G/C/W/690  
 
1 November 2013  
(13-6019)  Page: 1/2  
Council for Trade in Goods  Original: English  
 
 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO JAPAN REGARDING  
ITS WOOD USE POINTS PROGRAM 
The following submission, dated 30 October 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Canada. 
_______________ 
 
The following questions were raised by Canada at the 18 October 2013 meeting of the Council for 
Trade in Goods (CTG) on the basis of Japan's re sponses (see G/C/W/686) to questions previously 
raised by Canada at 11 July 2013 meeting of the CTG (see G/C/W/681). 
a. Japan advised that foreign wood is eligible and that an updated list of eligible products 
would be published.  Canada would like to know if such list was published, and if so, are any 
foreign products listed?  
(i) If no foreign products are listed, could Japan explain why? 
b. Japan explained that the same criteria would be used to assess the eligibility of all wood 
products, whether local or foreign. Canada would like to know: 
(i) If all the products that are currently on the list of eligible products were submitted by 
individual companies or industry associations in Japan with all the required 
documentation (i.e. growing forest data, economic impact assessment, etc.)? 
(ii) Why the Forestry Agency created a separate Funding Management and Administration 
Committee to decide on eligibility of imported species under the Wood Use Points 
program.  
(iii) What are the mechanisms that ensure the uniformity of application of the criteria by 
the various local Committees on Fund Management and Administration and the 
Prefecture councils? 
(iv) With regards to local Committees on Fund Management, will Japan publish a list of the 
members of these local entities and the organization they represent? 
c. In its responses to Canada, Japan refers to a "clearer guidance" on criteria and procedures 
to be issued in October. 
(i) Canada would like Japan to indicate the main differences with the previous guidance. 
(ii) Canada would like to understand why this  new guidance has yet to be published.  
d .  O n e  o f  t h e  s t a t e d  ob j e c t i v e s  o f  t h i s  p r o g r a m  i s  t o  c o n t r i b u t e  t o  p r o p e r  m an a g e m e n t  a nd  
sustainability of forest as well as development of rural areas.  It is Canada's view that the criteria around the growth of a forest applies mostly to planted forest and do not translate 
well to natural, mature and bio-diverse forest. 
(i) Can Japan expand on the rationale for using "growing forest" as a criteria for this 
program instead of using internationally agreed criteria and indicators for sustainable 
forest management such as the framework of the Montreal Process and the Santiago 
Declaration, to which Japan is a signatory?  
(ii) One of the criteria for eligibility is the provision of information quantifying the 
economic impact of local and foreign wood species and products in rural Japan; could G/C/W/690 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Japan provide a rational on these domestic im pact criteria, and to further elaborate on 
how this is not a de facto discriminatory criteria for foreign products? 
e. Japan noted in its response that all foreign goods were eligible for redemption with wood 
points, as long as they were selected as a result of the public application process.  Would 
Japan explain how a foreign good could qualify as one of the eligibility criteria is that a 
product must be regional?   
f. Canada would like to know when Japan will notify this program to the World Trade 
Organization? 
g. Media articles suggest that consumers can receive up to a total amount of 600,000 Wood 
Use points, equivalent to ¥600,000.  Could Japan please confirm the total incentive amount that a consumer can receive for an individual house construction project under this 
program? 
h. Lastly, Canada would like to know if Japan intends to extend this program beyond the 
original end date of 31 March 2014, and if so, at what incentive level. 
 
 
__________