G/AG/W/163  
 
24 May 2017  
(17-2830) Page: 1/35 
Committee on Agriculture   
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 7-8 JUNE 20171 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
22 May 2017 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/20.  
 
 
_______________  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
1.1   Canada's butter export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
1.1.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84016)  ................................ ................................ .... 5 
1.2   China's sugar imports  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84036)  ................................ ................................ .... 5 
1.3   European Union's export subsidy commitments  ................................ ...............................  5 
1.3.1    Question by Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 84109)  ................................ ................................ . 5 
1.4   European Union's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
1.4.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84037 ) ................................ ................................ .... 5 
1.5   India's pulses policies ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
1.5.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84044)  ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
1.6   Indonesia's dairy import system  ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84075)  ................................ .............  6 
1.7   Malaysia's import licensing procedures for sugar  ................................ .............................  6 
1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84046)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.8   Mexico's agricultur al diesel programme  ................................ ................................ ..........  6 
1.8.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 84050)  ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
1.9   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 
1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84057)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.9.2    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 84015)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.9.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84079)  ................................ .............  7 
1.10   The Russian Federation's decoupled support  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84083)  ................................ ...........  7 
1.11   Switzerland's  domestic purchase requirements for meat TRQs  ................................ .........  7 
1.11.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84104)  ................................ ...........  7 
1.12   Switzerland's reclassification of customs position for seasoned meat  ................................  8 
1.12.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 84058)  ................................ ........................  8 
1.13   Turkey's National Agriculture Model  ................................ ................................ .............  8 
1.13.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 84060)  ................................ ........................  8 
1.14   U.S. regulations on fluid ultrafiltered milk  ................................ ................................ ..... 8 
1.14.1    Question by Can ada (AG -IMS ID 84061)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.14.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84062)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.14.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84063)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.15   U.S. Border Adjustment Tax proposal  ................................ ................................ ...........  9 
1.15.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 84054)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.16   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ........ 10 
1.16.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84073)  ................................ .......... 10 
1.17   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ............ 11 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84012)  ................................ ................................ .11 
1.17.2    Question by Ne w Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84018)  ................................ ........................... 11 
1.17.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84020)  ................................ ........................... 11 
1.17.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID  84021)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.17.5    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84022)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.17.6    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84023)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.17.7    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84025)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.17.8    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84027)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.17.9    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84029)  ................................ ........................... 13 
1.17.10    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84030)  ................................ ......................... 13 
1.17.11    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84035)  ................................ ......................... 13 
1.17.12    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84031)  ................................ ......................... 14 
1.17.13    Question by United States of America and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84107)  ............... 14 
1.18   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 
1.18.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84017)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.18.2    Question by European Union and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84106 and 84033)  .............. 19 
1.18.3   Question by United States of America and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84105)  ................. 19 
1.19   Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese and domestic support  ................................ ........... 19 
1.19.1    Question by United States of America and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84108)  ................. 19 
1.20   India's wheat stocks  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..19 
1.20.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84041)  ................................ ................................ .19 
1.20.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84072)  ................................ .......... 20 
1.21   India's support price for Rabi crops  ................................ ................................ ............. 22 
1.21.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84071)  ................................ .......... 22 
1.22   Thailand' s import permits for feed wheat  ................................ ................................ .....22 
1.22.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84059)  ................................ ................................ .22 
1.22.2    Question by United States of Ame rica (AG -IMS ID 84074)  ................................ .......... 22 
1.23   Thailand's rice policies  ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 
1.23.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84103)  ................................ .......... 23 
1.24   U.S. Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO)  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.24.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84055)  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.24.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84056)  ................................ ................................ ...24 
1.24.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84064)  ................................ ................................ ...24 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  24 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ............... 24 
2.1.1    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/82, G/AG/N/THA/84)  ................................ ............................... 24 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 24 
2.2.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/37)  ................................ ................................ ............... 24 
2.2.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/210)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
2.2.3    United States of America (G/AG/N/ USA/102/CORR.1)  ................................ .................. 25 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 25 
2.3.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/36)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 
2.3.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/41, G/AG/N/BRA/40, G/AG/N/BRA/32)  ................................ .......... 25 
2.3.3    Burundi (G/AG/N/BDI/9)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 
2.3.4    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/34)  ................................ ................................ ............... 26 
2.3.5    Gabon (G/AG/N/GAB/7) ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 
2.3.6    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/57)  ................................ ................................ ................... 27 
2.3.7    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/41)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 27 
2.3.8    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/11)  ................................ ................................ ........ 29 
2.3.9    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/18, G/AG/N/UKR/26 and G/AG/N/UKR/26/CORR.1)  ..................... 30 
2.3.10    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109) ................................ ............................. 31 
2.3.11    Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/10)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ........... 32 
2.4.1    United States o f America (G/AG/N/USA/110)  ................................ .............................. 32 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ........ 32 
2.5.1    European Union (G/AG/N/ EU/38)  ................................ ................................ ............... 32 
2.5.2    Malawi (G/AG/N/MWI/6)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 33 
2.5.3    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/79)  ................................ ................................ ................... 33 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  33 
3.1   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 33 
3.1.1    Malawi (G/AG/N/MWI/4)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 33 
3.1.2    Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8)  ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 
3.1.3    Togo (G/AG/N/TGO/8)  ................................ ................................ .............................. 34 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  34 
4.1.1    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 34 
4.1.2    Nigeria  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 35 
4.1.3    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 35 
4.1.4    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 35 
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6 
1.1  Canada's butter export su bsidies  
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84016)  
Has Canada provided export subsidies for butter exports after the 21 December 2015 Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition? If so, what were the amounts and to which export markets?  
 
1.2  China's sugar imports  
1.2.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84036)  
In China 's notifications for imports under tariff quotas for the years 2011 to 2014, the tariff quota 
for sugar is fully utilized. Can China confirm what import regime, including the tariff rate, applied 
to sugar imp orts in excess of the volume of the tariff quota?  
 
1.3  European Union's export subsidy commitments  
1.3.1   Question by Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 84109)  
In relation to the Export Subsidies Commitment agreed in MC10 Nairobi Ministerial, how is the 
EU implementation process for those commitments?   
 
1.4  European Union's sugar policies  
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84037)  
The expiry of the European Union 's existing sugar programme, including sugar production quotas, 
and elimination of scheduled export subsidy entitlements for su gar on 30 September 2017 is a 
significant event for the global sugar industry, but one that also presents potential challenges. 
What arrangements has the European Union put in place to address the risks of production and 
market volatility after that date? Given that sugar production in the European Union will continue 
to be in receipt of subsidization, what arrangements has the European Union put in place to ensure 
that any EU sugar exports will comply with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competi tion? 
1.5  India's pulses policies  
1.5.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84044)  
The government of India announced in December 2016 a series of measures aimed at achieving 
self-sufficiency in pulse production ( http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=155758 ). 
The measures include:  
 an increase in the minimum support price for pulses and an additional bonus to promote the 
cultivation and production of pulses,  
 a scheme under the National Foo d Secu rity Mission Project where the g overnment of India 
has set production targets for pulses for 2016 -17, 2017 -18 and 2020 -21,  
 the establishment of 150 "Pulse Seed Hubs " to produce specific quantities of improved seed 
for distribution to farmers.  
a. Could  India indicate if the entire production of pulses is eligible for the minimum support 
prices and the additional bonus?  
b. Could India provide information as to the level of production of pulses for the 2016 -17 
crop against the target production?  
c. Could Indi a elaborate on the distribution system for the seed developed in these hubs 
and the cost to the producer for the improved seed?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.6  Indonesia's dairy import system  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84075)  
According to industry reports, Indonesia  plans to replace its import licensing system on skim milk 
powder (SMP) with a tariff -rate quota system and has received technical assistance from the 
World  Bank to make this policy change. Relatedly, industry reports that there has been a trend in 
Indones ia towards the promotion of greater local content rules for dairy products and a possible 
increase in Indonesia 's applied tariff rate to 15  - 20% on impo rted dairy products. The 
United  States would appreciate it if Indonesia would provide an update on its intentions regarding 
its dairy import system, including plans for a new TRQ system as well as applied rate increases 
and local content rules.  
 
1.7  Malaysia 's import licensing procedures for sugar  
1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84046)  
As Australia has raised  previously in the WTO Committee on Import Licensing, Australia is 
concerned about Malaysia 's import licensing procedures for refined sugar. Australia understands 
that the official portal of the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism 
comm enced a freeze on import licenses for refined sugar on 1 March 2016. Does Malaysia intend 
on notifying its freeze on issuing import licenses? Is an import license also required for raw sugar 
imports into Malaysia?  
 
1.8  Mexico's agricultural diesel programme  
1.8.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 84050)  
Ukraine attentively followed Mexico 's April 2017 Trade Policy Review. The Agricultural "Diesel 
program " sparked particular interest. The scope of the diesel input subsidies in the Secretariat 's 
report (par agraph 4.32  of WT/TPR/S/352) indicated only maximum possible quantities of diesel 
(liters). During the Trade Policy Review Mexico provided further information regarding the total 
monetary values (2005 to 2013) for this subsidy programme which was terminated after 2013.  
Three questions were raised in the Committee (AG -IMS ID 47025, AG -IMS ID  61050, 
AG-IMS ID 62034) relating to the then -existing programme: type of programme (investment or 
input subsidy); applied criteria (generally available or limited to low -income, reso urce-poor). A 
new format of the diesel subsidy programme emerged in 2016. Could Mexico please provide 
information relating to the 2016 "Diesel program ":  
a. What format changes did Mexico undertake in the 2016 "Diesel program "?  
b. Have policy goals been updated  or adjusted in the 2016 "Diesel program " and if so what 
are these policy goals?  
c. Please provide all relevant criteria, which Mexico applies for the operation of the 
reformatted 2016 "Diesel program "?  
d. Could Mexico update the chart provided in their respon se to AG -IMS ID 62034 so that 
the following information is provided? Category (hectares) - All Agricultural Producers 
(number) - Diesel Program Beneficiaries (number) - Percent of Farm Sales for the 
Category (%)  
1.9  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.9.1   Question by Austra lia (AG -IMS ID 84057)  
Noting the waiver of the WTO General Council of 24 July 2014 (WT/L/932) which granted special 
treatment for rice of the Philippines up until 30 June 2017, can the Philippines confirm that existing 
quantity restrictions on rice imports  will be removed by 1 July 2017?  
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.9.2   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 84015)  
With regard to decision on waiver relating to special treatment for rice of the Philippine 
(document  WT/L/932), Philippine has to maintain QR rice up to 30 June 2017, and the importat ion 
of rice into Philippine shall be subjected to ordinary customs duty. In March 2017, Philippine has 
informed to the COA meeting that the rice tarification regime was under internal legislation 
process, and may encounter delay.  
Thailand seeks clarificati on as to:  
a. Can Philippine confirm the implementation date on rice tarification process?  
b. Please update the current status or details in respect to the implementation.  
c. In case of delay, can Philippine clarify procedures from 1 July 2017 to the day that 
tarification being applied?  
1.9.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84079)  
The United States understands that rice tariffication is unlikely to occur prior to the 30 June  2017 
deadline for the expiration of the rice waiver, due to a delay in passing the legislation required to 
remove the quantitative restriction (QR) on rice imports. The Philippines has indicated it may 
extend the tariff concessions that were granted in exchange for the rice waiver in the event that 
the required legislation is not passed by the June 30 deadline.  
a. The United States would appreciate an update on the status of the legislation that would 
remove the QR on rice.  
b. Does the Philippines plan to extend the tariff concessions if the Philippines does not pass 
the required legislation that would remove the QR by 1 July?  
c. The United States would also appreciate an update on the Philippines ' actions to tariffy 
rice market access. Does the Philippines plan to follow rules laid out in Annex 5 to the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.10  The Russia n Federation's decoupled support  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84083)  
In early 2017, the Russian Federation changed the structure of its subsidy programme with the 
introduction of Program 1320. Please explain if there were any changes ma de to decoupled 
support under the structure of the new programme, Program 1320, and where details regarding 
the decoupled support can be found within the new programme and how decoupled support is 
handled under the program.  
 
1.11  Switzerland's  domestic purchase  requirements for meat TRQs  
1.11.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84104)  
Switzerland 's allocation of some meat tariff -rate quotas is contingent upon local purchase. This is 
particularly true for beef, sheep meat, and offal where 50% of the quota is allocated on the basis 
of a contribution to Swiss production. This provision disadvantages companies that principally 
source product through imports. Switzerland has previously stated that this requirement is 
irrelevant given the high quota fill rate. F ill rates, alone, do not indicate whether a measure is 
consistent with WTO principles. Please explain in detail why Switzerland considers its tariff -rate 
quota allocation system, which appears to include domestic purchase requirement for certain 
products, to be in compliance with its WTO commitments with respect to the Agreement on 
Agriculture and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.12  Switzerland's reclassification of customs position for seasoned meat  
1.12.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 8405 8) 
Switzerland amended its customs tariff act in July 2016 to reclassify seasoned meat from 
chapter  16 to chapter 02, thus substantially increasing the out of quota tariff for imports of such 
products from CHF 638/100  kg to over CHF 2000/100  kg. Switzerlan d has been claiming that this 
measure is justified under Article XX  (d) GATT to  stop duty circumvention. The European Union  
considers that Article XX  (d) GATT cannot be used to justify the measure.  
 
a. Could Switzerland explain how this measure is in complia nce with its obligations under 
Article II:1 (a) and Article II (b) of the GATT 1994 which requires it to accord to the 
commerce of other WTO members treatment no less favourable than that provided in its 
Schedule?  
b. Does Switzerland envisage any compensatory  process or measures?  
1.13  Turkey's National Agriculture Model  
1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 84060)  
The Turkish Prime Minister announced in November 2016 a "National Agriculture Model" which will 
mainly concern a new allocation system for agricultural s upport from 2017 onwards. The 
European  Union understands that this will mainly focus on region -based support for production 
with the aim of reinforcing Turkish agriculture, in particular the production of products of strategic 
importance to Turkey.  
 
Could Turkey provide further details about this model, in particular on the following aspects:  
 
a. Does Turkey intend to increase its Amber Box support?  
b. If yes, which sectors would be most affected?  
c. Will Turkey increase input subsidies to agriculture, such as ferti lizer and fuel subsidies?  
d. How would Turkey expect the new policy to affect its agricultural trade balance?  
1.14  U.S. regulations on fluid ultrafiltered milk  
1.14.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84061)  
In the Federal Register in 2005 (70 FR 60751), the U.S. Food and Dr ug Administration  (FDA), 
proposed to amend its regulations (cheese standards of identity) to provide for the use of fluid 
ultrafiltered (UF) milk in the manufacture of standardized cheeses and related cheese products. It 
also tentatively concluded that UF milk must be declared as "ultrafiltered milk " in the ingredient 
statement of the finished cheese. In 2007, it sought public comments again through the Federal 
Register on the declaration provision of the previous proposal (72 FR 70251). Canada notes that 
according to the latest version of the U.S. Federal regulation Title 21: Food and Drugs, the cheese 
standards for standardized cheeses have not been updated to include a reference to UF milk.  
 
a. Could the United States describe why the FDA has not implemente d any changes to 
cheese standards of identity to include UF milk used in the production of standardized 
cheese?  
b. Is the United States still planning, or required, to allow for further consultations with the 
public on this issue?  
1.14.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84062)  
A report by the United States International Trade Commission (Investigation number 332 -453 –
May 2004) states that the "FDA indicated that milk that has been ultrafiltered 'as an integral part G/AG/W/163  
 
- 9 - 
 
  of the cheese making process ' is acceptable in the pr oduction of standardized cheeses ". This allows 
cheese manufacturers that conduct the ultrafiltration process on -site during the cheese 
manufacturing process to use ultrafiltered milk. However, the FDA has exercised enforcement 
discretion with respect to ch eddar and mozzarella plants that procure ultrafiltered milk produced 
outside their own cheese making plants. In 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported 
that the majority of the ultrafiltered milk transported from ultrafiltration facilities was d estined for 
use in the cheese making operations of related companies. " The FDA later explains in the Federal 
Register in 2007 (70 FR 60751) that the 'alternate make procedure ' allows for manufacturers to 
appropriately process the basic ingredient, milk, du ring the cheese making process. This would 
include ultrafiltration.  
 
a. Could the United States confirm if it has ever enforced the rules of not allowing the use 
of UF milk when a cheddar and/or mozzarella plant procures this UF milk outside of their 
own pla nt?  
b. Could the United States please explain why, according to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission report, "related companies" (which would include using UF milk outside of 
the original cheese making plant) have been allowed to use UF milk in cheese mak ing, 
but non -related companies have not?  
c. Could the United States explain how UF milk created by a cheese making plant through 
the cheese making process is different from UF milk produced off -site, such as an 
imported product?  
d. Could a U.S. cheese plant im port UF milk to be used in the production of cheddar or 
mozzarella cheese and still meet the U.S. standards of identity? What about other 
cheeses?  
1.14.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84063)  
In regards to the issue of treating UF milk produced in -plant different ly than UF milk produced off -
site, a letter sent on 4 May 2017 to Commissioner Ostroff (Acting Commissioner of the FDA), Vicky 
Hartzler (Member of Congress) includes the following: "FDA rules on the use of UF milk for cheese 
making are inconsistent and con fusing to the domestic dairy industry and stifle product flexibility 
and innovation. Existing rules have separate labelling requirements for UF milk produced at a plant 
(product can be labelled as "milk") and UF milk produced off -site (product must be labe lled as 
"ultrafiltered milk ")".  
 
a. Could the United States please provide a copy of the FDA labelling requirements as 
described in the above mentioned letter?  
b. Could the United States explain why there is a separate labelling requirement for UF milk 
produce d at a cheese plant and for UF milk produced off -site?  
1.15  U.S. Border Adjustment Tax proposal  
1.15.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 84054)  
According to  numerous media reports the United States is seriously considering introducing  a 
Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) in th e near future. It appears that a new policy scheme would create 
financial (tax) benefits for U.S. product exports and financial (tax) disadvantages for imports into 
the United States.  Could the United States  please provide information on this significant p olicy 
proposal and in particular:  
 
a. Do current draft proposals for new border tax policies cover agricultural products?  
b. What review and approval process is necessary for final adoption and implementation of 
a new border tax policy, specifically will Congr essional approval be required as part of 
that process?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 10 - 
 
  c. Does the U.S. delegation consider that a new border tax policy favoring domestic exports 
and disfavoring foreign imports is fully compatible with WTO rules?  
1.16  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.16.1   Quest ion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84073)  
In April 2017, Brazil announced the reactivation of Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) and 
Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) support for the state of Mato Grosso for up to 
R$500 million (U SD 166 million) for corn. The United States understands that Mato Grosso is the 
largest agriculture -producing state in Brazil. Brazil is the third -largest producer and second -largest 
exporter of corn globally. Further, Mato Grosso typically exports over on e-half of that state 's 
production to overseas markets, according to Brazilian government statistics. The state is 
estimated to have record corn production this year of 24.9 million tonnes with nearly all of it 
produced in the second crop, according to the Brazilian government 's Companhia Nacional de 
Abastecimento (CONAB)2.  
 
The United States notes that Mato Grosso has been also been a major exporter in years that PEP 
and PEPRO have been available. For instance, in 2013, a year in which PEP and PEPRO was us ed to 
support corn production, the state exported almost all of its corn crop. In 2013, Brazilian 
government data from CONAB and Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) 
show that corn production in the state of Mato Grosso was 18 million  tonnes, of which 6.7 million 
tonnes received premium subsidies under the PEPRO programme3. Also in 2013, Brazilian 
government data from the Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior  (MDIC) 
shows 15.7 million tonnes of Mato Grosso corn w as exported from Brazil4. In 2013, Brazil 's own 
data suggests a significant volume of exported corn from Mato Grosso may have received support 
under the PEPRO program. In addition to publically available data from CONAB, MAPA, and MDIC 
related to prior use s of PEP and PEPRO funds, recent media reports regarding PEP and PEPRO 
payments to support wheat exports from Rio Grande do Sul also raise serious concerns about the 
trade -distorting effects of these programs.  
 
a. Given numerous press reports indicating that  corn and wheat producers are again 
benefiting from PEP and PEPRO support, can Brazil explain why the programmes are 
again being used, as announced by the Brazilian government and confirmed by Brazilian 
press reports?  
b. The United States notes that the CONA B announcement states that in order for a 
producer to participate in PEPRO, they must produce a proof of sale, which may include 
an export registration and/or export declaration5. For commodities that received 
PEP/PEPRO support between 2003 and 2016, pleas e provide information related to those 
required proofs sale (e.g., the percent of the commodity under the program that was 
deemed eligible for payment based primarily or solely on export 
registration/declaration). Can Brazil explain how it is ensuring that  PEP and 
PEPRO  benefits are not supporting the export of corn from Mato Grosso and wheat from 
Rio Grande do Sul?  
c. If information is not readily available for all years, please provide export data for wheat, 
corn, and rice for each year since 2010 and indic ate when other information will be made 
available for the review of this Committee.  
                                                
2 Source: 
http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1252&t=2&Pagina _objcmsconteudos=3#A_objcmsconteuds   
3 Source: 
http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1252&t=2&Pagina_objcmsconteudos=3#A_objcmsconteudos  ; 
and http://www.agricultura.gov.br/assuntos/politica -agricola/arquivos -de-estatisticas/ano -civil-apoio -2003-
2016-janeiro-2017.pdf/view   
4 Source: http://aliceweb.mdic.gov.br   
5 Source: http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1173&t=2 ; see 9.6.5: required documents  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.17  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84012)  
At the 83rd Committee on Agriculture meeting, in response to Australia 's question 
(AG-IMS ID 83103), Canada advised all provinces (except Newfoundland and Labrador) were in 
the process of implementing the new milk class, Class 7, effective as of 1 February 2017.  
  
a. Can Canada provide an update on this process and confirm which provinces are now able 
to utilise Class 7?  
b. What volume of milk has been supplied so far under Milk Class 7 and under Ontario 
Class 6? Australia 's main concern is with the displacement of product onto other markets 
and the resultant effect on prices.  
c. Have there been any impacts  on trade since the announcement of the new milk classes 
and National Ingredients Strategy?  
d. Can Canada provide details of imports of milk protein concentrate (MPC) and ultrafiltered 
milk for each month over the last 12 months? How do these compare with th e preceding 
12 months?  
e. Can Canada provide details of the volumes of skim milk powder (SMP) exports for each 
month over the last 12 months? How do these compare with the preceding 12 months?  
In response to Australia 's question (AG -IMS ID 83103) at the 83rd Committee on Agriculture, 
Canada advised that the Special Milk Class Program notice concerning the adoption of milk class  7 
by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee, circulated by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission on 17 February 2017, would not be re leased publicly.  
 
f. Have any details of the National Ingredient Strategy and associated measures been 
published, in a manner to enable all interested parties to become acquainted with them, 
given their clear potential impact on trade?  
1.17.2   Question by New Zeala nd (AG -IMS ID 84018)  
At the 83rd Committee on Agriculture meeting in response to a que stion from Australia 
(AG-IMS ID 83103) Canada advised that the provinces were still going through the regulatory 
processes necessary to implement Class 7.  
 
a. Can Canada pr ovide an update on this process and confirm which provinces have 
concluded the necessary steps to implement the new milk class?  
b. While provinces go through the regulatory process are they able to utilise Class 7, with 
the corresponding monthly pricing?  
1.17.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84020)  
New Zealand understands that a number of provincial milk marketing boards have, pursuant to 
provincial and federal legislation, issued orders or directives as part of the implementation of the 
national milk Class 7. A number of these regulatory instruments state that eligibility for Class 7 is 
determined in accordance with "the specific rules described in the administrative measures of the 
Harmonized Billing Mechanism" and the "National Audit Standards". As these rule s are 
incorporated by reference into, and are essential for the interpretation of, these regulatory 
instruments, can Canada please make available copies of the document(s) which establish the:  
  
a. Harmonized Billing Mechanism; and  
b. National Audit Standards.   G/AG/W/163  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.17.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84021)  
Following New Zealand's question at the 83rd Committee on  Agriculture meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 83002) New Zealand understands Class 4(m) will be revoked on full implementation of 
the national ingredient strategy and Cl ass 6 will be revoked on full implementation of milk class 7 
in Ontario. Can Canada provide an update on whether full implementation of Class 7 has occurred 
(or is expected to occur) and when Class 4(m) and Ontario Class 6 will be revoked?  
 
1.17.5   Question by New  Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84022)  
In response to New Zealand's question at the 83rd Committee on Agriculture about the calculation 
of Class 7 prices (Question AG -IMS 83002(b)), Canada stated that "prices under milk class 7 for 
butterfat, protein and other solids are determined based on world prices and will be calculated on 
a monthly basis". Can Canada please provide further detail on this calculation, specifically:  
  
a. Which source or sources of data are used to determine the "world price" for the purposes 
of thes e calculations?  
b. Can Canada confirm that the "world price" used for calculating the Class 7 price for 
protein and the Class 7 price for other solids is the lowest skim milk price in (i) the 
United States, (ii) the European Union, or (iii) Oceania, in the p revious month?  
c. Can Canada confirm that a "processor margin" is deducted from the "lowest world price" 
to determine the price that Canadian milk processors pay for Class 7 milk?  
d. If so, what is the value of the "processor margin", and how is this calculate d?  
1.17.6   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84023)  
In response to New Zealand's question at the 83rd Committee on Agriculture, Canada stated that 
the Record of Decisions made by the Milk Pool Coordinating Committee and the Canada Milk 
Supply Management Committe e will not be made publically available. If the Record of Decisions 
will not be made publically available what assurance can Canada provide Members that the new 
ingredient class 7 is consistent with Canada's WTO obligations?  
 
1.17.7   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84025)  
At the 83rd Committee on Agriculture the United States asked a question (AG -IMS ID 83039) about 
the rules for Class 7 eligibility of whole milk powder. Canada responded that the rules were still 
under discussion amongst industry stakeholders an d 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 public?  
1.17.8   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84027)  
At the 83rd Committee o n Agriculture the United States asked (AG -IMS ID 83039): Paragraph 13 of 
the Alberta directive states "Transactions between companies involving Class 7 ingredients in liquid 
form (e.g., skim milk, MPC, MPI) are concluded at the domestic market price; the C lass 7 price 
applies upon final utilization under HBM parameters, with the exception of:  
 
 In the case of registered food/further processors liquid milk ingredients can be bought at the 
class 7 price for purchase of 1,000 liters and less (totes) per transa ction, up to 10,000 liters 
per month;  
 In the case of exports, liquid milk ingredients may be billed at class 7.  
Canada 's response to the question was that discussions were not yet concluded.  
  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 13 - 
 
  a. Can Canada please provide an update on whether industry disc ussions on the future 
parameters for transactions between milk buyers involving class 7 ingredients in liquid 
form have since concluded?  
b. If discussions have concluded, can Canada please advise the outcome?  
1.17.9   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84029)  
New Ze aland understands that if a dairy processor uses more Class 7 ingredients than specified in 
the Harmonized Billing Ratio for a particular end -product, the processor will be required to pay an 
upwards price adjustment equal to the difference between the Cla ss 7 price and the price of the 
milk component class which the ingredient would otherwise be billed at.  
 
a. How is the "Harmonized Billing Ratio" determined for each dairy product for each of the 
end-products to which Class 7 pricing applies?  
b. Is there a max imum volume of imported dairy ingredients that can be used pursuant to 
the Harmonized Billing Ratio for a particular product?  
c. If the combination of Canadian Class 7 dairy ingredients and imported dairy ingredients 
in an end -product collectively exceed the  Harmonized Billing Ratio for that product; will 
the processor be subject to a price adjustment from Class 7 to the higher class milk 
component price?  
1.17.10   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84030)  
The following questions are based on the Agricultural Ind ustry Market Information System  (AIMIS) 
Milk Component Utilization and Sales database on the Government of Canada website. 
http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff -fcil&s2=msp -lpl&s3=mps -vlv   
  
a. Can Canada confirm that over 180 million litres of milk (24% of total Canadian milk 
production) was supplied under Milk Class 7 in March alone?  
b. Does Canada expect purchases under Class 7 to account for a similar high share of liquid 
milk, proteins and other solids for the remaining months of 2017?  
c. How will skim milk purchased under Class 7 be disposed of if there is insufficient 
domestic markets to accommodate it given a large portion of this milk is currently 
disposed of as a nimal feed?  
d. What steps is Canada taking to ensure that no discounted skim milk enters the world 
markets in excess of Canada 's WTO export subsidy commitment levels?  
1.17.11   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84035)  
At the 83rd Committee on Agriculture the New Zea land asked Canada to confirm whether a permit 
will be required for dairy processors to export product under Class 7 or for products that 
incorporate Class 7 priced milk? Canada responded, stating "Goods produced under these classes, 
or any milk class other  than milk class 5(d), can be sold by any eligible processor on the domestic 
or export markets. As such, they do not require export permits, nor are they contingent upon 
export. " (AG-IMS ID 83039)  
  
a. Based on the above, would it be correct to assume that C anadian dairy processors will 
be able to export all Class 7 milk and products containing Class 7 to the E uropean Union , 
taking advantage of the expanded access into the EU market contained within CETA 
which upon entry into force fully liberalizes dairy tar iffs, with the exception of those 
products that receive an export subsidy?  
b. What measures will the Canadian government undertake to ensure that it does not 
inadvertently export dairy products that have received an export subsidy to the 
European Union?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.17.12   Ques tion by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84031)  
Statistics Canada reports that exports of SMP were over 4,000 MT for March 2017. Could Canada 
explain:  
 
a. Why were exports for March at record levels while milk allocated to Milk Class 5(D) 
Export Subsidy Commitment Cla ss, had dropped by 89% in March 2017 compared to 
March 2016? Please explain the decrease and  how it might relate to the SMP  increase.  
b. Does Canada expect exports of SMP for the 2017 Calendar year to exceed 4,000 MT a 
month for the remainder of the year bas ed on increases since Class 7 was implemented?  
1.17.13   Question by United States of America and New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 84107  and 
84111 ) 
a. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "While some elements [of the agreement in 
principle] have been adopted and are being impl emented by provincial milk marketing 
boards, other elements continue to be under discussion. "  
i. What specific elements of the agreement in principle are still under discussion at this 
time?  
ii. What specific elements of the agreement in principle have been ado pted and 
implemented at this point in time? Please provide a copy of all implementing 
measures or guidance.  
b. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "The rules for whole milk powder are subject to 
discussions amongst industry stakeholders. When and where thi s information will be 
made public is to be determined. "  
i. What roles do the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), the CMSMC, and/or the 
provincial milk marketing boards have in determining the rules for Class 7 eligibility 
of whole milk powder?  
ii. Are these rules e stablished yet? If yes, where are they made publically available?  
iii. If these rules are not yet established, when and how will these rules be established 
and where will they be made publically available?  
c. Is Canada able to confirm that the "Class 7 Formula " on this publically available website 
(http://www.themilkweed.com/Feature -052017.pdf ) is the formula used to set monthly 
Class 7 prices?  
d. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "The prices for bu tterfat, protein and other 
solids are determined based on world prices on a monthly basis ". 
i. Please provide and explain the exact formula or methodology that is used to set the 
monthly Class 7 prices for butterfat, protein, and other solids.  
ii. Is this formul a or methodology the same for each of the three components?  
iii. Where is this formula or methodology publically available?  
iv. What is the CDC 's source for "world prices "?  
v. Is a manufacturing cost allowance used to calculate the Class 7 prices for butterfat, 
protein, and other solids? If yes, please provide and explain the exact formula or 
methodology that is used to set the manufacturing cost allowance. Where is this 
formula or methodology publically available?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 15 - 
 
  e. Are manufacturing cost allowances used to calculat e the prices for butterfat, protein, and 
other solids for Classes 1 -4 and Class 5? If yes, please provide and explain the exact 
formula or methodology that is used to set the manufacturing cost allowances. Is this 
formula or methodology the same for Classe s 1-4 and Class 5? Is this formula or 
methodology the same for each of the three components? Where are these formulas or 
methodologies publically available?  
f. Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order 2017 -02, para. 3, states that 
component prices f or Class 7 are "Established by the CMSMC ". Saskatchewan Order 
No. 28/17, para. 2(f), states that "Commission prices established for classes 1(b)ii, 
4(m), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), and 7 ". Which entity establishes the prices? Is it different 
for different pro vinces? Are Class 7 price s established by the CMSMC, the  CDC, or some 
other "Commission "?  
g. What Canadian milk class prices are currently based on world prices?  
i. Are Classes 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(d) prices, based on world prices?  
ii. Are the formulas or meth odologies used to set these classes ' prices the same as the 
formula or methodology used to set Class 7 's prices? If not, please also provide and 
explain the exact formula or methodology used.  
h. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "The provincial milk mark eting boards are 
currently in the process of implementing milk class 7 through their respective regulatory 
processes. Some of these processes are currently available publically on  provincial 
government websites ". The United States has identified the BC Mil k Marketing Board 
Notice to Industry dated 1 February 2017 and the Alberta Milk Directive No. 23017 -100 
dated 31 January 2017, which were available on provincial milk marketing board 
websites, but appear to have been removed. The United States has also ide ntified Dairy 
Farmers of Prince Edward  Island Board Orders DFPEI 2017 -02, DFPEI 2017 -04, DFPEI 
2017-05, DFPEI 2017 -06; Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2017, 13/2017; and Saskatchewan Order 
No. 28/17.  
i. The United States understands Class 7 became effective 1 February 2 017. Which 
provincial milk marketing boards have finished "the process of implementing milk 
class 7 through their respective regulatory processes " at this time?  
ii. Please provide each province 's notice, directive, or other document implementing 
Class 7 or a link to a website where such document can be found.  
iii. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that administrative procedures for Class 7 "will be 
made available through provincial milk marketing boards and the Canadian Dairy 
Commission once it is complete and in e ffect." Since Class 7 appears to be 
implemented in all provinces, please explain where the CDC has made this 
information publically available.  
i. In Appendix B of Directive No. 2017 -100, Milk Pricing Methodology from Alberta Milk, 
published on 31 January 201 7, Alberta Milk describes a proposed Centralized National 
Registration System. In Appendix C of the same Directive, Alberta Milk describes the 
establishment of a Provincial Billing Mechanisms Certification Program by the CDC.  
i. Has the CDC finished developi ng the National Registration System and/or the 
Provincial Billing Mechanisms Certification Program?  
ii. Is the CDC administering the National Registration System and/or the Provincial 
Billing Mechanisms Certification Program at this time and if so, where can 
information about the system be found?  
iii. If the CDC has not completed developing or implementing the National Registration 
System and/or the Provincial Billing Mechanisms Certification Program, when does 
the CDC anticipate doing so?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 16 - 
 
  j. Schedule 4.1 of the BC Milk Marketing Board Notice to Industry dated 1 February 2017, 
sets out Within -Class End -Use Price Adjustments. For example, Class 2(a) has an 
adjusted price of "70% of Protein priced at Class 2(a) price and 30% of protein priced at 
Class 7 Price. " The Not ice also provides that "Billing ratios are calculated and applied on 
the total milk protein contained in the vat from all sources – fresh milk, domestic milk 
protein ingredients, and imported milk protein ingredients. "  
i. Can any of the fresh milk in a proce ssor's vat be imported fresh milk or must all of 
the fresh milk in a vat be solely domestic fresh milk?  
ii. Does the presence of imported fresh milk or imported milk protein ingredients in the 
vat affect whether and to what extent domestic milk protein ingred ients are priced at 
Class 7 price?  
iii. Does the presence of imported fresh milk or imported milk protein ingredients in the 
vat incur a charge when the provincial milk marketing board bills processors?  
k. The Special Milk Class Permit Program notice, publ ished by the CDC on 
17 February  2017, footnote 1 states that "Eligibility of liquid [for Class 7] is subject to 
specific rules. "  
i. Please provide a copy of these rules or a website where these rules are publically 
available.  
ii. If a copy is not available, please ex plain the content of these rules and any 
requirements, terms, or conditions these rules set out.  
l. How is the total volume of Canada 's production quota for industrial milk established?  
i. Please provide the statute, law, agreement, or other document setting o ut how the 
total volume of Canada 's production quota for industrial milk is established, or a link 
to a website where such document may be found.  
ii. Has production quota for industrial milk increased in the last ten years, and if so, by 
how much?  
iii. Over the l ast ten years, how much of the production quota each year is attributable 
to planned exports?  
m. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "The use of milk and milk components by 
processors is billed on a retroactive basis, therefore there is no such thing as un used 
components. Processors can use milk class 7 ingredients for processing other dairy 
products or sell them on the marketplace. " 
i. Are the only two options available to processors: 1) to process Class 7 ingredients 
into other dairy products, and 2) sell th em on the marketplace?  
ii. Are processors allowed to store Class 7 ingredients or simply dispose of Class  7 
ingredients? If so, what milk class price is applicable for such end uses?  
n. Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -04 para. 6 spe cifies: 
Class 7 Prices apply to: (a) milk components utilized in products classified in class  7 that 
are sold as finished products; (b) milk components utilized in products sold as 
ingredients for use in the manufacture of non -dairy food products; (c) milk  components 
utilized in the manufacture of animal feed; and (d) milk components utilized as 
ingredients in dairy products classified in other classes by the Canadian Harmonized Milk 
Classification System, on a skim milk equivalent basis and within the limi ts imposed by 
HBR. Is the above the case in all provinces?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 17 - 
 
  o. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "Milk class 4(m) will be revoked once milk Class 
7 is implemented by all provinces ". The CDC has not published class 4(m) prices on 
www.milkingredients.ca for  time periods after 1 February 2017.  
i. Has Class 4(m) been revoked in all provinces?  
ii. If not, what is the status of Class 4(m) in each province?  
iii. Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -06 para.  22 
describes Class 4(m). Does this mean C lass 4(m) is not revoked in Prince Edward 
Island?  
iv. Saskatchewan Order No. 28/17 para. 1(s) describes Class 4(m). Does this mean 
Class 4(m) is not revoked in Saskatchewan?  
p. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "Canada understands that milk class 6 will be 
revoked upon full implementation of milk class 7 in Ontario. " Is Ontario milk class 6 
revoked at this time? 17. Canada states in AGIMS 83039 in regards to Class 7 that "A 
full list of the eligible products will be posted on the Canadian Dairy Commission 
website".  
i. Is this list available? If so, where?  
ii. Is this list identical to the list included in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island 
Board Order DFPEI 2017 -06, Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2017, and Saskatchewan 
Order  No. 28/17 (below)?  
Class 7 - Eligible componen ts, products and ingredients: (a) skim milk components in 
liquid and dry form, in any concentration, derived by any process, including MPC and 
MPI(1); (b) skim -milk powder; (c) whole milk powder(2); (d) edible casein and edible 
caseinate powders(3); (e) yo gurt powders, sour cream powders, and partly -skimmed 
milk powder and blended milk powders with a maximum fat content of 4%; and 
(f) rennet casein (dry or curd) used in the manufacture of non -standardized final 
products in the processed cheese category(4).  
q. In Directive No. 2017 -100, Milk Pricing Methodology from Alberta Milk, published on 
31 January 2017, Alberta Milk included "Dairy Product Billing Ratios " which provide a 
breakdown by each sub -class (e.g., 1(a), 1(b), etc.) of the percentage of the protein  
price that will be billed at the end -use class price and the percentage that can be billed 
at "ingredient class " price. For example, under  class 3(b), it appears that 83%  of 
domestic protein derived from fluid milk would be billed at class 3(b) prices, an d no 
more than 17% of domestic protein derived from Class 7 eligible components, products 
and ingredients would be billed at the discounted "ingredient class "/Class 7 price.  
i. Is this interpretation of the Dairy Product Billing Ratios correct?  
ii. In reference  to the example above, could processors get "ingredient class "/Class  7 
prices for 17% of domestic protein ingredients if some or all of the other protein was 
derived from imported fluid milk or imported protein ingredients?  
iii. Does use of imported fluid milk  or imported protein ingredients incur a charge when 
the provincial milk marketing board bills processors?  
r. The United States notes that Canada 's exports of skim milk powder (040210) have 
noticeably grown since the implementation of the new class programs.  Since the 
introduction of modified Class 4(m) in May 2016, average monthly exports of skim milk 
powder from Canada have more than doubled in terms of volume. According to publically 
available statistics provided by Statistics Canada, skim milk powder expo rts in the 
months of February and March of 2017 were 2,206 and 4,323 MTs respectively. In March 
2017, Canada exported its highest level of skim milk powder in years, almost 300% 
greater than March 2016.  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 18 - 
 
  i. Please confirm that these statistics are correct.  
ii. How does Canada explain this abrupt increase in exports?  
s. The United States asked in AG -IMS ID 83039 for clarification on transactions between 
companies involving Class 7 in liquid form. Canada responded that "industry discussions 
on the future parameters f or transactions betw een milk buyers involving class  7 
ingredients in liquid form are not yet concluded ". 
i. Have industry discussions concluded?  
ii. Are the CDC, CMSMC, and/or provincial milk marketing boards involved in this 
discussion or potentially in impleme ntation of any procedures involving transactions 
of Class 7 ingredients in liquid form?  
iii. Can Canada provide a response to the U.S. question: Does this mean that a 
registered food/further processor would be limited to buying 10,000 liters per month 
of liqui d milk ingredients at Class 7 price, but there would not be a limit on how 
much Class 7 liquid milk ingredients a processor could purchase if the products were 
being exported? If so, what is the policy justification?  
t. Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2017 para. 3 refer s to a "Harmonized Billing Mechanism ". Please 
provide a copy of the Harmonized Billing Mechanism or a link to a website where it can 
be found.  
u. Nova Scotia Reg. 13/2017 para. 2 refers to "the National Ingredients Strategy adopted 
by the Canadian Milk Suppl y Management Committee and the P5 Supervisory Body ". 
Please provide a copy of the National Ingredients Strategy or a link to a website where it 
can be found.  
v. In Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board O rder DFPEI 2017 -04 Paras . 1 and  2(f) 
refer to "a harmonized billing mechanism " Para 2(l) refers to "Milk Utilization Standards " 
Para. 5 refers to "Harmonized billing ratios " and a "Milk Utilization Reporting Manual " 
Please provide copies of all of the above or a link to a website where they can be found.   
w. Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -05 para. 3 refers to 
"DFPEI Price Determination Order " and "DFPEI Price Application Order ". Please provide 
copied of both or a link to a website where they can be found.  
x. Canada states in AG -IMS ID 83039 that "There are no limits on the amount of butter or 
skim milk powder that can be purchased through the Domestic Seasonality Program ".  
i. Given that there are no limits on the amount of butter or skim milk powder that can 
be purchased, all butter and skim milk powder production should be considered 
eligible for the purposes of the market price support calculation in supporting 
table DS:5. When will Canada revise its market price support calculations to reflect 
the full amount of production that is eligible to receive the applied administered 
price?  
1.18  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84017)  
Australia understands that imported wine landing in British Columbia must go through the BC 
Liquor Distribution Branch (BCLDB) and is sub ject to a range of mark -ups, fees and taxes 
(particularly the BCLDB "mark -up" of 123%) whereas BC wineries are permitted to "direct deliver" 
wine to customers (individuals, private stores, restaurants, etc.) and are therefore exempt from 
the mark -up applie d to imports. This raises questions about whether the regulations are consistent 
with Canada's obligations under Article III:1 of the GATT 1994. If BC products are exempt from 
the mark -up but imported products are not, what are the policy considerations or  goals behind this 
exemption?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 19 - 
 
   
1.18.2   Question by European Union and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 84106 and 84033)  
New Zealand remains concerned about the diversity and complexity of Canada 's provincial wine 
sale regulations, including those of Ontario, Quebec and Brit ish Columbia, which differentiate 
imported wines from domestic wines. In light of the diversity and complexity of Canada 's provincial 
wine sale regulations, and since the Canadian Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act gives 
Canada 's provinces responsibil ity for wine importation, distribution and sales of alcohol:  
  
a. What steps does the Federal government take to ensure provincial regulations are non -
discriminatory, consistent with Canada 's WTO obligations?  
b. Provide the Committee the results of any assessm ents of the impact of provincial 
regulations on imported wines as opposed to domestic wines undertaken by the Federal 
government?  
1.18.3   Question by United States of America and New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 84105  and 
84112 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 83041, Canada notes that it is consulting with Ontario on the question of whether 
imported and domestic Vintages products are allowed to be sold through grocery store channels.  
  
a. Does Canada hav e an update on this question?  
b. If domestic products are allowed but imported products are no t, what is the justification?  
In AG -IMS ID 83041, Canada references the Quebec Act Respecting the Société des alcools du 
Québec, Division III. Division III, paragraph (3) states that: "The holder of a small -scale 
production permit…may also sell and delive r the alcoholic beverages he makes to the holder of a 
grocery permit issued under the Act respecting liquor permits, if the beverages meet the following 
conditions… ", but the Quebec Act Respecting the Société des alcools du Québec, Division III does 
not pr ovide any information about the mark -ups that small -scale producers selling to grocery 
stores would or would not have to pay.  
  
c. Can the United States assume that Quebec small -scale producers are able to bypass the 
liquor board mark -ups since they appear t o be able to bypass liquor boards?  
1.19  Canada's tariff -rate quota for cheese and domestic support  
1.19.1   Question by United States of America and New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 84108  and 
84110 ) 
Can Canada provide an update on the implementation of the Canada -EU Comprehensiv e Economic 
and Trade Agreement (CETA) regarding the re allocation of 800 MT of the WTO  cheese TRQ to the 
EU and an update on the allocation of the $350 million in domestic support that was announced in 
anticipation of CETA?  
 
1.20  India's wheat stocks  
1.20.1   Question b y Australia (AG -IMS ID 84041)  
According to the Food Corporation of India, state wise procurement of wheat in India has already 
surpassed 28 million tonnes as of 16 M ay 2017,  compared with the procurement of 22.9  million 
tonnes over the entire 2016 -2017 sea son. Given that allotments made to implement the National 
Food Security Act and other food security related programmes only total 24.2 million tonnes of 
wheat for the 2017 -2018 year, and media reporting suggests that buffer stocks are returning to 
mandated  buffer stock norms, can India answer the following questions:  
a. Has the Indian government placed any limits on the amount of wheat that will be 
procured in 2017 -18?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 20 - 
 
  b. If not, how will the Indian government dispose of this supplementary wheat? Will this 
wheat be classified as operational stocks or food security reserves?  
c. How will the Indian government ensure that stocks held for food security purposes are 
not sold on world markets?  
In 2016 -2017, the Food Corporation of India sold 4.5 million tonnes of wheat  procured for food 
security purposes to private traders under the Open Market Sales System (OMSS). Can India 
provide the following information:  
d. The price that w heat is sold for under the OMSS.  
e. How that price compares to the cost paid by FCI?  
f. How the pric e of wheat sold under the OMSS compares to domestic Indian prices for 
wheat sold on the private market?  
g. Does India place any end -use restrictions on wheat purchased under the OMSS?  
h. Does India place any restrictions on private traders which purchase wheat  under the 
OMSS from exporting that wheat?  
i. Does India intend to offer wheat for auction under the OMSS in 2017 -2018?  
j. Have any sales of wheat been made under the OMSS to date in the 
2017-2018 Marketing Year, and what qu antity of wheat has been sold?  
1.20.2   Ques tion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84072)  
The United States would like to reiterate the questions in AG -IMS ID 83042, India did not provide 
a response, which itself was a repeat of AG -IMS ID 74048. The United States also notes that in 
AG-IMS ID 83 106, Australia has shown a graph (available in G/AG/W/160) that the world price for 
wheat has steadily declined since mid -2014 to USD 146 per metric tonne and also that for the 
same period Food Corporation of India (FCI) procurement prices were well above world prices, 
steadily increasing to USD 320 per metric tonne. With this additional information in reference, the 
United States repeats its question, AG -IMS ID 83042.  
 
In the question, the United States details the estimated handling and transport costs of  the wheat 
India exported from government -held stocks procured under its market price support program in 
2013. India responded that because the tender process was on -going, other details of the cost 
cannot be provided because of commercial consideration. N ow that the tender process is complete, 
please confirm the accuracy of the U.S. calculations.  
 
Furthermore, while question AG -IMS ID 74048 concerned wheat exported in 2013, India indicated 
in response to a question from Australia in the Working Party on St ate Trading Enterprises 
(G/STR/Q1/IND/11) that in 2014/15 an additional 3.2 million ton nes of wheat were exported from 
government stocks.  
 
a. Please provide the information related to those exports, including any subsidy afforded.  
The United States has calcu lated the cost to the government of India of exported wheat as follows, 
using information provided by India and applying it to a delivery from Karnal, Haryana, to Kandla 
port as an example. The United States has also used the following information derived from 
"Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Storage Management and Movement of 
Food Grains in Food Corporation of India, Report No 7 of 2013". The report states that:  
 
"Statutory charges include mandi charges (Market fee, Dami/Arhatia Commission, 
Rural Development Cess, Auction fee), purchase/trade tax and gunny costs. Statutory 
charges (except gunny cost) are levied by the State Governments as a fixed 
percentage of the MSP. Non -statutory charges include mandi labour, transportation G/AG/W/163  
 
- 21 - 
 
  costs, driage losses, custody and maintenance charges, interest and milling charges, 
etc. 
Mandi labour charges ranged from rupees 9.47 per quintal to rupees 14.09 per quintal 
in respect of wheat in major procuring states (Punjab, Haryana, UP and MP) during 
the period 2006 -07 to 2011 -12. 
Transportation and handling charges ranged from rupees 11.83 per quintal to rupees 
27.98 per quintal in respect of wheat in major procur ing states (Punjab, Haryana, 
UP and MP) during the period 2006 -07 to 2011 -12.These charges,  however, ranged 
from rupees 11.56 per quintal to rupees 17.97 per quintal in respect of Rajasthan 
during the same period."  
Table 1: Estimates for delivery of Haryana 2013 crop wheat to Ka ndla port in 50 -car unit 
trains  
Item  Rupees 
per metric 
tonne Dollars  
per metric 
tonne1 Source and comments  
Cost of wheat  13,500  221.31  IFY 2013/2014 minimum support price  
Storage charges  368.4  6.04 3.07 rupees/month/50 -kg bag at CWC warehouse Karnal  
Handling charges 
(mandi and 
warehouse labor)  301 4.93 Karnal CWC labor costs, 40 -45 rupees/metric ton ne per 
movement, times 4 movements (~170 rupees total), plus 
mandi labor costs per Haryana Sta te Agricultural Marketing 
Board2, 6.55 rupees per 50 kg. bag, or 131 rupees per 
metric ton ne 
Gunny cost  600 9.84 Price of jute bags  at Karnal, 30 rupees/bag times 20 bags 
per ton ne 
Administrative 
charges  334.68  5.49 http://fciweb.nic.in/finances/view/9 , Procurement 
incidentals, wheat  
Statutory taxes  1,417.5  23.24  Haryana tax rate of 10.5% times MSP, which includes 
market fees, marke t cess, VAT  
Rail transportation  1,486.08  24.36  http:// www.fois.indianrail.gov.in  
TOTAL  18,008  295.21   
1 Exchange rate 61 rupees per dollar.  
2 "Market charges (payable by the Buyer per unit for 50 kg)". See page 2 of Memo 
No ME(I) -A-III-2013/76955 -7706 dated 3 December 2013, http://hsamb.gov.in/notification.pdf . 
 
The United States notes that by this estimate, the cost of wheat ex FCI's warehouse in Kandl a may 
exceed the minimum export price established by India of $260 per metric tonne by $35.21.  
Table 2: Estimated the cost to India of a 30,000 metric ton ne shipment of FCI wheat 
exported from Pipava port following the tender that closed on 3 February 2014  
Item  Rupees 
per metric 
tonne Dollars per 
metric 
tonne1 Source and comments  
Cost of wheat  13,500  217.74  IFY 2013/2014 minimum support price  
Storage charges  368.4  5.94 3.07 rupees/month/50 -kg bag at CWC warehouse Karnal  
Handling charges 
(mandi and 
wareho use labor)  298 4.81 Ludhiana CWC labor costs, 40 -45 rupees/metric ton ne per 
movement, times 4 movements (~170 rupees total), plus 
11.80 rupees per quintal at the mandi per 
http://dfpd.nic.in/fcamin/policy/Punjab.pdf  
Gunny cost  646.8  10.44  64.68 rupees/qui ntal per 
http://dfpd.nic.in/fcamin/policy/Punjab.pdf  
Administrative 
charges  334.68  5.40 http://fciweb.nic.in/finances/view/9 , Procurement 
incidentals, wheat  
Statutory taxes  1,957.5  31.57  Punjab tax rate of 14.5% times MSP  
Rail transportation  1,841  29.69  http://www.fois.indianrail.gov.in/ , Ludhiana -Pipava  
TOTAL  18,946  305.59   
1 Exchange rate average of 62 rupees per dollar in February 2014.  
Note:  According to press reports, the price of that wheat as aw arded was $275.20/metric ton ne. The 
United States of America has assumed for purposes of this estimate that the wheat was of Punjabi 
origin and was shipped by 50 -car unit train ("50 ‑wagon rake") from Ludhiana.  
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 22 - 
 
  According to this estimate, this shipment of wheat was exported at a price $30.39 below the total 
cost to the Indian government. Please confirm the accuracy of these calculations. If they are 
incorrect, please explain how and provide a more accurate figure for the subsidy provided.  
 
1.21  India's support p rice for Rabi crops  
1.21.1   Question by United States of America (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 spec ific legislation or 
regulations that limit the eligibility of procurement of eligible product from all states.  
 
1.22  Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
1.22.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 84059)  
Noting that Thailand 's measures to limit imports of feed whea t to stabilize the domestic price of 
maize have now been in place for approximately six months, Australia seeks clarification as 
follows:  
 
a. What is the current status of the temporary measures?  
b. Has Thailand established a timeframe for when the temporary m easure will be removed?  
c. Why has Thailand not notified Members of its changes?  
d. Has the measure relieved the situation of corn oversupply to date, noting the measures 
have been in place for approximately six months?  
1.22.2   Question by United States of America (A G-IMS ID 84074)  
On 19 January 2017, Thailand instituted import permits for the import of feed wheat. It is the 
United States' understanding that in order to receive an import permit, importers must: 1) be feed 
mill owners, 2) demonstrate a three to one dom estic corn absorption rate (e.g., to import one 
tonne of wheat, a mill will have to use three ton nes of domestically -produced corn), and 3 ) not 
re-sell the imported feed wheat.  
 
The United States also understands that the regulation was developed as a res ult of a Thai Cabinet 
decision in 2016, and according to the Thai Ministry of Commerce, the objective is to regulate 
wheat imports to support corn producers through the stabilization of corn prices. The issue was 
raised at the March 2017 Committee on Agric ulture session. In response to questions about the 
measure, Thailand confirmed that importers are required to purchase domestically -produced corn 
in order to obtain an import permit to import feed wheat. Thailand also stated that that this was a 
temporary measure, which was put in place to relieve the situation of market oversupply of corn. 
However, for portions of the regulation, Thailand stated that it was slightly unprepared to answer 
questions and agreed to relay these concerns to the capital. The Unite d States respectfully 
requests answers/updates to the following questions originally posed at the March 2017 
Committee on Agriculture session:  
 
a. Please clarify whether under the new system, mill owners can be located in foreign 
countries or must have a phy sical presence in Thailand.  
b. The structure of Thailand's wheat import regime appears to require that the government 
maintain a balance of grains by controlling the ratio of domestically -produced corn to 
imported feed wheat used to produce feed by Thai feed  mills. Please explain how these 
requirements are consistent with Thailand's WTO obligations. The United States is 
concerned that this regime is designed to afford a preference to domestically -produced 
grains.  
c. Thailand's wheat import regime appears to rest rict the re -sale of imported feed wheat. Is 
the internal sale and/or distribution of feed wheat, corn, or other products also restricted G/AG/W/163  
 
- 23 - 
 
  for domestic products? Please explain how these requirements are consistent with 
Thailand's WTO obligations.  
d. The Unite d States understands from Thailand that this is a temporary measure. When 
does Thailand expect this measure to be revoked?  
1.23  Thailand's rice policies  
1.23.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 84103)  
The United States respectfully requests a complete response to the following questions originally 
posed at the March 2017 Committee on Agriculture meeting  (AG-IMS ID 83046) :  
 
On-Farm Rice Pledging Program  
 
Thailand's On -Farm Rice Pledging Program, which started in November 2016, currently includes 
pledgin g for up to 1 million metric tonnes (MMT) of white rice with an intervention price of 
200 USD/MT and 2 MMT of fragrant and glutinous rice with an intervention price of 270 USD/MT. 
According to the Ministry of Commerce, the programme received around 1 MMT o f paddy rice 
between November 2016 and February 2017, of which approximately 80% was fragrant paddy 
rice, with the remainder being glutinous paddy rice, Pathum fragrant paddy rice, and white paddy 
rice. 
 
a. Please confirm the prices used and quantities procur ed by the government of each type 
of rice under this programme.  
b. Are there any plans to extend or modify the pledging programme? If so, are there plans 
to increase the eligible quantity of rice or the intervention price of rice under the 
programme?  
Intere st Rate Subsidy Program  
 
Thailand's Interest Rate Subsidy Program for rice millers, traders, and farmer institutions supports 
the production of white rice varieties.  
 
c. Besides the On -Farm Rice Pledging Program and the Interest Rate Subsidy Program, are 
there any other rice support programmes in place that benefit white rice? Does the 
government of Thailand have any plans to implement new programmes that would 
include support for white rice?  
d. Please provide details on any other programmes that are currently in place or that are 
expected to be implemented that would include white rice.  
1.24  U.S. Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO)  
1.24.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84055)  
According to a 1953 Wisconsin State Law, the sale of butter is prohibited without either a 
Wiscons in or Federal Grade Mark ( https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/97/II/176 ). 
According to several news articles, the KerryGold brand of butter produced in Ireland has  been 
pulled off store shelves as it does not meet the conditions of the Law. However, consumers can 
still purchase this brand of butter in Nebraska and Illinois.  
 
a. What is the objective of the current butter laws in Wisconsin?  
b. Could the United States  please describe why butter laws in Nebraska and Illinois are 
different from Wisconsin? Are they not pursuing the same objective?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.24.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84056)  
According to the Wisconsin State Journal: "the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade an d 
Consumer Protection Secretary Ben Brancel and New York Agriculture Commissioner Richard Ball 
wrote to USDA Acting Deputy Secretary Mich ael Young on Friday (7 April 2017) seeking assistance 
for their states ' dairy farmers. They want the USDA to buy cheese  and butter in storage to 
distribute in its nutritional aid programs, including food banks and the school lunch program. " 
(http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/wisconsin -new-york-seek-usda-aid-for-dairy-farmers -
impacted/article_dac02e88 -e923-51ba-8082-b0b3ecf4746a.html ). Canada notes that this would 
call for cheese purchases under the USDA Sectio n 32 of the Agriculture Act of 1935.  
 
a. Could the United States  please confirm if the USDA is planning to purchase cheese 
and/or butter from processors in Wisconsin and New York, or other states in the Upper 
Midwest, Mideast and/or Northeast Federal Milk Ma rketing Order (FMMO)?  
b. In 2016, the United States  made two purchases of cheese using Section 32 of the 
Agriculture Act of 1935. Were the last two purchases procured from processors/handlers 
in the Upper Midwest, Mideast and/or Northeast FMMO? If so, from w hich states in 
particular?  
1.24.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 84064)  
According to an article in the Wisconsin State Farmer, (2017 -04-25) entitled "Don't Blame Canada 
for Dairy Woes, Look Around " 
(http://206.75.155.11/Agcan/m.endbbsummaries.asp?articleId=/agcan/products/news/f0042110.
htm), "heavy volumes of cheap, out -of-state milk are invading Wisconsin — at prices several 
dollars under the Class III (ch eese) milk price, delivered. Dozens of trailer loads of out -of-state 
milk have arrived in Wisconsin every day this spring. USDA 's Dairy Market News reports each week 
discounted prices at which out -of-state milk is delivered to Wisconsin dairy plants. Right  now, 
depending upon the day of the week, out -of-state milk is priced at $2.00 to $5.00/cwt. below the 
monthly federal milk order value. Annual contracts for Michigan milk are being offered to 
Wisconsin cheese plants are prices of $2.00/cwt. Below th e Clas s III (cheese) milk price ". 
  
As Wisconsin and Michigan (as well as presumably the other out -of-state milk references) are 
under Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO), could the United States explain how and why the 
price being paid by processors/handlers i s below the minimum FMMO price in the cases listed in 
the article above? Are the producers not receiving minimum prices for their milk?  
 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  
2.1.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/82, G/AG/N/THA/84)  
AG-IMS ID 84102: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States welcomes Thailand 's timely notification of tariff -rate quota (TRQ) administration 
measures and imports within the TR Qs. Does the Government of Thailand have any domestic 
purchase requirements as a condition for importers to receive permission to import under tariff -
rate quotas for soybeans, soybean meal, fresh potatoes, and non -fat dry milk? If so, please 
provide a copy  of the written measure and describe how the requirements are administered.  
 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/37)  
AG-IMS ID 84053: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that based on the  European Union's Table MA:2 Notification (G/AG/N/EU/37), many 
of its TRQs have reported low fill rates. What steps and changes to TRQ administration is the 
European Union envisioning to ensure that quota fill is maximised, including simplifying quota 
procedures?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 25 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 84101: Question by Guatemala - Tariff quota fill  
According to the EU notification of TRQ G/AG/N/EU/37, most of the TRQ's have not been fully 
used. What is the reason of this situation?  
 
2.2.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/210)  
AG-IMS ID 84052: Question by  European Union - Other  
Japan's dairy TRQs in recent years have had a low fill rate, e.g. SMP fill rates are respectively 
27,3%, 27%, 25,2% and 25% for 2012 to 2015, and butter fill rates respectively 28,6%, 20,5%, 
25% and 29% for 2012 to 2015.  
 
The Europe an Union thanks Japan for its reply at the June 2016 meeting to questions from the 
European Union  on Japan's notification G/AG/N/JPN/210 of 7 March 2016 covering fiscal 
year 2014. Taking into account the reasons given for such low fill rates (very restrict ive scope for 
the use of these products) which is producing the same negative effect in fiscal year 2015, the 
European Union  suggests to Japan to eliminate the restrictions asso ciated with these imports, 
i.e. eliminate the requirement that they be destined  for school lunch and for other purposes 
requirements for SMP and consumption by international airlines, international trade fairs and other 
specialized purposes for butter/buttermilk.  
 
2.2.3   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/102/CORR.1)  
AG-IMS ID 84100: Ques tion by Guatemala - Tariff quota fill  
The U.S. notification, G/AG/N/USA/102/Corr.1, in relation of imports under tariff quotas. We 
noticed that  for "Raw Cane Sugar " the quota fill for the year 2013 is 53.7%. Based on the 
U.S. notification for the year 2012  G/AG/N/USA/94, the quota fill was of 113%. What is the reason 
for this low fill rate and the difference in comparison with the previous year?  
 
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/36)  
AG-IMS ID 84099: Question by United States o f America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In AG -IMS ID 83049 Argentina indicated that two programmes, Support Programme for Small and 
Medium -Sized producers (PAPYM) and the Agricultural Social Programme (PSA), ceased to function 
independently in 2013 and were merged into a single programme, the Inclusion and Rural 
Development Programme (PIDER), in 2013. All of these measures, as the United States 
understands Argentina 's response, operate under a broader unidentified policy that had been 
impleme nted for years.  
 
a. To increase transparency, could Argentina provide information regarding this and any 
other unidentified policy in its Table DS:2 notification, which is intended to report new or 
modified measures to this Committee.  
b. To help Members better  understand Argentina 's policies, until a Table DS:2 notification is 
submitted, please describe how the PIDER programme is implemented and explain the 
broader policy context for all three identified measures notified.  
2.3.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/41, G/AG/N/BRA/40,  G/AG/N/BRA/32)  
AG-IMS ID 84051: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The European Union thanks Brazil for its reply to the EU question on  Brazil's notifications 
G/AG/N/BRA/41, G/AG/N/BRA/40  and G/AG/N/BRA/32 in the conte xt of the 83rd meeting of the 
Committee. Based on the explanations provided by Brazil, the European Union would like to ask 
the following follow -up questions:  
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 26 - 
 
  a. Has Brazil notified or does Brazil intend to notify to the WTO the use of BRL  528 million 
which has been disbursed by IBA as support for projects in the cotton sector?  
b. Brazil explains that 81.5% of the remaining amount of BRL 1,619 million was put into 
investment funds. How has the remaining 18.5% of the BRL 1,619 million been spent?  
c. Brazil explained  that the amount placed into the BR Partners Investment Fund was 
BRL 870 million. According to our understanding BRL 449.485 ((1,619 *  81,5%) – 870) 
was put to other investment funds, could Brazil confirm and if so provide further details?  
d. Are financing d ecisions of the BR Partners Investment Fund in any way directed by the 
Brazilian government? Is the financing of the cotton sector in any way prioriti zed in the 
investments of the BR Partners Investment Fund?  
2.3.3   Burundi (G/AG/N/BDI/9)  
AG-IMS ID 84049: Questio n by European Union - Transpar ency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union would recognize the efforts made by Burundi to fulfil its notification 
obligations.  
 
The European Union notes that the notification for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 indic ates that 
Burundi did not grant any subsidies to its farmers or the agricultural sector. Can Burundi confirm 
that n o Green Box or Article 6. 2 (interest and input) subsidies were granted to farmers and the 
agricultural sector within Burundi?  
AG-IMS ID 84097 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Burundi has notified that it has provided no agricultural domestic support since 2009. It is the 
United States ' understanding that the National Fertilizer Subsidy Programme  was introduced in 
2012, which subsidizes the price of fertilizer. According  to the Second Vice -President of Burundi, 
the government would be allocating funds to facilitate the programme during the period covered 
by this notification and the result of the subsidy programme was "a significant increase in crop 
production… such as maize ".  
 
a. Please provide more details with regards to the implementation of this programme and 
whether the programme has since been expanded to other inputs.  
b. Will Burundi be providi ng updated Table DS:1 and Table DS:2 domestic support 
notifications to reflect this measure?  
2.3.4   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/34)  
AG-IMS ID 84098: Question by United States of America - Negative support amounts  
In response to AG -IMS ID 83083, the European Union stated that the negative level of support 
notified was not taken into account in the Current Total AMS. The United States fully agrees that 
negative amounts are not taken into account in the Current Total AMS, as they fall below the de 
minimis level. Howev er, this is not the concern raised by the United States; the U.S. concern is 
that the negative product -specific support notified by the European Union in column  2 of 
Supporting Table DS:4 gives the indication that there was a negative benefit, tax, or othe r cost 
born by beef producers.  
  
Please indicate how the negative market price support for beef notified by the European Union was 
a negative benefit, tax, or other cost born by beef producers, resulting in the negation of actual 
support provided.  
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.3.5   Gabon  (G/AG/N/GAB/7)  
AG-IMS ID 84077: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States understands from this notification that no support of any kind was provided to 
agricultural producers from 2013 -2016. Howev er, the United States also understands Gabon 
introduced the "Gabon des Réalisations Agricoles et des Initiatives des Nationaux Engages 
(GRAINE)" programme in 2014, which is co -funded by the Government of Gabon. The programme 
appears to have different compo nents, such as initiatives aimed at encouraging new farmers, loan 
repayment schemes for land acquisitions, development of cooperatives and related activities, and 
promoting mechanization. The United States also notes the Government of Gabon co -funds the 
"Projet de Dé veloppement et d 'Investissement Agricole au Gabon (PRODIAG)", which was 
launched in 2011, and has a stated goal of promoting commercialization of peri -urban agriculture 
and supporting higher crop production through cooperatives and develop husb andry, such as 
poultry and pigs. These programmes appear to play an important role in developing Gabon 's 
agricultural sector, and the g overnment of Gabon should be recognized for these efforts in this 
Committee.  
  
a. Please provide details of the g overnment 's role in these and any other programmes fu lly 
or partially funded by the g overnment of Gabon.  
b. Please explain how these and any other identified programmes are implemented and the 
basis for not including these in Gabon 's domestic support notification.  
c.  Will Gabon be amending its most recent DS:1 and DS:2 domestic support notifications 
to account for these measures?  
2.3.6   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/57)  
AG-IMS ID 84076: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In July 2016 the  Guatemala Ministry of Agriculture and Food introduced the Programa de 
Subvencion de Insumos Agropecuarios (PSIA), which is understood to provide small - and medium -
sized agricultural producers with cash coupons of a fixed value to purchase inputs (e.g., 
fungicides, seeds, fertilizer, etc.). It does not appear Guatemala has notified this programme in its 
2016 notification.  
  
a. Please provide further details as to how this programme is implemented and whether it 
was a one -time payment to eligible producers for  eligible inputs.  
b. Does the programme apply to production covered by Guatemala 's domestic support 
notification for 2016? If so, what is the basis for not notifying this programme (e.g., will 
it be covered in Guatemala 's 2017 notification)?  
2.3.7   Panama (G/AG/N/ PAN/41)  
AG-IMS ID 84040: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
Canada notes the following description of "Rehabilitation of other infrastructure under 
infrastructural services ": Rehabilitation and equipping of public infrastructur e with a view to 
providing producer support, e.g. cleaning and adaptation of silos and cold -storage facilities to help 
producers with produce storage, and provision of other agro -industrial services (storage, drying, 
milling, packing, etc.) and a cold chai n.  
  
a. Could Panama provide additional information to clarify that this support meets the 
criteria of paragraph 2(g), Annex 2 in that no support was provided for on -farm facilities 
other than for the reticulation of generally available public utilities?  
b. Canada notes that there has been a 206% increase in support in 2016 compared to 
2015. Could Panama elaborate on the types of proje cts that have been supported 
in 2016?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 84045: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistanc e provided through investment aids  
Australia thanks Panama for its 2016 domestic support notification. Australia has previously raised 
questions about Panama's programme termed the "Incentive programme for the domestic 
production of grain and other crops".  Can Panama confirm that this programme continues to have 
"no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production", and provide evidence to 
this effect? Can Panama provide an update on the current and future status of this programme; 
with the Table DS :2 notification (G/AG/N/PAN/38) noting that the programme will be reviewed 'in 
the third year after its entry into force (1 May 2013)?  
AG-IMS ID 84042: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through i nvestment aids  
Canada notes that support for the "Incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and 
other crops " notified under "Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aid " 
decreased significantly (64%) between 2015 and 201 6. Panama's Table DS:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/PAN/38) notes that the programme will be reviewed after three years. Could Panama 
elaborate if the decrease in support is a result of the review or other factors?  
AG-IMS ID 84095: Question by United States of Am erica - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
Panama has notified 'Incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and other crops ' 
as a 'structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aid .' In response to 
AG-IMS ID 80076 and AG-IMS ID 80067 Panama stated that payments under the programme that 
are paid "per harvested quintal for farmers with yields higher than those established in Law " or 
"per each additional hectare under crops " are one -off payments for each occasion the incentive 
applies. In the example given, Panama states "producers may receive the bonus for each 
additional hectare under crops in 2016 if they have in fact increased their planted area; but this 
does not mean that if they increase that area again in 2017, they are not entitled to receive the 
bonus with respect to the additional area under crops for that year. "  
 
a. To clarify the example provided, does this mean that each farmer is only eligible for 
payment once under this mea sure if they add additional area for any of the covered 
commodities?  
b. Given that payments are in fact "related to, or based on, the type or volume of 
production undertaken by the producer in any year after the base period " how does this 
programme meet the criteria of paragraph 11 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
In response to AG -IMS ID 82018 Panama goes on to explain that the programme is not designed 
to increase production, but rather incentivize improved production t echniques and in response to 
AG-IMS ID 80067 Panama states producers would be expected to make certain types of 
investments, including those listed in the response, to receive the payment.  
 
c. How does Panama ensure producers are making the expected investments?  
d. Please explain the b asis for using the established seemingly indirect determinants of 
payments rather than directly incentivizing the use of modern technology and 
techniques.  
e. Please provide any other information that would help Members better understand the 
implementation of  this measure in the context of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 84039: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS: 6. Canada notes that there has been a change in how Panama records direct 
payments to rice, maize and m ilk. They are reported under total price -related direct payments 
(column 7) in 2016 but in 2015 these products were reported as other non -exempt direct 
payments (column 8). Could Panama elaborate on any policy or programme changes that may 
have occurred in  2016 which would account for this change in reporting?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 84043: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia notes the large rise in product -specific support for rice, maize and milk in 2016. Can 
Panama provide the prices rece ived by farmers for these products?  
 
2.3.8   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/11)  
AG-IMS ID 84038: Question by European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
During the 83rd meeting of the Committee, the Russia n Federation  made a preliminary reply to 
question AG-IMS ID 83022. Could the Russia n Federation  provide the more detailed information as 
indicated in Russia's  preliminary reply?  
AG-IMS ID 84093: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States is following up on the reply to AG -IMS ID 80046, in regards to the Russian 
Federation 's new decoupled support programme benefitting grain producers. Beginning on 
1 January 2013, the Russian Federation implemented a new "decoupled support" programme to 
benefit  grain producers. The programme was part of the State Programme for the Development of 
Agriculture and Regulation of Agricultural Commodities Markets in 2013 -2020 (Government 
Resolution No. 717 of 14 July 2012), as amended in 2014 (Government Resolution No . 315 of 
15 April 2014). Beginning with the 2013 Table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/RUS/9), the Russian 
Federation included USD 1.2 billion in decoupled income support (combined federal and sub -
federal amount) under the category of decoupled income support (p oint d)) in supporting table 
DS:1. In its 2014 notification (G/AG/N/RUS/13), the Russian Federation notified a total of 
USD 907 million under this category and in its 2015 notification (G/AG/N/RUS/11) it notified 
USD 512 million. In the Russian Federation 's reply to AG -IMS ID 80046, it stated that "In the 
payment calculation the Russian Federation takes into account the income indicator of all 
agricultural producers, which are determined by the objective conditions of farm management. In 
order to access the  state support there is a requirement to be in a compliance with the status of 
agricultural producer and having in a disposal a piece of land for sowing. "  
  
a. 1. In the Russian Federation 's reply to AG -IMS ID 80046, it stated that a Table DS:2 
notification for this programme would be notified when it is ready. A Table DS:2 
notification has not yet been submitted. When does the Russian Federation expect to 
notify the programme?  
b. In the absence of the Table DS:2 notification, please explain what is meant by th e 
"income indicator " and elaborate upon how the income -based eligibility criteria are 
determined for payments as they relate to paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2.  
c. Please explain how the "requirement to be in a compliance with the status of agricultural 
producer a nd having in a disposal a piece of land for sowing " meets the requirements of 
paragraph 6(e) of Annex 2 that no production is required in order to receive such 
payments?  
AG-IMS ID 84094: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Accordin g to media reports, Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev signed a decree this March on 
the completion of public purchasing interventions totaling more than 9.1 billion rubles for 
954 thousand tonnes of grain, including wheat, corn, barley and rye from 23  provinces for the 
2016 grain harvest. Carryover stocks on January 1, 2017 amounted to more than 4.04 million 
tonnes as compared to 2.58 million tonnes of grain during the same period in 2016. During 2016, 
70 thousand tonnes of grain were sold from the pub lic intervention stocks and the government is 
considering selling up to 500 thousand tonnes of grain from the intervention stocks in 2017 in 
order to free storage under the new crop. Part of these public intervention stocks are being 
exported. The Russia n Federation  notified market price support for wheat, rye and barley in 2015.  
  
Please explain how the export prices of these public stocks relate to notified market price support 
levels. Are the exports being sold at a higher or lower price than the applie d administered prices 
for the procured grains?  
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.3.9   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/18 , G/AG/N/UKR/26  and G/AG/N/UKR/26/CORR.1)  
AG-IMS ID 84032: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Ukraine for providing its 2012 domestic support notificati on (G/AG/N/UKR/26). 
Australia notes that the correct methodology for calculating market price support, as written in 
paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has been utilized by Ukraine in 
supporting table DS.5. Australia continues to reque st that Ukraine revise its notifications for the 
years 2009 to 2011 using the Agreement on Agriculture 's prescribed methodology. Australia notes 
that Ukraine 's market price support for sugar beets has placed Ukraine in breach of its AMS 
commitments. We fur ther note that Ukraine is looking to rectify this issue through changes to its 
sugar market price support programme. Can Ukraine please provide information on what these 
changes entail and when they will take effect?  
AG-IMS ID 84028: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Regarding G/AG/N/UKR/26 , Canada appreciates Ukraine 's transparency in providing both adjusted 
and unadjusted data in its most recent domestic support notification. This information enables 
Members to review the notification while takin g Ukraine 's domestic situation into consideration. 
During the March 2014 meeting of the Committee Ukraine indicated that the Ministry of Agrarian 
Policy of Ukraine had prepared a draft law amending the regulations on the production and sale of 
sugar (AG -IMS ID 73024). The draft law is aimed at:  
  
 maintaining the productive capacity of the sugar industry;  
 formation of pro -market investment, credit and pricing policies for factory beets and sugar;  
 settling the issue of sale of sugar produced over quota "A" ;  
 preservation and improvement of the quoting mechanism for manufacturing and supplying 
on the domestic market of sugar (quota "A"); and  
 the abolition of minimum prices for sugar beets and sugar quotas "A".  
Could Ukraine give an update on the status of this proposed amendment in particular, the abolition 
of minimum prices for sugar beets and sugar quotas "A"?  
AG-IMS ID 84024: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Concerning Supporting Table DS:7  in G/AG/N/UKR/26 , in 2012, non -exempt direct  payments for 
fruits, berries and grapes, and hop have been reduced to 0 and replaced by product -specific 
budgetary outlays. Could Ukraine provide information on the changes that resulted in different 
type of support being provided to these products?  
AG-IMS ID 84026: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Concerning G/AG/N/UKR/26 , product -specific support for cattle reported in Supporting T able DS:4 
increased significantly going from Hrv 49.1 million in 2011 to Hrv 199.3 million in 2012. Suppo rt to 
cattle has noticeably fluctuated in previous years as well. Could Ukraine explain why product -
specific support for cattle varies so significantly from one year to the next?  
AG-IMS ID 84034: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
Canada notes that for Ukraine's 2011 Table DS: 1 notification (G /AG/N/UKR/18), the total of 
non-product -specific (NPS) support seems to differ from the sum of the NPS measure. The total 
amount reported was Hrv 12,280.3 million but the sum of all the NPS measures in thi s table is 
equal to Hrv 11,531.3 million (10.0 + 29.7 + 347.5 + 28.5 + 11,115.6 = 11,531.3). Supporting 
Table DS: 4 reports Hrv 12,280.3 million in total NPS support. Could Ukraine please explain this 
discrepancy?  
AG-IMS ID 84019: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
Regarding G/AG/N/UKR/26 , Canada notes there have been significant changes since 2011 to the 
list of programmes notified as non -product specific (Supporting Table DS: 9) in Ukraine 's most 
recent Table  DS:1 notification for 2012. In par ticular, Canada notes the addition of the following:  
  
 Partial reimbursement for the purchase of individual milking installati ons and tribal heifers 
and cows;  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 31 - 
 
   Planting and maintenance of young orcha rds, berry fields and vineyards.  
a. The descriptions of these  programmes seem to indicate that they provide support to 
specific commodities. Could Ukraine describe how these two programmes meet the 
criteria under Article 1 which states that non -product specific support is "provided in 
favour of agricultural producer s in general "?  
b. Could Ukraine provide details on how the "Planting and maintenance of young orchards, 
berry fields and vineyards notified as non -product spec ific in Supporting Table  DS:9 
differs from the programme entitled "State support for planting and m aintenance of 
young orchards, berry fields and vineyards " notified as other product -specific support in 
Supporting Table DS:7?  
c.  Canada notes that for the "State support for planting and maintenance of young 
orchards, berry fields and vineyards " notified i n Supporting Table DS: 7, "vineyards " was 
not included in the programme name in the 2011 notification. Is this a new programme 
or the result of a modification to an existing programme?  
AG-IMS ID 84085: Question by United States of America - Market price s upport  
Regarding G/AG/N/UKR/26 and  G/AG/N/UKR/26/CORR.1 , the United States would like to thank 
Ukraine for notifying its domestic support levels for the first time since joining the WTO showing 
the level of support without an inflation adjustment. The Unit ed States and other Members have 
repeatedly stressed the importance of notifying support without inflation adjustment so that the 
Members of this Committee are able to fully consider the effects of inflation on a Member 's 
commitments. The United States und erstands that sugar beet production is highly dependent on 
the pricing policy implemented by Ukraine due to the low level of profitability compared to other 
crops. Despite this, Ukraine has been regularly exporting sugar in recent years and exports in 
2016 were more than double the value in 2012, the year covered by this notification.  
  
What steps is Ukraine taking to bring its support into compliance with its commitments? Please 
include any updates  since Ukraine's response to AG -IMS ID 73024 r egarding dra ft legislation 
from April 2013.  
 
2.3.10   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/109)  
AG-IMS ID 84014: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union  thanks the Unite  States  for its reply to the EU question on the US notification 
in the 83rd meeting of the Committee. Based on the explanation provided by the United States, the 
European Union would like to ask a follow -up question. In its reply, the United States seems to 
argue that ARC -CO and PLC programmes are not specific to a commodity bec ause payments are 
made on historical base acres with no requirement to plant a particular commodity. Historical base 
acres however determine the area eligible for the payments which is only one of the elements in 
the payment formula. Besides the base acres , the payment to producer also depends on product -
specific payment rates. This is confirmed and explained in detail for example in the web -page of 
FSA, where payment rates for corn, soybean and wheat are listed: 
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs -and-services/arcplc_program/  . 
 
How does the United States see  different payment rates for corn, soybean and wheat producers as 
complying with the requirement that non -product specific A MS is provided in favour of agricultural 
producers in general?  
 
2.3.11   Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/10)  
AG-IMS ID 84086: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
a. Please provide details regarding how the measure "Veterinary Services,  Livestock 
Development " is implemented. In addition, please describe what criteria are applied to 
determine the beneficiaries of the programme.  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 32 - 
 
  b. In this notification Zambia notified "Rural invest fund ", "Irrigation development fund ", 
"Rural finance ", and "cooperative finance " all as 'structural adjustment ' measures under 
Supporting Table DS:1. These measures were notified as "investment subsidies generally 
available to the agriculture sector " under Supporting Table DS:2 in Zambia 's previous 
notification G/A G/N/ZMB/8.  
i. Please describe what changes were made to these measures such that they now 
qualify as green box.  
ii. When will Zambia be submitting Table  DS:2 notifications notifying the Committee of 
these changes.  
c. The United States would like to thank Zambia f or updating the formatting of its 
Supporting Table DS:1 notification. This formatting appears to have resulted in a 
number of measures being reclassified as different types of measures rather than just 
'General services. ' Please confirm that there were no changes to the implementation of 
these measures that have been reclassified.  
AG-IMS ID 84087: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
a. Please provide details a regarding how the Farmer Input  Support Programme is 
implemented. In addition please detail how farmers are determined to be eligible 
beneficiaries of this measure.  
b. Please provide the monetary value for the Farmer Input Support Programme for 2013.  
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEAS URES  (DS:2)  
2.4.1   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/110)  
AG-IMS ID 84013: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that in the response to New Zealand 's question ( AG-IMS ID 83061) on the Dairy 
Product Donation Program the U nited States indicated that it "has notified 2014 expenditures 
under these programs as appropriate in its recent DS:1 notification for 2014 ".  
  
a. Could the United States please explain where the expenditures under this programme 
can be found in the U.S. 201 4 domestic support notification (G/AG/N/USA/109)?  
b. Could the United States  provide the total outlays for this programme in 2014?  
c. Could the United States  specify which dairy products (e.g., cheese, butt er, etc.) were 
purchased/procur ed under the Dairy Prod uct Donation Program, and from which 
U.S. states?  
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications  (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 ) 
2.5.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/38)  
AG-IMS ID 84011: Question by Canada - Export subsidies subject to reduction 
commitments (Article 9.1)  
Canada notes th at in the European Union 's Table ES:1 and Table ES:2 Notification 
(G/AG/N/EU/38), the European Union notified the subsidized quantity of exports for sugar based 
on export licenses  issued.  
  
a. Can the European Union confirm when actual exportation of such su gar occurred?  
b. Was any sugar exported following the adoption of the December 19, 2015 Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition?  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.5.2   Malawi (G/AG/N/MWI/6)  
AG-IMS ID 84091: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Malawi 's recent notificatio n covers the year 2015/16 and 2016/17, but Malawi has not provided 
any notifications for the years 2012/13 through 2014/15 since its last notification G/AG/N/MWI/4, 
which covered the period ending 2011/12.  
 
a. Does Malawi intend to provide a notification for  the years not notified?  
According to the Malawi Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development 2016/17 
Financial Statement, it appears a number of agricultural support programm es may have been 
funded by the g overnment of Malawi during the period covered by this notification, including 
various infrastructure programmes, irrigation programmes, extension and advisory services, etc. 
These programmes appear to provide needed assistance to Malawi farmers and are aimed at 
helping develop the agricultural  sector.  
  
b. Please confirm whether these or any other agriculture support measures were 
implemented by the Government of Malawi during the period covered by this 
notification.  
c. If so, what is the basis for not notifying these measures?  
2.5.3   Switzerland (G/AG/N /CHE/79)  
AG-IMS ID 84010: Question by Australia - Other  
Australia thanks Switzerland for its notification for export subsidy commitments for 2015 which 
includes CHF 95.6 million in subsidized exports within a ceiling of CHF 114.9  million.  
 
a. What further pr ogress has Switzerland made on  the commitment made at the 
10th Ministerial Conference in Nairobi to eliminate export subsidy entitlements?  
b. How will the commitment be implemented?  
c. What legislative changes, or other action by Parliament, will this involve?   
d. What steps has Switzerland taken to ensure that it complies with the standstill 
commitment of the Ministerial Decision in the interim?  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
3.1.1   Malawi (G/AG/N/MWI/4)  
AG-IMS ID 84078: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 70039 in hopes of gaining a greater understanding of 
Malawi 's domestic support programmes: The United States of America greatl y appreciates Malawi 
updating its domestic support notifications.  
  
a. Please provide separate breakouts for fertilizer and seed subsidies, which are reported in 
aggregate in the notification.  
b. Please provide guidance as to how Malawi's policy defines "low -income or resource poor 
producers."  G/AG/W/163  
 
- 34 - 
 
  3.1.2   Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8)  
AG-IMS ID 84047: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The European Union  recognizes the efforts made by Mali to fulfil its notificat ion obligations. During 
the 83rd meeting of the Committee, Mali undertook to provide a response at a later stage to the 
question AG-IMS ID 83021. The European Union would welcome a reply to the question.  
AG-IMS ID 84096: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(includin g Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 83091 . The United States would like to note the steps 
taken by Mali over the past few years to bring its domestic support notifications up to date, and 
Mali's continued efforts to notify this Committee of  its measures on a regular basis. This step 
towards increased transparency is to be commended. The United States notes that Mali had a 
number of domestic support measures from 2004 to 2012 (see notification G/AG/N/MLI/2), some 
of which included seeds, fert ilizer, rural equipment; however, in subsequent years, 2014 and 2015 
in G/AG/N/MLI/7 and 2016 in G/AG/N/MLI/8, Mali notified no 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 o f crops including 
rice.  
 
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.  
3.1.3   Togo (G/AG/N/TGO/8)  
AG-IMS ID 84092: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The U nited S tates resubmits AG IMS ID 83094. The United States would like to recognize Togo for 
the steps taken in recent years to bring its notifications up to date.  
  
Togo has notified subsidies for fertilizers classified as meeting the criteria of Article 6 .2. Please 
explain how the fertilizer subsidy is implemented, how the monetary value notified is calculated, 
and how Togo defines "low-income or resource -poor producers. "  
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1.1   India  
AG-IMS ID 84090: Questio n by United States of America  
In AG -IMS ID 83100 India stated its notifications are under preparation and will be notified in due 
course.  
  
a. Please provide an update on India 's preparatory work.  
b. Given the long period since its last notification, is India considering submitting a part ial 
notification with information it has collected?  
c. Please confirm whether India is preparing Table DS:2 notifications and if so, for what 
measures.  
 G/AG/W/163  
 
- 35 - 
 
  4.1.2   Nigeria  
AG-IMS ID 8400 9: Question by European Union  
The latest Table DS:1 notification from Nigeria da tes 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 Table DS:1 notification for years after 2011 including 
Green Box support a s well as Article 6:2 support?  
 
4.1.3   Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 84089: Question by United States of America  
The last time Thailand notified the WTO of its domestic support policy changes was in 2008. Since 
then, Thailand's rice policies have undergone several major reforms. In June 2016, Th ailand stated 
in response to AG -IMS ID 80082 it was consulting its domestic agencies regarding prior 
notifications. At the April 2017 U.S. -Thailand TIFA, Thailand agreed to respond to a U.S. request of 
at the very least making an i nterim partial notification on rice subsidies since 2008 prior to the 
next WTO Committee on Agriculture on June 7 -8, 2017.  When does Thailand plan on submitting its 
next domestic support notification(s)?  
 
4.1.4   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 84008: Question by Canada  
Canada notes Turkey 's efforts to keep Members informed of its domestic processes to complete 
and submit its outstanding domestic support and export subsidy notifications. The Committee last 
reviewed Turkey 's 2001 domestic support notification in 2002 and its 2000  export subsidy 
notification in 2001. At the 83rd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 83102 
and AG-IMS 83034) Turkey indicated that the Domestic Support Committee had started to collect 
data and the related information needed to prepare the outstanding notifications. Could Turkey 
provide an update on the progress towards completing and submitting the outstanding 
notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 8400 7: Question by European Union  
The European Union  thanks Turkey for the reply to its question AG-IMS ID 83034, and 
acknowledges the efforts made by the Turkish authorities, including those concerning the work  
related to SPS notifications. Can Turkey please inform Members as to what progress it has made in 
relation to Domestic Support and Export Competition  notifications, and when WTO members 
should expect to be able to examine these long overdue notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 84088: Questi on by United States of America  
Turkey 's last domestic support notificati on covered the 2001 year. In AG -IMS ID 83102 Turkey 
stated it has formed internal committees to address the overdue notifications and would share 
information and analysis gathered.  
  
a. Please provide an update on what specific steps the Domestic Support committee has 
currently taken.  
b. What analysis and inform ation can Turkey share with this Committee to date, including 
any timelines for completion and submission of partial or full notifications?  
 
__________