G/C/W/696  
 
16 April 2014  
(14-2375)  Page: 1/2  
Council for Trade in Goods  Original: English  
 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO JAPAN REGARDING 
ITS WOOD USE POINTS PROGRAM 
The following submission, dated 9 April 2014, is bein g circulated at the request of the Delegation 
of Canada. 
_______________ 
Canada, would like to thank Japan for its responses received 7 April 20141, to questions circulated 
at the 18 October 2013, Council for Trade in Goods (CTG).2 
 Canada continues to closely monitor the implementation of Japan's Wood Use Points Program, which Canada understands has been prolonged beyond the one year time frame initially noted by 
Japan. Canada remains concerned that the program could discriminate against non-Japanese 
products. Canada would also like to take the opportunity to raise some additional questions concerning the registration process: 
 
(a) Now that the program has been extended:  
(i) When will Japan formally no tify the program to the WTO? 
(ii) What is the timeline for the completion of the program? (iii) Do you expect that the full amount allocated to the program will be exhausted by the 
official end date of the program? If funding remains, how will it be used? 
 
(b) Canadian Industry has submitted an application to have Canadian species recognized under 
the program, and it is our understanding that some applications from outside Japan have 
been accepted. We would like to know how many foreign applications Japan has received 
and what is the acceptance rate. We would also like to know this information for Japanese applications. 
 
(c) Canada would also be interested in knowing more about the timelines associated with the 
application process: 
 
(i) How long does it take between submitting an application and receiving approval? 
(ii) How long does it take, once accepted, to be added to the list of eligible products? 
 
(d) In Japan's responses submitted 7 April 2014
1, information is provided on the Committee on 
the Fund Management and Administration and on the Experts Committee. Canada would seek clarification on the following: 
 
(i) Can you confirm that it is the Committee on Fund Management and Administration 
that is the only entity responsible for "approving" species of eligible wood? 
(ii) What are the criteria used by the Experts Committee to approve or reject materials 
from designated species? 
 (e) It is Canada's understanding that once a species has been accepted by the National Fund 
Management Committee, the materials thereof have to be submitted to and accepted by the 
Experts Committee at the national level and they also have to be accepted at the prefectural 
level in order to be fully eligible under the program. 
                                               
1 See document G/C/W/693. 
2 See document G/C/W/690. G/C/W/696 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
(i) Is our understanding correct? And if not, how so? (ii) What are the specific responsibilities of the Prefecture Councils in the Wood-Use Points 
Program? 
(iii) Is this prefectural recognition automatic (i.e. done with the exact same documentation 
used at the National level) or do foreign entities have to submit an application to each of the 47 prefectures? 
(iv) Are the eligibility criteria at the prefectural level the same as the national level? For 
example, do foreign entities have to demonstrate detailed economic benefits for each of the 47 prefectures, in addition to demonstrating this at the national level? 
(v) Is there a single contact point for recognition at the prefecture level or do the foreign 
entities have to contact each of the 47 prefectures separately? 
(vi) If a foreign material does not meet the criteria for one or more prefectures, is it still 
eligible for the other prefectures where it meets the criteria? 
(vii) What are the timelines for processing the application at the prefecture level? Are the 
47 prefectures following the same timelines? 
 
(f) Once a species and associated materials have  been recognized under the program, are they 
approved on a permanent basis or is a re-application required after a prescribed period of time? 
 
(g) Was the Japanese wood industry required to demonstrate that it meets these program 
requirements both at the national and prefectural levels, before being eligible under the program? 
 
(i) More specifically, for each of the Japane se wood species currently approved under the 
program was the "growing forest" criteria demonstrated? 
(ii) Similarly, for each of the Japanese w ood species approved under the program, was 
the economic impact assessment conducted and its economic benefits demonstrated, both at the national and prefecture level? 
 
__________