a DS:2 notification for this new exempt measure?  
b. Please describe how the measure is implemented and what inputs are covered.  
c. Please explain how Mali targets low -income or resource -poor producers under the 
measure and  how the term is defined for purposes of the measure.  
2.3.12   Senegal (G/AG/N/SEN/6)  
AG-IMS ID 85076: Question by Canada - Other  
Senegal states that between 2013 and 2015 it engaged in "Green Box" public spending under the 
type of measure "Other". This measure is described as "Special programmes". Could Senegal 
expand on the description and content of the programmes included under t he measure 
type "Other"?  
 
2.3.13   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/15 , G/AG/N/TUR/16 ) 
AG-IMS ID 85062: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey's notifications G/AG/N/TUR/15 and G/AG/N/TUR/16 cover domestic support commitments 
for the calendar years 2002 to 2004.  
  
a. Australia welcomes Turkey's submission of these notifications but note that many still 
remain outstanding. Could Turkey provid e an update on when it expects to submit its 
outstanding mandatory notifications?  
b. Australia thanks Turkey for its transparency in highlighting where support for soybeans 
in 2003 and 2004, and rapeseed in 2004, breached Turkey's domestic support 
commitment s. Could Turkey share what steps it took to prevent such breaches occurring 
in subsequent years?  
AG-IMS ID 85074: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey has notified, for the first time, a number of programmes in the Green Box. However, 
only three programmes have been notified in a Table DS:2 notification. Could Turkey indicate 
when they expect to submit a Table DS:2 notification for the remaining Green Box programmes?  
 
AG-IMS ID 85044: Question by European Union - Transpare ncy issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The EU appreciates  that it has  finally received  Turkey's DS:1 notifications for the years 2002 to 
2004. As expressed in previous meetings in  EU views this is far too late.  
 
a. When will Turkey forward the remaining missing n otifications ?  
The notifications shows that Turkey has supported sunflower and rapeseed sectors above 
the permitted de-minimis  level in 2003 and 2004 for sunflower and 2004 for rapeseed.  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 31 - 
 
  b. Which measures has Turkey taken to ensure that it respects its WTO D omestic Support 
for the following years, and when were these measures introduced.  
AG-IMS ID 85030: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States thanks Turkey for its efforts to complete its DS notific ations and would like to 
respectfully submit the following questions.  
  
Table DS:1  
  
a. It is noted that for 2003 and 2004, Turkey notified that it exceeded its WTO commitment 
levels for two products. What steps is Turkey taking to remain within its commitment 
levels going forward?  
Supporting Table DS:1  
  
b. From 2002 through 2004, direct paym ents to producers, which account for the vast 
majority of notified green box support, increased by 44%.  
i. Please explain the basis for this increased level of support.  
ii. For subsequent years to this notification, please indicate whether support continued 
to increase and at what rate.  
AG-IMS ID 85063: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Can Turkey please provide information on the 'Direct inc ome payments' programme reported in 
supporting table DS:1 of its notification G/AG/N/TUR/15 and how it meets the criteria of paragraph 
5 in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 85065: Question by Thailand - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
From Supporting table DS:1 Year 2002 -2004, Turkey notified "direct payments to producers" as 
Green Box. Please clarify the qualification and condition for farmers under the programme.  
AG-IMS ID 85073: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payment s for relief from 
natural disasters  
Payments for relief from natural disasters increased significantly in 2004 going from USD 334,880 
in 2003 to USD 35,521,746 in 2004. Could Turkey provide additional information to explain this 
significant increase?  
AG-IMS ID 85070: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
In 2002 and 2003 there is a programme entitled "Tea compensatory payments" listed under 
Structural adjustment assistance provided through in vestment aids. This programme is no longer 
listed in 2004. Could Turkey please confirm if this programme has been terminated?  
AG-IMS ID 85072: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Canada notices that payments for E nvironmental programmes increased from USD 1,439,986 
in 2003 to USD 6,816,232 USD in 2004. Could Turkey please provide details on the projects or 
activities that benefited from this support?  
AG-IMS ID 85075: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada appreciates Turkey's transparency and the additional information provided in the title page 
of its latest Table DS:1 notification. However, Canada is concerned that Turkey reports a Current 
Total AMS in excess of its scheduled domestic support commi tment in 2003 and 2004.  
 
a. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that Turkey stays within its domestic support 
limits in subsequent years?  
b. Does Turkey expect to be over its AMS commitment levels after the 2004 year?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 32 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85068: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Canada notices that starting in 2002 Turkey no longer reports market price support (MPS) for any 
products. Wheat, barley, maize, rye, oats, tobacco and sugar beet have previously been reported 
under Supporting Table DS: 5. Could Turkey  elaborate on the specific policy changes that account 
for this  seven change in spending?  
AG-IMS ID 85031: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  
a. Since Turkey's last domestic support notification (G/AG/N/TUR/14) published in May 
2002, Turkey has notified some significant changes to its domestic support measures. 
One major change was the notified elimination of market price supports. Please provide 
additional details regarding the termination of Turkey's market price support measures 
and the measures that have since replaced these.  
b. It is the Unite States understanding that the state -owned Turkish Grain Board (TMO) 
continues to implement and publish applied administered prices for certain commodities. 
Further, it is the United States understanding that TMO receives government funds fo r 
various activities it carries out. Please explain the role TMO plays in Turkish grain 
markets, including any role TMO takes on behalf of the Turkish Government or is 
instructed to take by the government.  
AG-IMS ID 85067: Question by Canada - Other produ ct-specific AMS/EMS  
In column 9 of Supporting Table DS: 6 for the  three notified years (i.e. 2002, 2003 and 2004), 
there are large amounts reported under associated fees/levies.  
  
a. Could Turkey please provide examples of the types of fees and levies that a re reported?  
b. How are these fees and levies calculated?  
AG-IMS ID 85066: Question by Thailand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
From Supporting table DS:6 Year 2002 -2004, Turkey notified "Premium Payments" measures. 
Please provide more explanation on "Prem ium Payment" programme.  
 
2.3.14   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/26)  
AG-IMS ID 85061: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada would like to follow -up with Ukraine regarding question AG -IMS ID 84024 from the 
Committee on Agriculture Meeting in June 2017. In this question, Canada asked Ukraine to provide 
information on the changes resulting in different types of support being provided to fruits, berries 
and grapes, and hops. Ukraine responded that it required more time to answer this question. Is 
Ukraine now i n a position to provide a response? If so, could Ukraine please share it with the 
Committee?  
 
2.3.15   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109)  
AG-IMS ID 85058: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes a discrepancy in the total  VoP figures in the United States 2014 Table DS:1 
notification. The total value of production is reported as USD 405,646.295 million but the sum of 
all product -specific VoP totals USD 550,264.95 million. Could the United States of America please 
explain th is discrepancy?  
 G/AG/W/168  
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.4.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/220)  
AG-IMS ID 85056: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In their recent Table DS:2, Japan includes the programme entitled Agriculture, forestr y and 
fisheries Fund corporation for Innovation, Value -chain and Expansion Japan (A -FIVE). Canada 
notes that this programme provides investment and subordinated loan to develop new business 
areas in order to stabilize and improve business in agriculture.  
  
a. Could Japan provide examples of the types of investments that are covered under this 
programme?  
b. What are the specific eligibility criteria to receive a payment under this programme?  
c. The description states that subordinated loans can be provided through this 
measure.  Could Japan provide details on what these subordinated loans are? Who 
provided these loans? On what basis or criteria are these loans provided? Does a 
producer have to rep ay these loans?  
2.4.2   Turkey  (G/AG/N/ TUR/16) 
AG-IMS ID 85048: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey's recent Tables DS:2 notification lists a programme  aimed at providing "Support to the 
farmers planting maize, sunflower, soybean and fodder plants in the areas of sugar beet 
production." This programme is classified under paragraph 11 of Annex 2, Structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investmen t aids. As with the other two notified programmes, the lack 
of detail makes it difficult to determine if this programme meets the policy specific criteria of this 
paragraph.  
  
a. As per paragraph 11 a), programmes should be designed to "assist the financial or 
physical restructuring of a producer's operations in response to objectively demonstrated 
structural disadvantages." Could Turkey provide information on the structural 
disadvantages this programme is trying to address?  
b. This programme seems to specifica lly target sugar beet producers. Could Turkey confirm 
if a producer needs to produce sugar beets to be eligible to receive a payment under this 
programme? More specifically, how does this programme meet the requirements of 
paragraph 11 (b) which states tha t payments "shall not be related to, or based on, the 
type or volume of production"? How does this programme not constitute a product -
specific payment to sugar beet producers?  
AG-IMS ID 85045: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The European Union would like additional information about how the measure "Direct income 
payments to the farmers and establishment of farmer's registry system" is operated.  
 
a. Could Turkey please explain which paragraphs of Annex 2 to the Agreeme nt on 
Agriculture that applies to the measure in question?  
b. Are payments made per area unit of agricultural land regardless of production?  
c. Is production required to receive such payments?  
d. Is this measure still operational today?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 85032: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
a. For "direct income payments to farmers" during the period covered by G/AG/N/TUR/15 
(2002  through 2004):  
i. Please explain the eligibility requirements for farmers to receive payments, i ncluding 
any requirements associated with eligibility to enroll in the farmers' registry system.  
ii. Please explain how actual payment levels were determined.  
b. For "Support to Animal Husbandry," please explain eligibility requirements for breeders 
and provide  additional details as to how the programme is implemented and how 
payment levels are determined.  
c. For "support to the farmer planting maize, sunflower, soybean and fodder plants in areas 
of sugar beet production," the description states payments are based  on area and aims 
to compensate for loss of farmers' incomes due to decrease in sugar beet production 
quotas. The description in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/TUR/15 states payments 
are aimed to encourage alternative production.  
i. Please explain how actual payment levels were determined, including whether there 
was any requirement to plant maize, sunflower, soybean, or fodder plants to receive 
payments.  
ii. Please confirm if the payments were one time only.  
AG-IMS ID 85051: Question b y Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Turkey's recent Table DS:2 notification lists a programme entitled "Direct income payments to the 
farmers and establishment of farmers' registry system". This programme is classified under 
paragraph 5 o f Annex 2 starting in 2002 in Turkey's latest Table DS:1 notification G/AG/N/TUR/15. 
Due to the lack of details on this programme, it is difficult to determine if it meets the policy 
specific criteria of paragraph 5 and in particular, the criteria set fort h in paragraph 6 b) to e).  
  
a. Could Turkey please outline the eligibility criteria for farmers to receive a payment under 
this programme?  
b. Could Turkey please confirm that under this programme, "no production shall be 
required in order to receive such paym ents" (i.e., farmers would receive a payment 
whether or not anything is produced) as required under paragraph 6 e)?  
c. Canada notes that the description does not provide the anticipated full amount of the 
programme. Could Turkey provide the anticipated amoun t for the length of the 
programme? If this information is not available, is there a specific amount available 
under this programme each year?  
d. The description does not provide information on the duration of the programme. Is this 
programme still in place? If so, what is the expected end date for this programme?  
AG-IMS ID 85050: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Turkey's recent Table  DS:2 notification lists an item entitled "Support to Animal Husbandry". This 
programme is classified under Article 6.2 (Special and Differential -Development Programme 
support) of the Agreement on Agriculture in Turkey's latest Table DS:1 
notification  G/AG/N/TU R/15.  
  
a. Could Turkey please provide more details on the eligibility criteria under this 
programme? Specifically, what types of investments are eligible to receive payment?  G/AG/W/168  
 
- 35 - 
 
  b. The exemption of agricultural input subsidies under Article 6.2 from certain domes tic 
support reduction commitments is limited to subsidies that are "generally available to 
low-income or resource poor producers in developing country Members". Could Turkey 
elaborate how it defines "low -income or resource poor" producers?  
c. The description  states that the period of application for this programme is 
from 2000-2004. However, no amounts are reported for this item in Turkey's Table DS:1 
notification for 2000 (G/AG/N/TUR/12) or 2001 (G/AG/N/TUR/14). Could Turkey confirm 
that no payments were pro vided for this programme during the 2000 and 2001 period? 
If no payments were provided for this period, could Turkey elaborate why no payments 
were made?  
2.5  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.5.1   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/89)  
AG-IMS I D 85033: Question by United States of America - Other forms of assistance  
The United States thanks South Africa for it 2014 NF1 notification. Can South Africa explain the 
conditions under which financial contributions were dispersed, particularly to Zam bia and Malawi? 
Did any of these contributions have any impact on trade to these two countries?  
 
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
3.1.1   Kyrgyz Republic (AG-IMS ID 85047: Question by Canada ) 
Canada thanks Kyrgyz Republic for its new domestic support notification for 2012. However, it is 
difficult to assess any changes or to see any trends in domestic support provided by the Kyrgyz 
Republic to its agricultural producers in the absence of notifications for previous years. Canada 
notes that the earlier domestic support notific ation was for 1998. Could Kyrgyz Republic please 
advise when it expects to submit the missing notifications (i.e. 1999 to 2011)?  
 
3.1.2   Nigeria (AG-IMS ID 85037: Question by European Union ) 
The latest DS:1 notification from Nigeria dates from 2012 covering 2011.  Since then Nigeria has 
implemented the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and the Agricultural Promotion Policy 
(2016 -2020).  
 
Will Nigeria submit a DS:1 notification for years after 2011 including Green Box support as well as 
Article 6:2 support?  
 
3.1.3   Turkey (AG-IMS ID 85007: Question by New Zealand ) 
Acknowledging the previous questions asked of Turkey by other Members with regard to Turkey's 
overdue notifications, and its responses to the EU and the US at the 83rd Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 8 3034 and 83102), New Zealand thanks Turkey for submitting domestic 
support notifications for calendar years 2002 to 2004. New Zealand commends Turkey on the level 
of detail its DS:1 contains, in particular for product -specific domestic support, and for inc luding 
reference to Turkey's ongoing assessment of domestic support for subsequent years. Can Turkey 
please provide an update on progress with its domestic support assessments, and advise a 
timeframe for when further domestic support notifications will be submitted to the Committee on 
Agriculture?  
 
4  OTHER  
4.1.1   New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 85046: Question by European Union  
New Zealand in its reply to the EU question for the 84th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
argues that since Zespri  is a private organization, provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures are not relevant for Zespri operations. However, paragraph 20 of the G/AG/W/168  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition rules that "Members shall ensure that 
agricultural exporting state trading enterprises do not operate in a manner that circumvents any 
other disciplines contained in this annex." Paragraph 6 of the same Ministerial Decision rules that 
export subsidy entitlements shall be immediately eliminated.  Following to that, agricultural 
exporting STEs shall not operate in a manner that circumvents the commitment to eliminate 
export subsidies. According to Annex 1(g) of the ASCM exemption of indirect taxes on exported 
products, in excess of those levied on domestic like products, fall under the illustrative list of 
export subsidies. Therefore, following the adoption of the Nairobi Decision, Zespri shall not grant 
export subsidies in the form of providing its nursery stock free -of-charge to growers outside 
New Zealand whereas planting fees and royalties are charged on the domestic like products. Could 
New Zealand confirm if Zespri provides its nursery stock free -of-charge to growers outside 
New Zealand?  
 
4.1.2   United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 85038: Question by E uropean Union  
Ag-IMS ID 84068 – point e)  
The US, in reply to the EU question for the 84th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, stated 
that "U.S. food assistance programmes are not used to promote U.S. market development 
objectives. The [requirements that all agricultural commodities provided be sourced from the 
United States, that at least 50% of US food aid must be shipped on US flagged vessels and that at 
least 50% of any bagging must consist of whole -grain commodities bagged in the United States] 
are U.S. legislative procurement mandates." In the Hearing on the Future of International Food 
Aids and Agricultural Development of the US House Committee on Agriculture, held on 
7 June 2017, the Chairman of the Committee stated that "(the US) international  food aid 
programmes not only contribute to jobs in the US agricultural sector but they also create American 
jobs in the manufacturing and maritime sectors as well. Eliminating such programmes seems a bit 
contrary to the role of any robust "America first" policy."  
a. Could the US explain how the objective of creating jobs in the US agricultural, 
manufacturing and maritime sectors and promoting an "America first" differs from an 
objective of promoting developments in the US agricultural, manufacturing and mari time 
markets?  
Requested Food Assistance  
 
The Nairobi Decision in paragraph 25 states that Members are encouraged to provide non -
emergency development food assistance where recipient countries or recognized international 
humanitarian/food entities, such a s the United Nations, have requested food assistance.  
 
b. Could the US specify when and in which form have the recipient countries or recognized 
international humanitarian/food entities, such as the United Nations, have requested US 
non-emergency in -kind food assistance?  
USDA -run McGovern -Dole International Food for Education programme  
 
The US administration announced budget proposals on 23 May 2017. These proposals include the 
elimination of the USDA -run McGovern -Dole International Food for Education prog ramme and 
USAID -run Food For Peace, Title II programme. The budget prop osal confirms that the 
McGovern -Dole programme "lacks evidence that it is being effectively implemented to reduce food 
insecurity and that providing emergency food aid through Internati onal Disaster Assistance 
account (IDA) has been shown to allow more appropriate and on average more cost effective 
assistance than Title II food aid".  
 
c. The EU shares this assessment and asks when these ineffective and trade distorting food 
aid policies will be eliminated.  
 
__________