In response to New Zealand's question of Canada at the 81^st Committee on Agriculture on domestic support (AG-IMS ID 81023), Canada said that it only reports support prices for butter and skim milk powder (SMP) at the federal level. Can Canada explain why it does not include market price support provided at the provincial level given all milk produced in Canada, with the exception of that exported under export subsidy commitments or sold as animal feed, receives the benefit of supported domestic prices?

1.2 EU intervention programmes

1.2.1 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82023)

Australia notes the positive direction of reform in the European Union on domestic support. Australia is trying to ascertain the impact of some of the "intervention" programmes in the European Union. Accordingly, Australia would be grateful if the European Union could provide the following information:

a. Which products are eligible for intervention programmes?

b. What are the volume and value of relevant commodities that have been purchased through intervention programmes in years (or marketing years) covering 2013, 2014, and 2015?

c. What prices were these commodities purchased for? Could the European Union please provide details for average purchase prices per commodity for the years (or marketing years) 2013, 2014, and 2015?

d. What was the total value of production and total volume of production for commodities purchased under intervention programmes for the years (or marketing years) 2013, 2014, and 2015?

1.3 Greek coffee tax

1.3.1 Question by Viet Nam (AG-IMS ID 82003)

On 1 January 2017, a WTO-inconsistent tax on coffee is scheduled to enter into force in Greece. This tax is an impermissible "other duty or charge", adopted in violation of the obligations of Greece and the European Union under Articles II:1(b) and II:1(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT") 1994.

The tax was included in a comprehensive austerity Bill passed by the Greek Parliament on 22 May 2016. The tax will be imposed on various categories of coffee, at a rate ranging from EUR 2 to EUR 4 per kg net weight. Viet Nam is a major exporter of non-roasted coffee to Greece, and will be directly impacted by this new, WTO-inconsistent measure.

The new coffee tax violates Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because the deadline to inscribe "other duties or charges" in the EU's Tariff Schedule expired on 15 April 1994. The new Greek coffee tax was clearly not inscribed in the EU's Tariff Schedule at that time, and so it cannot validly be imposed on imported coffee in 2017.

As the coffee tax violates the WTO obligations of Greece and the European Union under GATT Article II:1(b), it also consequentially violates GATT Article II:1(a), as it provides less favourable treatment to imported coffee than that set out in the EU's Tariff Schedule.

It should also be stressed that this coffee tax is not a "charge equivalent to an internal tax" within the meaning of GATT Article II:2(a). As a threshold matter, the Greek tax could not be considered as a "charge equivalent to an internal tax" unless the obligation to pay it accrues as a result of an internal event. The 22^th May 2016 Greek law states that "coffee production" does "not include roasting, grinding or packaging of the final product". No coffee beans are grown in Greece. Although roasting, grinding and packaging of coffee occur in Greece, the Greek Parliament has stated in the law that these steps do not constitute "coffee production" for the purposes of the tax. In other words, there is no "internal" event, as defined by the Greek law. Therefore, this cannot be considered as an "internal" tax. It is an "other duty or charge" imposed on imported coffee.

Could the European Union please outline what actions will be taken to ensure that Greece and the European Union will not be in breach of their WTO obligations with respect to this tax as of 1 January?

1.4 India's export subsidies for onions

1.4.1 Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 82032)

According to press reports, Maharashtra State has proposed to put in place an export subsidy programme for onions.

a. Could India confirm this and provide more information about this programme (duration, total amount and subsidy rate per tonne, number of producers concerned, etc.).

b. Could India confirm that such subsidies are planned to reduce the costs of marketing and transport of onions?

c. Will India submit any notification relating to this programme, and when?

d. Since export of onions in Maharashtra state is subject to state trading through the Maharashtra Agricultural Marketing Board, how would India see its policies complying with Article 20 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?

e. It is also EU understanding that India is working on a market price support programme for onions. If confirmed, could India give any indication about the state of preparations of such a programme?

1.5 India's minimum support price for Kharif crops

1.5.1 Question by the United States (AG-IMS ID 82005)

The United States notes on 1 June 2016, India announced the minimum support price for kharif crops of 2016/17. In its announcement (http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=145856), the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) increased the minimum support price for 14 kharif commodities, including for certain varieties of paddy, jowar, and cotton, on the recommendation of the Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). Further CCEA stated the following: "However, to incentivise cultivation of pulses and oilseeds, the Cabinet has decided to give a bonus, over and above the recommendations of the CACP[….] there is an increasing gap between the demand and domestic supply of pulses and oilseeds and reliance on import is increasing. Government has, therefore, announced this bonus on pulses and oilseeds to give a strong price signal to farmers to increase acreage and invest for increase in productivity of these crops."

In response to AG-IMS ID 78041, India stated "In view of the fact that procurement is made in respect of only a few of the crops under the MSP operations, the support given is limited to these crops. This is the reason why all the crops for which MSP is announced are not notified".

a. In light of this information, could India please confirm that one of the main objectives of further increasing the minimum support prices for pulses and oilseeds is to limit imports?

b. The United States notes that in response to AG-IMS ID 78041, India stated it sets targets for procurement for wheat and rice for the ensuing marketing year. Did India set procurement targets for pulses and oilseeds in 2016? If so, how much?

c. Please identify whether India expects to procure any pulses and oilseeds.

d. Further, what were the procurement targets for the other 14 commodities?

1.6 India's export restriction on sugar

1.6.1 Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 82033)

Despite having granted export subsidies on sugar (cf. e.g. AG-IMS ID 81025), the Indian government has now decided to tax exports of sugar in order to dissuade operators from exporting to international markets and instead to sell their products on the domestic market which suffers from inflation in sugar prices. According to Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, India should have notified in advance this programme as India is a net exporter of sugar. Could India provide information about this programme and its effects on other WTO members' food security?

1.7 Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class

1.7.1 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82013)

In response to New Zealand's questions co-sponsored by Australia (AG-IMS ID 81055 and AG‑IMS ID 81001), Canada responded that it was premature to confirm whether new milk classes will be created, or to speculate on detailed elements of a final package. Now that several months have passed, can Canada:

a. Provide an update on details of the milk classes, including definitions for each milk class as well as information on how prices will be set for each class and whether products made from these classes can be, or will be, exported?

b. Provide an update of how the agreement "in-principle" between Canadian dairy producers and processors has progressed in the context of its ratification process, given its planned implementation date is 1 November 2016?

c. Provide an update on the Canadian government's consideration of the matter and in particular whether the ingredients strategy was discussed at the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee's October 2016 meeting?

d. Provide an update on how the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) will implement the dairy ingredients strategy, should it be implemented and detail what legislative changes will be necessary?

Could Canada please advise the volume of exports made through the CDC for this year to date on a commodity basis?

1.7.2 Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 82059)

New Zealand has been made aware, via media reports, of the conclusion of an "agreement in principle" between dairy farmers and processors which reportedly establishes a nationwide pricing strategy for dairy ingredients. New Zealand has the following questions in relation to this "agreement in principle":

a. Can Canada provide details on the producer-processor agreement, including information on the agreement's proposed establishment of a new milk class?

b. Can Canada confirm our understanding that the price of fluid milk in this new milk class, used for the production of dairy ingredients, will be set based on the lowest world market prices?

c. For the purposes of setting the price of the new "ingredient" milk class, can Canada please provide further information on how the 'lowest price' will be calculated?

d. New Zealand understands that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) conducts cost of production studies for dairy products as part of its administration of Canada's dairy supply management system. Can Canada please provide the results of these studies as they relate to the new ingredient class, including whether the set price of the new milk class would be significantly below the average cost of production for Canadian dairy farmers, and by what approximate amount?

1.7.3 Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 82012) and the United States (AG‑IMS ID 82001)

In Canada's response to U.S. questions at the September Committee on Agriculture (AG‑IMS ID 81009), Canada stated that the expanded Class 4(m) was extended until 31 October 2016.

a. Would Canada please provide an update on any additional extensions and confirm whether or not the Class 4(m) amendments are still in effect?

In response to U.S. questions (AG-IMS ID 81009), Canada stated that "[t]hrough milk class 4(m), manufacturers of these products have access to dry and liquid milk protein concentrates (MPC), as well as liquid skim milk and skim milk powder at competitive prices. The Canadian Dairy Commission publishes prices for milk class 4(m) on the website milkingredients.ca".

b. Would Canada please explain what is meant by "competitive prices" and how it is determined?

In response to U.S. questions AG-IMS ID 81009, Canada stated that "[t]he administration of milk class 4(m) does not differentiate between milk or ingredients that were produced in Canada, or elsewhere.

c. Would Canada please explain this statement, particularly the term "does not differentiate"? The United States understands manufacturers have access at competitive prices through Class 4(m) to only milk and ingredients produced in Canada. By "does not differentiate", is Canada confirming that a processor could use domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk and imported fluid milk and ingredients and still qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment for the domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used? By "does not differentiate", is Canada confirming that a processor could use domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk, and use imported ultra-filtered (UF) milk to meet the minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk in the compositional cheese requirements, and still qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment for the domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk used?

d. Would Canada please confirm that the administration of Class 4(m), including qualifying for the Class 4(m) adjustment, would not depend on which product (e.g., ultra-filtered milk) is used to meet the minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk in the compositional cheese requirements? In Canada's response to U.S. questions at the September CoA (AG-IMS ID 81009), Canada stated, "The use of MPC, liquid skim milk and skim milk powder priced under milk class 4(m) is limited at different rates under each permitted specific use".

e. Would Canada please explain this statement? Does "rates" refer to a minimum or maximum level or percentage of domestic liquid MPC and liquid skim milk for which a manufacturer can qualify for the Class 4(m) adjustment? Does "each permitted specific use" refer to the products listed on this website (http://www.milkingredients.ca/index-eng.php?link=234)?

In response to U.S. questions (AG-IMS ID 81009), Canada stated that "[g]oods produced under these classes, or any milk class other than milk class 5(d), can be sold by any eligible processor on the domestic or export markets, and do not require export permits."

f. In response to U.S. questions (AG-IMS ID 81009), Canada stated that "[i]t is not possible at this stage to determine whether there have been any exports of dairy products from milk class 4(m) or Ontario milk class 6." Is Canada able to determine at this stage if there have there been exports under Class 6 or Class 4(m)? If so, how much? If not, at what stage will Canada be able to make this determination? The United States understands from Canada's response (AG-IMS ID 81009) that as of the September 2016 Committee on Agriculture meeting, the "agreement in principle" was in the process of being ratified.

g. Please provide any update on the ratification or implementation of the "agreement in principle".

h. What steps will the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) have to take related to implementation of the "agreement in principle"?

i. Is Canada now able to answer questions e and f from (AG-IMS ID 81009)?

1.8 Canada's wine sale policy

1.8.1 Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 82057)

New Zealand remains concerned about provincial level restrictions on the sale of wine in Canada. Given the high number and variation in restrictions on the sale of wine in Quebec, British Columbia (BC) and Ontario, what is the Federal government doing to ensure that restrictions across its provinces are WTO consistent and do not discriminate between domestic and imported product? Can Canada explain whether it considers wine from different sized wineries to be "like" products?

1.8.2 Question by the United States (AG-IMS ID 82002)

The United States continues to be concerned about wine regulations implemented in British Columbia (BC) that allow for sales of BC wines on regular grocery stores shelves, to the exclusion of imported products.

a. Please provide an update on how many licenses and what type of licenses have been transferred to grocery stores in BC, both to the grocery store shelf model and the store-within-a-store model. We request transparency on policy changes that may affect exported products to Ontario.

b. Please provide an update on Ontario's Regulation 232/16, including the information that was provided to select trading partners and industry representatives on 13 September by Ed Clark, the Chair of the Premier's Advisory Council on Government Assets.

c. Please provide an update on other alcohol policy changes under consideration in Ontario, including those related to mark-ups, bag-in-box wine, and Wine Retail Stores in grocery stores.

The United States understands from Canada's response to Australia's September CoA questions (AG-IMS ID 81024) that a date has not been set for implementation of Quebec's Bill 88.

d. Does Canada have an update on when implementing regulations will be published and timing of implementation? Will Quebec undertake a notice and comment process for implementing regulations?

1.9 European Union's agriculture policies

1.9.1 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82027)

Australia thanks the European Union for answers provided to Australia's questions on the new EUR 500 million support package for dairy farmers (AG-IMS ID 81058). As part of the package, the European Union announced EUR 150 million to "incentivise a reduction in milk production". Australia welcomes the direction of this programme in reducing milk production in the face of low dairy prices. Can the European Union provide information on:

a. Which types of dairy farms or dairy producers will be eligible for funding?

b. Which measures are included as part of the package?

c. What is the eligibility criteria used to determine access to funding and the amount of funding granted?

1.9.2 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82028)

Australia thanks the European Union for answers provided to Australia's questions on the new EUR 500 million support package for dairy farmers (AG-IMS ID 81058). As part of the package, the European Union announced EUR 350 million as conditional aid. Under Article 1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1613 the Commission can provide aid for the "application of extensive production methods". Could the European Union please explain what the "application of extensive production methods" means and what sort of activities are covered by this description?

1.10 India's importation of apples

1.10.1 Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 82060)

New Zealand understands that Visakhapatnam Port and Tuticorin Port remain closed to apple imports since they were originally closed in September 2015. India advised the WTO Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) on 14 July that its other ports, where food safety systems are fully operational, have been reopened to apple imports. New Zealand has raised this question in all appropriate fora within the WTO, including the SPS Committee and the Committee on Agriculture. At all of these venues India has failed to provide an explanation. New Zealand once again raises this matter, asking that India engage and provide information on the trade restrictive measure.

a. Are the two remaining ports closed to the import of apples due to SPS reasons?

b. When will they reopen?

c. When will these closures be notified to the WTO?

d. How are these closures consistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture which states that "Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties"?

1.11 India's new crop insurance scheme

1.11.1 Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 82031)

According to information in the press, India implemented from July to September 2016 a new crop insurance programme. Could India please give more information about this programme, including which crops are covered, the eligibility criteria and the level of compensation (per crop). Further, could India indicate how many producers subscribed to this programme and the total amount of subsidy? When does India intend to notify this to the WTO, including the DS:2 notification if the scheme fulfils the criteria of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?

1.12 India's sugar export subsidies

1.12.1 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82024)

Australia thanks India for the answers provided to Australia's questions on the Minimum Indicative Export Quota Scheme raised at the 81^st Committee on Agriculture (AG‑IMS ID 81062). In its response India states: "Further, after withdrawal of the production subsidy scheme on 19 May 2016, sugar mills will be provided subsidy based on ethanol supply to Oil Marketing Companies under the Ethanol Blending Programme and export of sugar with equal weightage". Australia asks India the following questions in relation to the above statement:

a. Can India please provide an explanation of how the "Ethanol Blending Programme" outlined in its response to AG-IMS ID 81062 works?

b. Can India please provide a reference to the legislation which underpins the "Ethanol Blending Programme"?

c. Can India please provide the eligibility criteria for sugar mills to access the subsidies referred to in AG-IMS ID 81062?

d. How is the subsidy amount paid to sugar mills calculated?

e. What is the total amount of sugar exported under the programme to date and what is the target amount of sugar to be exported by year)?

f. India's response to AG-IMS ID 81062 states that the subsidy is provided to sugar mills "based on ethanol supply… and export of sugar with equal weightage". Can India confirm if the subsidies being provided to sugar mills under the Ethanol Blending Programme are contingent upon the exportation of sugar?

1.13 Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs

1.13.1 Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 82062)

As New Zealand emphasised in its question to Sri Lanka at the 81^st Committee on Agriculture (AG‑IMS ID 81007), New Zealand considers the recent reduction in Sri Lanka's applied tariffs for dairy products to be a step in the right direction. Can Sri Lanka advise what remaining steps need to be taken to return its applied tariffs back in line with its WTO bindings and when these can be expected to happen?

1.14 U.S. purchase of cheese stock

1.14.1 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82025)

Australia thanks the United States for answers provided to Australia's questions on the purchase of cheese stocks by the USDA (AG-IMS ID 81066). Australia notes that the USDA announced on 11 October 2016 that it will purchase another USD 20 million of cheddar cheese stocks. Could the United States please provide information on:

a. How much cheese USDA plans to purchase in volume and value terms?

b. How will the USDA determine the price it pays for any cheese that will be purchased?

c. Is there a volume limit on how much cheese the USDA will purchase?

d. Are there plans for USDA to purchase any other dairy commodities?

1.14.2 Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 82061)

Follow-up to AG-IMS ID 81089.

Canada thanks the United States for its response to questions on the USDA announcement of 13 August 2012 to purchase pork, lamb, chicken and catfish to "assist … producers who are currently struggling due to challenging market conditions ..." In the U.S. response to a specific question on how these purchases conform to the provision in Annex 2, paragraph 1(b) that support … "shall not have the effect of providing price support to producers", the United States responded that the USD 170 million used to purchase these commodities represented less than 1% of their total value of production.

a. Could the United States share its view as to what share of a commodity's total value of production Section 32 purchases would need to meet in order to be considered to provide price support to producers?

b. Given that the stated aim of these purchases is to assist producers, and the U.S. assertion that these purchases are not providing price support to producers, does the United States have plans to increase the size or scope of these emergency purchases to better help its producers? Canada understands that USDA has also engaged in two separate purchases of cheese under Section 32. According to the USDA website (http://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2016/nr_20160823_rel_0181), the U.S. government announced on 23 August 2016 plans to purchase approximately 11 million pounds of cheese (valued at $20 million) from private inventories to "… assist the stalled marketplace for dairy producers whose revenues have dropped 35% over the past two years". More recently, on 11 October 2016 the USDA announced a pledge to purchase another USD 20 million worth of cheese to help dairy farmers and reduce a record‑setting private cheese surplus (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/10/0220.xml).

c. Could the United States elaborate on if it has purchased the cheese referenced in the 23 August 2016 announcement and when it expects to purchase cheese further to the 11 October 2016 announcement?

d. Could the United States clarify why these surplus purchases are necessary to assist dairy producers, given other support programs in place, such as the Dairy Margin Protection Program?

e. As the decision to purchase cheese is meant to assist the stalled marketplace for producers, could the United States confirm that these purchases serve to provide price support to producers?

f. Does the United States foresee additional announcements of government purchases of surplus cheese to help increase market prices?

1.15 U.S. Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programmes

1.15.1 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82026)

Australia notes that the USDA announced on 4 October 2016 that it will be issuing safety-net payments through the Agriculture Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage programmes. Could the United States please provide information on:

a. What are the eligibility requirements to access these payments?

b. How long these payments are expected to continue?

c. What is the value of these payments?

d. What commodities do these payments cover?

1.16 Argentina's tax policies

1.16.1 Question by Ukraine (AG-IMS ID 82041)

Outstanding replies to Questions to Argentina (AG-IMS ID 80059, paragraphs d. and e.)

Argentina kindly replied that due to a lack of specifics a substantive response to Ukraine's questions (AG-IMS ID 80059) was impossible in June 2016. While Ukraine understands a specific Argentine policy aimed at improvement of agricultural land with aid of fertilizer subsidies may not yet be fully adopted, early awareness of potential scope and parameters remains desirable. An Argentine comprehensive land improvement policy (via fertilizer subsidies) could represent a significant farm support measure, given it's nearly 1.5 million square kilometres of agricultural land. Therefore, Ukraine reformulates the query as follows:

a. Can Argentina please advise the status of the (draft or final) law "On improving the use of Land for Agricultural Purposes"?

b. Could Argentina please indicate if the (draft or final) measure would cover all of Argentina's agricultural land or if the coverage is limited in some fashion?

c. If some limitation is likely intended, can Argentina provide information on the general nature of such criteria and, if possible, the potential percentage of agricultural land it would likely cover?

1.17 China's regional assistance programmes

1.17.1 Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 82014)

Since China has not supplied written responses, Australia resubmits its question AG‑IMS ID 79057 and AG‑IMS ID 81053:

China reported an increase in expenditure from 2009 to 2010 of approximately 15% for Regional assistance programmes (under Other General Services). This continues a trend from previous notifications showing significant increases in expenditure for these programmes (more than double from 2005).

a. Can China please explain what eligibility requirements are needed to receive payments under these programmes?

b. What types of activities receive funding and can China explain how these activities are in accordance with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?

1.18 Turkey's domestic support policies

1.18.1 Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 82056)

Follow up to AG-IMS ID 81064 Canada notes that it has not received a written response from Turkey on Canada's questions raised at the September 2016 meeting of the Committee (AG IMS ID 81064). Canada's questions were as follows:

Canada notes that there are reports that the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock announced higher levels of domestic support with the objective of increasing production in certain sectors. Of note is the plan in 2016 to grant 3.2 billion TL (USD 1.1 billion) in subsidies to livestock producers in order to increase the cattle population and subsequently increase meat production.

a. Could Turkey provide information regarding how this grant to cattle producers will be applied?

i. Will it be used by the producer to purchase cattle?

ii. For producers with an existing herd of cattle what is the amount of the payment per head of cattle?

iii. What other subsidies would be available to these producers? For example, would these producers be eligible to receive feed subsidies?

iv. What is the projected increase in the number of cattle as a result of this grant?

v. What is the projected increase in meat production?

b. What are Turkey's longer term domestic policy objectives related to increasing meat production and self-sufficiency?

c. In 2015, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock increased the pulse premium introduced in 2009 from 100 TL per tonne to 200 TL per tonne in 2015. As this premium is directly linked to production it is not surprising that the plantings of lentils increased in 2016. What is the projected increase in production for crop year 2016?

d. What other subsidies/grants are available to these producers that would support the production of lentil? For example, could producers receive fertilizer or fuel subsidies? If so, what are the amounts of these input subsidies?

e. What are Turkey's longer term objectives for lentil production and self-sufficiency?

1.19 Turkey's subsidies aimed at incentivising the use of domestic dairy

1.19.1 Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 82067)

At the 81^st meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 81065) New Zealand highlighted that regulations issued by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (Communique on Fundamentals of Support and Practice for the Utilisation of Raw Milk) appear to establish a subsidy for the use of domestic powdered and/or raw milk in processed export products. New Zealand notes that Turkey has yet to provide the Committee with an answer to that question. In addition to New Zealand's previous question to the Committee, could Turkey also explain in detail the policy objectives of the 'Fundamentals of Support and Practice for the Utilisation of Raw Milk' subsidy programme?

1.20 Zambia's public stocks and exports of maize

1.20.1 Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 82030)

The European Union would like to repeat its questions from the last meeting since no reply has yet been received (AG-IMS ID 81033).

The Food Reserve Agency, according to EU information, is responsible for ensuring a food security stock of 500,000 tonnes (= 3 months of food consumption). During the 2014/15 marketing year, the Food Reserve Agency seems to have bought in the order of 1.2 million tonnes, of which part seems to have been exported at prices below the price at which it was bought-in.

Could Zambia indicate the prices at which maize was bought-in during the 2014/15 marketing year and the average selling price in the internal market as well as the quantities sold on export markets from the Food Reserve Agency stocks?

2 POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS

2.1 ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)

2.1.1 European Union (G/AG/N/EU/31)

AG-IMS ID 82034: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues

Could the European Union clarify certain issues concerning its latest MA:1 notification (G/AG/N/EU/31):

a. What is the rationale for import licences for meat and egg products to be valid only for 150 days from the first day of the sub-period for which they are issued?

b. Why for certain country-specific tariff quotas are importers not required to present certificate of origin, while for other country-specific TRQs they should?

c. Could the European Union confirm that for CN 1602 31 there is country-specific allocation to Thailand? Please, provide quantities allocated to Brazil, Thailand and other countries under this TRQ.

d. Could the European Union confirm that for CN 1602 39 21 it applies Erga omnes allocation among supplying countries? Please, provide quantities allocated to other countries under this TRQ.

e. Could the European Union confirm that for TRQ for cuts of fowls of the species Gallus Domesticus, frozen (CN 0207 14 10, CN 0207 14 50, CN 0207 14 70) it allocates country‑specific shares only to Brazil and other countries? Please, provide quantities allocated to Brazil and other countries under this TRQ.

2.2 IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)

2.2.1 European Union (G/AG/N/EU/30)

AG-IMS ID 82029: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues

Could the European Union clarify certain issues concerning its latest MA:2 notification for the marketing year 2013/2014 and the calendar year 2014 (G/AG/N/EU/30):

a. In-quota imports of chicken cuts, fresh, chilled or frozen was notified by the European Union at the level of 1,470 tonnes. According to the Eurostat data, in marketing year 2013/2014 EU import under the corresponding tariff lines were more than 12,000 tonnes. Could the European Union explain why the notified quantities are significantly below the actual import?

b. There is a similar situation for certain other agricultural products. For instance, in‑quota imports during the notified periods for turkey meat, fresh, chilled were 30 tonnes, for poultry cuts and offal other than livers of turkeys, frozen – 6,877 tonnes, for common wheat (medium and low quality) – 124,621 tonnes. While according to the Eurostat statistics, imports under corresponding tariff lines were 1,460 tonnes, 9,988 tonnes and 2,587,979 tonnes respectively. Could the European Union also explain why the notified quantities for these agricultural products are below the actual import?

c. If the reason for this situation is that the quantities indicated are based on the authorization to import, could the European Union clarify why it imports certain agricultural products in excess of quantities for which it issues respective authorizations?

d. Does "the authorization to import" mean import licensing?

e. Could the European Union provide the rationale for indicating quantities on the basis of authorization to import, and not on the actual import basis?

f. Could the European Union explain why for certain agricultural products "effective import" was used to determine in-quota import, while for other agricultural products authorization to import was used for the same purpose?

2.2.2 Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/81)

AG-IMS ID 82063: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill

Thailand's WTO quota for "milk and cream, not concentrated, not containing added sugar or other matters (including flavoured milk)" has not been filled. In 2014, the fill rate was 76.53%.

a. Could Thailand explain why the fill rate is so low?

b. Is Thailand considering any changes in the administration of this quota, in order to boost the fill rate? If so, in which direction are the changes being made?

2.3 DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)

2.3.1 Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/1)

AG-IMS ID 82011: Question by the United States - General services: extension and advisory services

The United States would like to congratulate Afghanistan on its first notification.

The United States understands that there has been a significant decrease in expenditure for the measure on extension and advisory services from calendar year 2013 to 2014. According to the table submitted, the expenditure for 2014 was about Afs 1.8 million. In 2013 and 2015, the expenditure for this measure was about Afs 21.8 million and Afs 20.9 million; respectively. Can Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in expenditure for this measure in 2014 and the sudden increase in 2015?

AG-IMS ID 82008: Question by the United States - General services: inspection services

For the inspections services, the United States understands that when comparing calendar year 2015 to the previous calendar years, there has been a significant decrease in expenditure. In 2013 and 2014, the expenditure for the measure was about Afs 26.4 million and Afs 23.1 million, respectively. In 2015, the expenditure for this measure is about Afs 2.8 million. Can Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in expenditure for this measure?

AG-IMS ID 82009: Question by the United States - General services: marketing and promotion services

For the marketing and promotional services measure, the United States understands that there is a significant decrease in expenditure from about Afs 13.9 million in calendar year 2013 to Afs 0 in 2015. Can Afghanistan explain the sudden decrease in expenditure for this measure?

AG-IMS ID 82010: Question by the United States - Domestic food aid

For domestic food aid, the United States understands that there is a significant decrease in expenditure from Afs 192.4 million in calendar year 2013 to Afs 0 in 2015. Can Afghanistan explain the process for food aid expenditures?

2.3.2 Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/35)

AG-IMS ID 82035: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

a. According to the notification, there is no payment to small sugarcane producers in the northern part of Argentina. Can Argentina confirm that no such support was provided during 2009/2010.

b. Could Argentina set out the methodology for calculating the interest rate subsidy programme for loans to small-scale agricultural producers (Supporting Table DS:7), including the effective subsidy rate and market rate and the basis for setting these rates.

c. Could Argentina indicate under which item the food security programme "Pro-huerta" is notified and the amounts concerned.

AG-IMS ID 82037: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from natural disasters

In its 2009/2010 notification, Argentina notified payments for relief from natural disasters under the Agriculture Emergency Programme Law 26.509, whereas, in its domestic support notification for years 2006/2007 to 2008/2009 (G/AG/ARG/N/31) natural disaster relief payments were attributed to the Agriculture Emergency Programme Law 22913. Could Argentina please explain the differences between these two domestic laws?

AG-IMS ID 82038: Question by Canada - Direct payments: other

In its 2009/2010 notification, in Supporting Table DS:1, Argentina has notified what appears to be a new programme called "Support Programme for Small and Medium-Sized Producers" under Annex 2, paragraph 5 of the Green Box.

a. If this is a new measure could Argentina indicate when it plans to a submit a DS:2 notification?

b. There are a number of activities/projects covered by this measure including "improvement of the rural infrastructure and environment, strengthening of organizations and cooperatives, research and technical assistance, inter alia". Could Argentina please elaborate on the projects under rural infrastructure eligible for funding and outline whether these projects include on-farm infrastructure? Could Argentina also elaborate on the types of projects that fall under "environment"?

c. Could Argentina elaborate on the criteria used to determine who is a small or medium-sized producer?

AG-IMS ID 82036: Question by Canada - De minimis

Regarding Supporting Table DS:4, Canada appreciates the information provided on the value of production for those products where the support is exempted as de minimis. Could Argentina provide a source or sources for the value of production data included in its notification?

2.3.3 Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/55)

AG-IMS ID 82007: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

The United States would like to thank Costa Rica for its DS:1 notification for domestic support. The United States understands the hard work that goes into preparing these notifications and the United States appreciates the effort Costa Rica has put forth to notify this information in a timely manner.

The United States notes the reforms stated and notified by Costa Rica to its rice sector, which took place in early 2015 pursuant to Executive Decree No. 38884-MEIC (https://members.wto.org/CRNAttachments/2015/AGCD/CRI/GEN126-02.pdf). According to Costa Rica, the administered producer price was replaced by a reference price, which went into effect on 1 March 2015.

a. Please confirm the market price support figure of USD 4.06 billion was the support provided to rice producers only for the months of January and February 2015.

b. Please confirm that Costa Rica reports no domestic support measures for rice that would qualify as Amber Box for the months March through December 2015.

Executive Decree No. 38884-MEIC sets a "reference price" for producers at colones 22,139 per 73.6 kg bag of dry and clean paddy rice, equivalent to approximately USD 557 per metric tonne, only slightly below the applied administered price notified for January and March. It is noted that the Decree states it written in accordance with Article 57 of 8285 Act, which reads, "Article 57. When necessary and in order to promote the purchase of domestic production of grain, the Executive Power may implement mechanisms for supporting producers in price related matters, for the sale of grain to the domestic industry". Among the four elements the Decree considers to affect this control is the gap between the local price of rice and the international price of rice that could affect deterioration of domestic agricultural production, loss of competitiveness of the industrial sector, higher productivity of those who access imported rice (industrial sector and importers) and displacement of agents and rent concentration in a few operators… listed under V(c). Further, VI(c) states "the parties assure/claim that the purchase and sale of paddy is done at the reference price". Also, VI (h) states that "Producers and millers cannot establish purchase/sale conditions in unilateral form". Article 10 continues that any commercial practice should not undermine the legislative intent of this Decree.

With the aforementioned information from the Decree it appears that Costa Rica, while not directly administering the purchase price for producers, is continuing to promulgate a price support for rice producers in all but name through support to millers (e.g., set prices for consumers) to be able to purchase paddy rice at (or near) the stated reference price so as to avoid undermining the Decree. Further, looking at Costa Rica's rice market situation, there is no appearance of a change in de facto policy towards rice. Area harvested and production are both forecast to increase to levels above that seen in 2014, the last full year Costa Rica notified market price support for rice.

c. Given these facts please explain how Executive Decree No. 38884-MEIC and other relevant legislation do not confer a benefit by the government, directly or indirectly, to producers in the form of a "market price support"?

d. Please explain how these measures are notified in Costa Rica's DS:1 notification.

AG-IMS ID 82015: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under environmental programmes

Australia thanks Costa Rica for its domestic support notification (G/AG/N/CRI/55) and requests further information on the Environmental Programs "Payment for environmental services in agro‑forestry systems" and "Recognition of the environmental benefits of organic farming by micro, small and medium-sized organic producers". For these programmes could Costa Rica please provide information on:

a. What are the eligibility requirements to receive payment?

b. Are these payments based on production levels?

AG-IMS ID 82039: Question by Canada - Market price support

Canada thanks Costa Rica for its continued transparency with regards to its domestic support notifications and market price support programme for rice. Canada is pleased to see that Costa Rica's 2015 Current Total AMS is again within its Total AMS commitment. In Supporting Table DS:5 (ST/DS:5) there is a footnote that says "… the administered producer price was replaced by a reference price, which entered into effect on 1 March 2015".

a. Could Costa Rica confirm whether the data provided in ST/DS:5 covers only January and February of 2015, or all of Calendar Year 2015?

b. If ST/DS:5 covers only January and February, will Costa Rica be providing a revised notification that shows market price support calculations based on the "reference price" in place from 1 March 2015 onwards?

c. If ST/DS:5 covers the entirety of 2015, could Costa Rica explain whether the reported applied administered price provided is an average of the "reference price" and the "administered producer price" it replaced?

d. Could Costa Rica please provide more information on the reference price mentioned in the footnote to Supporting Table DS:5? How is it determined and how does it differ from the applied administered price?

e. Canada also notes that the eligible production has dropped to 11,887 tonnes in 2015 from 224,157 tonnes in 2014. Could Costa Rica please explain this change in reported eligible production?

2.3.4 Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/53)

AG-IMS ID 82006: Question by the United States - Direct payments: payments for relief from natural disasters

The United States would like to thank Cuba for its notification on domestic support for the year 2015. Cuba has notified that no data is available for "natural disaster relief" and reported no support for that programme. The United States notes that this data was available in previous years. What is the reason for the change in level of support in 2015 versus previous years?

2.3.5 Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/90)

AG-IMS ID 82040: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

Norway last notified market price support for beef in 2009 (G/AGN/NOR/59) and for eggs and sheep in 2013 (G/AG/N/NOR/78). Since shifting away from providing market price support for these products, Norway has notified "price compensation" expenditures for beef as part of other product specific support in ST/DS:7 since 2010, and for eggs and sheep since 2014. Corresponding to the shift away from market price support and the introduction of "price compensation" expenditures, reported product-specific AMS for these products has trended downwards. Product‑specific support to sheep for instance, listed as NOK 257.9 million in 2015 equaled NOK 666.3 million in 2013, the last year in which market price support measures were notified.

a. Could Norway provide more information about its price compensation scheme?

b. What, if any, are the linkages between past target or administered prices and the current price compensation scheme?

AG-IMS ID 82055: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

The European Union notes that Norway still used administered prices for wheat, barley, oats, rye, oilseeds, goat milk, milk and pork in 2015. From information provided in Norway's answers to questions asked during previous meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, the European Union understands that Norway eliminated administered prices for sheep meat and eggs from 1July 2013 and for beef from 1 July 2009. At the 79^th meeting of the Committee in March 2016, when the European Union asked if Norway was planning to eliminate the administered prices for any additional products, Norway answered that the Norwegian government was "working on a new White Paper on agricultural policies" and that "the remaining administered prices are among the issues that will be discussed". The European Union would welcome any update on this issue.

AG-IMS ID 82017: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids

Australia thanks Norway for its domestic support notification (G/AG/N/NOR/90), and requests further information on the two structural adjustment assistance packages provided through investment aids programmes, "The Agricultural Development Fund" and "Interest concession". Australia asks Norway the following questions in relation to these programmes:

a. What are the eligibility requirements for these programmes?

b. What "structural adjustments" do these measures provide assistance to?

AG-IMS ID 82054: Question by the European Union - Non-product-specific AMS

Could Norway explain the reasoning and the specific provision of the Agreement on Agriculture which allows for a tax on pesticides to be included as a negative support in a DS:1 notification.

2.3.6 Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/39)

AG-IMS ID 82018: Question by Australia - Classification of measures

Australia thanks Panama for the answers provided to Australia's questions on the programme termed the "Incentive programme for the domestic production of grain and other crops" raised at the 80^th Committee on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 80021). In its response Panama notes that the programme is aimed at increasing production. Australia notes that programmes notified as Green Box measures must meet the fundamental requirement that they have "no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production" (Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture). In light of Panama's previous response can Panama confirm that the programme has "no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production"?

2.3.7 Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/24)

AG-IMS ID 82053: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

Paraguay's notified spending under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture has declined significantly in recent years, from a high point of USD 37 million in 2012 to the reported USD 4 million in 2015.

a. Could Paraguay explain its reason(s) for the reduction of Article 6.2 spending in 2015?

b. Is this the result of a policy shift?

AG-IMS ID 82052: Question by Canada - Classification of measures

In its DS:1 notification for 2012 and 2013 (G/AG/N/PRY/23), Paraguay notified the Programme to Promote Food Production through Family Farming and the Sustainable Rural Development Project (PRODERS) programmes as conforming to the stipulations laid out in Annex 2, Paragraph 2 (d) General service, Extension and advisory services. In 2015, these programmes are notified as Annex 2, Paragraph 4 (domestic food aid).

a. Could Paraguay explain whether there has been a substantive change to the administration of the two programmes between 2013 and 2015?

b. Could Paraguay explain the reason(s) for changing the classification of these two measures?

c. Is Paraguay planning to submit a DS:2 notification to explain the change in programme classification and provide information on any new programmes that have been introduced since the release of Paraguay's last DS:2 in 2001 (G/AG/PRY/8)?

2.3.8 South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/88)

AG-IMS ID 82050: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

The European Union would welcome further information about the Recapitalisation programme (RECAP) which was raised by the European Union in question AG-IMS ID 77106, during the June 2015 Committee meeting. This programme appears to support investment for emerging farmers with through infrastructure development, acquisition of mechanisation, entrepreneurial support, production inputs, market access and integration into the value chain over a five year period. All support is implemented through partnerships with commercial farmers. The European Union would therefore like to know in more detail why South Africa considers these funds not to be agricultural support as indicated in its reply to question AG-IMS ID 77106 point b).

AG-IMS ID 82042: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

During the period 2011-2014 South Africa significantly increased the Green Box programme funding as follows:

· "Resource conservation and environmental management: to promote sustainable utilization of the natural agricultural resources, viz, the soil, water resources and vegetation and protect the environment" from 731,08 to 1209,54 million Rand, or by 65.4%;

· "Veterinary Services: to promote animal production, animal health and the quality of the products of animals through the determination of norms and standards as well as coordination and rendering of services" from 861,21 to 1089,72 million Rand, or by 26.5%;

· "Agricultural research: contribution towards agricultural research and the expenditure, training, depreciation, salaries and maintenance of the Agricultural Research Council with the overall purpose of agricultural research" from 1368,68 to 1711,24 million Rand, or by 25.0%.

a. Could South Africa please provide background and policy rationale for the sizable increase in funding for these three programmes?

b. Further, could South Africa in particular highlight more specifically the measures undertaken under resource conservation and environmental management?

AG-IMS ID 82016: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)

South Africa's expenditures under Regional Assistance Programs have increased from R3.26 Billion in 2009 to R4.38 Billion in 2011 to R5.2 Billion in 2013.

a. Please explain the reason for this increase.

b. Please specify any individual programmes that are included under this category.

According the SA Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), "The aim of this programme is to provide post settlement support to the targeted beneficiaries of land reform and to other producers who have acquired land through private means and are, for example, engaged in value-adding enterprises domestically or involved in export". The DAFF's website notes six priority areas including 1) information and technology management, 2) technical and advisory assistance and regulatory services, 3) marketing and business development, 4) training and capacity building, 5) on/off farm infrastructure and production inputs, and 6) financial support. This programme appears to cover a wide array of activities.

c. How does South Africa notify the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Program, which has an estimated budget of R1.6 billion in 2014?

AG-IMS ID 82020: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments for relief from natural disasters

Australia thanks South Africa for its domestic support notification (G/AG/N/ZAF/88). Could South Africa provide further information on the eligibility requirements, the number of recipients and the delivery of the Subsidies for Flood disaster programme?

AG-IMS ID 82051: Question by the European Union - Classification of measures

a. Could South Africa explain more in detail the functioning of Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) and Fetsa Tlala Programme as well as these under which provision of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture they are notified.

b. Can South Africa explain under which provision of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture the Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RDP) managed by DRDLR are notified? The programme appears to include procurement of material, buildings and inputs for new farmers.

2.4 EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)

2.4.1 Afghanistan (G/AG/N/AFG/2)

AG-IMS ID 82004: Question by the United States - Transparency issues

It appears that Table ES:1 for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015 was not submitted. When will Afghanistan submit Table ES:1 notification?

2.4.2 Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/89)

AG-IMS ID 82047: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues

The European Union notes that Norway still provided substantial export subsidies to cheese in 2015. During the meeting of the Committee in June 2015 Norway indicated that a proposal had been presented to the Norwegian Parliament on the abolition of export subsidies for cheese. Could Norway please provide an update on this issue.

3 deferred replies to quEstions ON NOTIFICATIONS

3.1 DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)

3.1.1 Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/49)

AG-IMS ID 82021: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids

Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's question raised at the 81^st and 80^th Committee on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 80023 and AG-IMS ID 81085). Can Tunisia please provide a written answer to AG-IMS ID 80023 and AG-IMS ID 81085?

AG-IMS ID 82049: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production

Canada notes that it has not yet received a written response from Tunisia for Canada's question from the September 2016 meeting of the Committee (AG-IMS ID 81088). Canada's question is again provided below:

In reporting year 2015, in its Supporting Table DS:5, Tunisia notified much smaller eligible production than in its previous notification for durum wheat (8,500 tonnes in 2014 and 3,500 tonnes in 2015) and barley (4,500 tonnes in 2014 and 1,000 in 2015). Can Tunisia explain why there is such variance between eligible production from 2014 to 2015?

AG-IMS ID 82022: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation

Australia notes Tunisia has not provided an answer to Australia's question raised at the 81^st Committee on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 81086). Can Tunisia please provide a written answer to AG-IMS ID 81086?

AG-IMS ID 82048: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation

Canada notes that it has not yet received a written response from Tunisia for Canada's question from the September 2016 meeting of the Committee (AG-IMS ID 81087). Canada's question is again provided below:

In this notification, and in previous notifications, Tunisia continues to make adjustments to the external reference prices for durum wheat, common wheat, barley and milk. Canada has noted in previous meetings that when a Member is in breach of its domestic support commitment it should notify unadjusted data to the Committee for review and consideration. The Member should also explain the steps it will undertake to correct the situation. In response to a question from the European Union (AG-IMS ID 80072), Tunisia shared figures from the Central Bank of Tunisia that showed that annual rates of inflation in 2014 and 2015 were both 4.9%. In its 2014 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/47), Tunisia adjusted its fixed external reference prices upwards by almost 10% from the prices notified in its 2013 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/45). In its 2015 notification (G/AG/N/TUN/49), Tunisia adjusted its fixed external reference prices by over 21% from the prices listed in its 2014 notification, despite the same reported level of inflation.

a. Could Tunisia explain why the increase in the fixed external reference price between 2014 and 2015 is more than double the increase between 2013 and 2014, when its own reported annual level of inflation is 4.9% for both years?

b. Could Tunisia provide the full methodology and calculations it has used in each year it has adjusted the fixed external reference price?

c. Could Tunisia describe what steps it will undertake to address the situation so that in the future it will no longer adjust the external reference prices?

4 OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS

4.1.1 Egypt

AG-IMS ID 82046: Question by the European Union

Could Egypt update Members on the progress made since the June 2015 Committee meeting on outstanding notifications on Domestic Support?

4.1.2 European Union

AG-IMS ID 82045: Question by Russian Federation

The last MA:2 notification submitted by the European Union contained information concerning import under tariff quotas during the marketing year 2013/2014 and the calendar year 2014 (G/AG/N/EU/30). Could the European Union provide the reasons for delay in MA:2 notification submission for 2014/2015 and 2015?

4.1.3 Turkey

AG-IMS ID 82019: Question by Australia

Australia appreciates recent discussions with Turkey on the status of its outstanding notifications. Turkey has not submitted an export subsidy notification since 2001, or a domestic support notification since 2002. Further to AG-IMS ID 81092, Australia asks Turkey to provide updates on:

a. The status of progress on Turkey's work programme to finalize and submit outstanding notifications;

b. When Turkey will submit its domestic support notification; and

c. When Turkey will submit its export subsidy notification.

AG-IMS ID 82044: Question by Canada

Canada remains concerned with Turkey's lack of timely export subsidy and domestic support notifications. Turkey's most recent notifications related to year 2000 for export subsidies and 2001 for domestic support. In previous meetings, Turkey has indicated that work was underway on its outstanding notifications. Could Turkey please provide the Committee with an update and a specific timeline as to when it intends submit these missing notifications to the Committee?

AG-IMS ID 82043: Question by the European Union

Could Turkey update Members on the progress made since the September 2016 Committee meeting on outstanding notifications?

AG-IMS ID 82064: Question by New Zealand

At the 80^th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 80017), Turkey indicated it was in the process of preparing its export subsidy notifications, which have not been notified since 2000. At that time Turkey stated that it hoped to make these notifications available soon, however, that was around five months ago. Can Turkey please provide an indicative timeframe on when it expects to complete its overdue export subsidy notifications, and submit them to the Committee on Agriculture?

5 OTHER

5.1 New Zealand

AG-IMS ID 82065: Question by Chile

In its answers to Chile's questions (RD/AG/49) during the annual dedicated discussions on export competition of June 2016 (G/AG/W/155) New Zealand stated: "it is important to clarify that Kiwifruit New Zealand and ZESPRI Limited are two entirely separate legal entities, established under two separate pieces of legislation" and "…(the Regulations) establish the independent regulator 'Kiwifruit New Zealand' and define its functions".

But, Kiwifruit New Zealand's (KNZ) Board of Directors consists of five members, which under Article 36 (Membership) of the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 are appointed as follows:

"(a) three members are to be elected by producers in accordance with regulation 37;

(b) one member is to be appointed by New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Incorporated or its successor;

(c) one member is to be appointed by the other members, who is fully independent of the kiwifruit industry and who is to act as the chairperson of the Board."

There is no regulatory restriction as to who may be appointed under para 1(a) or (b) above. They do not need to be independent from ZESPRI, and as it appears to be the case, currently they are not. Even letter (c), that is supposedly destined to fully guarantee the Board's independence, allows that the rest of the Board designates such member (which according to letters (a) and (b) may already have an interest in ZESPRI).

Chile is aware that the Cabinet has agreed to changes to the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 in relation to the KNZ's Board composition, to ensure that is comprised of a mix of grower and independent directors:

a. How will the New Zealand Government guarantee that the new KNZ Board structure is independent from ZESPRI? and

b. Which specific authority of such Board will ensure that New Zealand Government complies with its international commitments, specifically those established under Paragraph 21 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?

__________

^{^[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.

Committee on AG/AG/W/158 griculture - Points raised by Members - Compilation of questions for the meeting on 9 - 10 November 2016

2.3.4 Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/53)

2.3.5 Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/90)

2.3.7 Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/24)

2.3.8 South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/88)

4.1.2 European Union

聯絡我們

中心簡介

WTO/RTA

資料庫

研究評析

電子報

影音/活動