RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/AG/R/10
23April 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1764)
Committee onAgriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON13-14 MARCH 1997
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onAgriculture helditstenth meeting on13-14 March 1997 under the
chairmanship ofMrs. Apiradi Tantraporn ofThailand.
2. Theagenda forthemeeting, contained inWTO/AIR/544, wasadopted withthedeletion, as
requested bytheUnited States, ofthespecific points raised withrespect tothenotification byTurkey,
G/AG/N/TUR/3.
PartI:TheReview Process
3. With regard todeferred replies toquestions raised under theReview Process (PartI,Agenda
ItemF)itwasagreed, following further discussion ofthesuggestion made bytheChairperson, that
where adelegation undertook toprovide detailed replies toquestions raised under theReview Process,
suchdeferred replies should befurnished, inwriting, tothedelegation raising thematter normally
within thirty daysofthemeeting concerned, withcopies being made available toother Members having
expressed aninterest inthematter, aswellastotheSecretariat.
4. TheCommittee reviewed thefollowing notifications aslisted ontheagenda:
(i) ontheadministration oftariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:1): from El
Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/1), Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/1), Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/8
andCHE/8/CORR.1) andTunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/4);
(ii) relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/4/CORR.1), Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/2), Slovak Republic
(G/AG/N/SVK/6) andThailand (G/AG/N/THA/18);
(iii) inthecontext ofthespecial safeguard (Tables MA:3 toMA:5): from Botswana
(G/AG/N/BWA/3), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/13), ElSalvador (G/AG/N/SLV/2), Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/14,16and17),Mexico(G/AG/N/MEX/3),Norway(G/AG/N/NOR/8),
Slovak Republic (G/AG/N/SVK/8) andSwitzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/7);
(iv) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/7/REV.1/ADD.1),Honduras(G/AG/N/HND/3),Malta
(G/AG/N/MLT/1), Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/6), Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/5), South
Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/5) andTurkey (G/AG/N/TUR/3);
(v) inthecontext ofnewormodified support measures exempt from reduction (Table
DS:2): from Cyprus (G/AG/N/CYP/2) andIceland (G/AG/N/ISL/5);G/AG/R/10
Page2
(vi) relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Botswana
(G/AG/N/BWA/4), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/12), Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/4 and5),El
Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/3), Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/3/REV.1), Malta (G/AG/N/MLT/2),
Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/4), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/7), Slovak Republic
(G/AG/N/SVK/7), South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/6/REV.1) and Switzerland
(G/AG/N/CHE/5/REV.1).
5. Specific points raised withrespect tothenotifications listed inparagraph 4above andthe
responses thereto aresummarized intheAnnex tothisreport.
6. Thefollowing notifications were subject topreliminary review andaretobereverted toat
thenextmeeting inaccordance withparagraph 9oftheCommittee 'sWorking Procedures:
(i) ontheadministration oftariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:1): fromthe
European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/3);
(ii) relating toimports under tariffandother quota commitments (Table MA:2): fromthe
Czech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/8), theEuropean Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/4) and
theUnited States (G/AG/N/USA/9);
(iii) inthecontextofthespecialsafeguard(TablesMA:3toMA:5):fromtheCzechRepublic
(G/AG/N/CZE/9), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/18) andNamibia (G/AG/N/NAM/2);
(iv) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Fiji(G/AG/N/FJI/1)
andNamibia (G/AG/N/NAM/3);
(v) inthecontext ofnewormodified support measures exempt from reduction (Table
DS:2): from Namibia (G/AG/N/NAM/4);
(vi) inthecontext ofexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): fromAustralia
(G/AG/N/AUS/8),theCzechRepublic(G/AG/N/CZE/10),theEuropeanCommunities
(G/AG/N/EEC/5), Fiji(G/AG/N/FJI/2), Namibia (G/AG/N/NAM/1) andtheUnited
States (G/AG/N/USA/8);
(vii) onexport prohibitions andrestrictions (Table ER:1): from theCzech Republic
(G/AG/N/CZE/11).
7. Several Members expressed preliminary views onthenotifications onexport subsidies bythe
United States andtheEuropean Communities. Therepresentative ofAustralia complimented boththe
European Communities andtheUnited States forthenumerous "zeros" recorded intheirexport subsidy
notifications. Therepresentative oftheUnited States explained thattheabsence ofbudgetary outlay
datawasareflection ofthefactthatnoExport Enhancement Programme bonuses wereawarded for
most products after 30September 1995, andofthefactthattheannual bases forthequantity
commitments (July/June) andthebudgetary outlay commitments (October/September) weredifferent.
8. Further information wasrequested bytherepresentatives ofArgentina andAustralia onthe
under-fill oftheEuropean Communities 'tariff quotas forproducts suchasbran, maize, sorghum and
bovine meat. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities recalled, withregard tobran, thatthe
1995 harvest inArgentina hadnotbeengood. Anadditional factor wasthatbranwasincompetition
withother animal feeds intheEuropean Communities. Asregards themaize andsorghum quotas,
these weresubject tospecific provisions andwereadjusted forimports ofnon-grain feedingredients
intotheEuropean Communities. Finally, forvarious reasons, including theBSEcrisis, therehadbeenG/AG/R/10
Page3
verylargesupplies ofbeefwithin theEuropean Communities. Therepresentative ofAustralia queried
whether apolicy ofnational absorption, anissuewhich hadpreviously raised debates intheCommittee,
wasbeing followed bytheEuropean Communities forbovine meat.
9. Anumber ofMembers voiced theirconcerns withrespect tothelatesubmission ofnotifications.
Therepresentative ofSwitzerland noted thatinorder tosuccessfully bring appropriate discipline to
thework oftheCommittee, andimprove itsquality, Members would havetosolve theissue oflate
notifications. Thiswasespecially validforimportant Members whoapparently didnotdeem itfeasible
orevennecessary tosubmit notifications within thedeadlines required under theCommittee 'sWorking
Procedures. Therepresentatives ofAustralia andtheUnited States expressed similar views. The
representative oftheUnited States explained thathaving different fiscal andmarketing years hadcaused
some delay. However, therepresentative noted thatwhatwasimportant wasforallMembers toensure
theaccuracy oftheirnotifications andtoabide bytheircommitments andobligations, ashebelieved
wasthecasefortheUnited States. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities pointed outthat
thesubmission ofitsnotifications hadbeencomplicated byenlargement andtherelated Article XXIV:6
process. Hence, considering thattheEuropean Communities Schedule wasstillonholdintheWTO
enlargement process, andthelatemarketing yearforanumber ofproducts, theEuropean Communities
hadacted ingood faithbyproviding thenecessary information onanEC-15 basis.
10. Inresponse topoints raised concerning latenotifications, theSecretariat noted thattherewas
nowasystem inplace whereby theCentral Registry ofNotifications regularly sentreminders ona
WTO-widebasis.Inaddition,theSecretariatundertooktopreparearoomdocumentforfuturemeetings,
listing which Members hadsubmitted notifications.
11. Therepresentative ofJapan expressed hisserious concern overtheexport restrictions recently
notified bytheCzech Republic. Hestated thatfurther clarification would besought bilaterally with
theCzech Republic.
12. TheCommittee noted thatnocounter-notifications hadbeenreceived under PartI,Dofthe
agenda.
Matters Relevant totheImplementation ofCommitments under theReform Programme:
Article 18:6
13. Thefollowing matters relating totheimplementation ofcommitments under thereform
programme were raised pursuant toArticle 18:6oftheAgreement onAgriculture:
(a) NewZealand/United States: Canadian special milkclasses scheme
14. Therepresentative ofNewZealand thanked theChairperson forhaving organised informal
consultations onthissubject andtheCanadian delegation fortheirco-operation intheprocess. However,
furtherclarificationwasbeingsoughtregardingkeyaspectsofCanada'sadministrativelycomplexscheme.
NewZealand hadnotchanged itsviewthatCanada 'sspecial milkclasses scheme wassimply another
formofaproducer-financed export subsidy. NewZealand believed thatthespecial milkclasses scheme
andothersimilar two-tier export pricing arrangements, ifwidely implemented, could effectively nullify
theimpact oftheUruguay Round export subsidies disciplines. Therepresentatives oftheUnited States
andAustralia supported thepoint made byNewZealand thatthescheme could beseenasadisguised
system ofproducer-funded export subsidies. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted
thatthere wereimportant principles atstake andexpressed aninterest inbeing informed ofanyfuture
informal consultations onthematter.G/AG/R/10
Page4
15. Therepresentative ofCanada stated thatCanada would continue toconsult withitstrading
partners onthematter. Therepresentative noted thatexport salesunder theCanadian system were
notsubsidised inanyway. Producers received returns fromthemarket place forsalesofmilkunder
thespecial classes system. Astheinternational market wasgenerally lower priced, these returns were
lower. InCanada 'sview, thespecial milkclasses scheme wassimply anextension oftheclassified
pricing system andthepooling ofrevenues, under which producers received returns formilkdepending
ontheprocessing end-use ofthatmilk, incommon withdairy industries throughout theworld.
(b) United States: Costa Rica'sdairy andpoultry tariff quota commitments
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States indicated thattheUnited States wasextremely concerned
atCosta Rica'sfailure toestablish tariff quotas fordairy andpoultry because ofunresolved domestic
legalissues. TheUnited States wasconcerned about theresulting lossofmarket access opportunities
overthepasttwoyears, andabout thefactthatitsindustry would continue tobedenied access until
theissue hadbeenresolved. TheUnited States asked when Costa Ricawould establish tariff quotas
fordairy andpoultry. Therepresentative ofNewZealand supported theneedforgreater transparency
withregard totheimplementation ofCosta Rica'sstock exchange system fortariff quotas. Headded
thatNewZealand would bedisposed tofollow thematter upbilaterally regarding imported products,
bidnumbers andtheidentity ofdomestic importers andend-users. Therepresentative stated thatit
wasonething toclarify whattherules weredomestically, butquite another toblock import access.
17. Therepresentative ofCosta Ricaexplained thatin1995 thegovernment ofCosta Rica, in
compliance withthecommitments entered into,hadnotified thearrangements fortheopening upof
tariff quotas. Atthesame timeithadbeenpossible toprovide greater access foralarge number of
products. Ithadbeendecided nottomake useofthetariffquota andnottoapply theout-of-quota tariff
forproducts suchaspigmeat, eggs, yellow andwhite maize, sugar, tobacco, some dairy andpoultry
products, evaporated andcondensed milkanduncut poultry meat. With regard toproducts forwhich
tariff quotas were applied (i.e,other tariff headings relating topoultry anddairy products), the
government ofCosta Ricahad,since thebeginning of1995, applied anopen, transparent andnon-
discriminatorytariffquotaadministrationsystem.Despitetheopeningoftariffquotasfortheseproducts,
imports hadonlybeenregistered fortwoofthem. Inonecasetheentire quota hadbeenfilled. For
alltheother products subject totariff quota commitments thetariff quotas were effectively opened,
although noimports wererecorded. Thus, itcould notbestated thatduring thatperiod, therehadbeen
alossofmarket access opportunities. Later in1996, thegovernment ofCosta Ricaissued anexecutive
order tospeed uptheliberalization process evenfurther byreducing thetariffs forproducts subject
totariffquotas tolevels below thosebound inWTO commitments. However, inFebruary 1996, national
dairy andpoultry producers brought acasetotheSupreme Court ofJustice ofCosta Rica. Thishad
ledtothesuspension oftheapplication ofthetariff quotas asofOctober 1996. Although itwasthe
Supreme Court ofJustice which would decide when thetariff quotas would bere-established, the
representative ofCosta Ricatrusted thattariff quotas would bere-opened inthenearfuture. The
representative ofCosta Ricastated thathisGovernment would certainly beready todealwiththeissue
bilaterally upon request inthemeantime.
(c) United States: Status ofimplementation oftariff ratequotas forpork andpoultry inthe
Philippines
18. Therepresentative oftheUnited States indicated thattheUnited States remained concerned
withthecontinuing lackofprogress onthepartofthePhilippines inimplementing itstariff quotas
forporkandpoultry. Therepresentative oftheUnited States asked when thePhilippines would fully
meetitsWTO commitments forthese products. Therepresentative oftheUnited States alsosought
information regarding imports ofporkandpoultry todateunder thetariff quotas. ThePhilippines
delegation wasinformed thattheUnited States government intended toaskforArticle XXIIconsultationsG/AG/R/10
Page5
ontheissue. Referring tothenumber oftimes theissue hadalready beenraised, itwastheopinion
oftheUnited States thatthiswasaclear caseofaccess denied inviolation ofcommitments entered
into. Furthermore, therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed theview thatthePhilippines '
argument thatthere wasnopreference ordemand fortheproducts concerned washardtounderstand
incases where importers werenotabletogetalicence toimport orinother cases where businessmen
hadonlythree months inthecalendar yearinwhich toimport. Thiswasanissue ofamore generic
nature regarding producers 'organizations controlling market access, andonethatshould bekeptin
mind infurther informal consultations.
19. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines stated thatthePhilippines hadimplemented allofitstariff
ratequotas including those forporkandpoultry. ThePhilippines imported atotalof2,742 tonsof
porkand971tonsofpoultry in1996 and,respectively, 608and211tonsasofFebruary 1997. The
representative stressed thatthePhilippines allocated itstariffquotas based purely onhistorical market
shares. Inthecaseofpork, theunder-utilization ofminimum access opportunities wasaresult ofthe
localmarket 'spreference forfreshpork. Withregard topoultry, therepresentative ofthePhilippines
noted thattherewasaglutinthedomestic supply ofthisproduct inthePhilippines 'market. Thepoultry
sector hadgrown by11.3percentlastyearwithchicken production up14percent. Asamatter of
correction, therepresentative stated thatthetariff ratequota allocation wasnotunder thecontrol of
producers since processors andcommercial foodservice providers hadnotfullyutilized theirown
allocation. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines brought totheCommittee 'sattention therequest by
thePhilippines inOctober 1994forcorrection ofitsinitial andfinalquota quantities forporkandpoultry
meat, arequest which, however, hadnotbeengiven dueconsideration bytheUnited States among
others. Thus, according totherepresentative ofthePhilippines, thetrend inthePhilippines imports
ofporkandpoultry merely confirmed acorrect assessment ofthePhilippines 'market fortheseproducts.
Therepresentative stated thatthePhilippines hadengaged ininformal bilateral discussions withthe
United States ingoodfaith, inaneffort toresolve theissue. However, thePhilippines acknowledged
therightoftheUnited States torequest formal consultations under theDSU, although itwashoped
thatamutually agreed solution could bereached informally. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines
stressed thattheissue oftechnical correction wasonewhich boresystemic interest, particularly for
developing countries wholacked theresources toexamine more thoroughly their offers. The
representative ofthePhilippines proposed thatthematter beaddressed inpolicy discussions, particularly
takingintoaccountspecialanddifferentialtreatmentfordevelopingcountries.Therepresentativestressed
thatthiswasthekindofproblem which eroded thecredibility ofthemultilateral trading system and
hindered some Members from contributing positively tofurther trade liberalisation.
20. Therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities andCanada stated thattheywould consider
whataction totakeinlightoftheArticle XXIIconsultations which theUnited States intended torequest.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thattheEuropean Communities hadanumber
ofserious concerns about thesituation relating totheporkquota, andwaswaiting forresponses to
anumber ofquestions which hadbeenaddressed bilaterally tothePhilippines onthematter. The
representative ofCanada noted, withregard tothesystemic issueraised bythePhilippines, thatthere
wasahistory tothePhilippines 'request fortechnical corrections andtotheposition taken bythe
Philippines 'trading partners, andthatdiscussions ontheissueshould beundertaken within thatcontext.
Therepresentative ofHungary stated thatastherepresentative ofacountry which wasavictim of
anerrorcommitted during theestablishment ofitsexport subsidy commitments, hesupported thepoints
raised bytherepresentative ofthePhilippines, along withtheinitiative toaddress thisissue within
theframework oftheCommittee.
(d) United States: Egypt 'stariff rates forcertain dairy products andbanonpoultry imports
21. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesthankedthedelegationofEgyptforprovidinginformation
inresponse torequests bytheUnited States. While theUnited States didnotnecessarily withdraw theG/AG/R/10
Page6
question raised, itappreciated Egypt 'scooperation andbelieved thatbothcountries wereontheway
toamutually acceptable solution. Therepresentative ofThailand likewise thanked theEgyptian
delegation andcommended it'sforthcoming attitude which hadmade itpossible toresolve theproblem.
Therepresentative ofEgypt thanked boththeUnited States andThailand fortheircooperation and
understanding during recent consultations.
22. Therepresentative ofNewZealand sought information fromthedelegate ofEgypt astohow
theproblem raised bytheUnited States hadbeenresolved. Therepresentative ofNewZealand queried
whether theapplied rateswerenowwithin thebound rates, andwhether theyhadeverbeenoutside
thebound rates. Therepresentative ofAustralia inquired about thepossibility ofdifferent ratesbeing
applied byEgypt tonon-WTO Members andwhether thesewerehigher orlower thantheWTO bound
rates.
23. Therepresentative ofEgypt noted that,concerning thetariff oncertain dairy product items,
Egypt wascommitted toitsSchedule ofconcessions forallgoods imported fromWTO Members. There
wasanEgyptian schedule ofcustoms duties which wasapplicable toallcountries and,furthermore,
Egypt'sScheduleofcommitmentsundertheWTO,whichhadbeenratifiedbytheparliament,superseded
locallawsandcovered allimports from WTO Members. With regard topoultry imports, Egypt had
notified theUnited States andThailand thatthisproblem would besolved completely andinasatisfactory
manner nextJuly. Astothetariff ratesapplied previously andthose applied currently, these were
thebound ratesforWTO Members. There hadbeennodeviation from these rates. However, there
wereother ratesapplied tonon-Members which hadcreated confusion withcertain shipments coming
toEgypt from non-WTO Members.
(e) United States: Useofexport subsidies onbeefbySwitzerland
24. Thedelegation oftheUnited States recalled thatithadraised thisissueatearlier meetings and
thatitwould continue tomonitor thesituation closely. Therepresentative stated thattheUnited States
wasconcerned overrecent reports thatthegovernment ofSwitzerland continued toprovide export
subsidies forbeefthatwereinconsistent withitsWTO commitments. Information wassought onwhat
specific measures were taken, orwere under consideration, inorder toremedy thissituation.
25. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland made thefollowing points inresponse tothematter raised:
(i)thatprices ofseveral categories ofbovine meathadfallen tolevels comparable toworld market
prices asaconsequence ofthemarket crisis triggered bytheBSEdisease; (ii)thattheSwiss cooperative
forthesupply oflivestock andmeat, which wastheparastatal organisation incharge oftheorderly
supply management ofthedomestic meatmarket, hadacquired andstocked beefinthecourse of1996,
andthesaleprices ofbeefstocked werebelow theacquisition prices asaresult ofthecollapse ofthe
market prices; (iii)thatin1996, 9,000 metric tonsofthatmeat hadtobecommercialized, 5,000
tonsofwhich weresubsequently exported byprivate traders; (iv)thatnotallthecontracts entered
intoduring 1996 could beshipped within thesame calendar year; nonewcontracts wereconcluded
in1997; and(v)thatmeanwhile market prices hadrecovered slightly andtheeconomic conditions
forfurther export operations werenolonger given, thustheabove mentioned organization wasinstructed
nottosellanymore meattoexport traders. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland concluded thatthiswas
aone-off operation which hadoccurred under certain exceptional andregrettable circumstances, and
thatcorrective measures hadbeentaken soastoprevent arecurrence ofthissituation inthefuture.
26. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand acknowledged Switzerland 'sstatement thatcorrective
measures hadbeentaken soastoprevent arecurrence ofthesituation inthefuture. However, questions
remained regarding theSwiss explanation. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thatitwasofgreat
concern toAustralia thatithadcontinued toreceive reports thatSwitzerland hadnotstopped providing
export subsidies onbeefwhich appeared inconsistent withSwitzerland 'sWTO commitments. TheG/AG/R/10
Page7
representative ofAustralia alsoenquired whether Switzerland, initsresponse, hadrecognized thatthere
hadbeenamistake andthatexport subsidies hadinfactbeenprovided toassist theexportation ofbeef.
27. Several other delegations raised questions onthisissue. Therepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities stated thatthelegal situation wasnotclear since itseemed thatpartoftheoperation
involved internal support andtheother partcould belinked toaquestion ofprinciple associated with
countries, voluntarily ornot,breaching theirexport commitments. Therepresentative oftheUnited
States commended Switzerland onpreparing apaper fortheSPSCommittee outlining theconcerns
overBSEandthetreatment Switzerland hadreceived from other countries. Therepresentative also
asked whether anysubsidies hadbeengiven toSwiss beefexporters in1997 andwhat, ifany,export
quantities were involved.
28. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland stressed that: (i)theSwiss government acknowledged the
importance ofexport subsidy commitments; (ii)thattheissueathandinvolved aparastatal organisation
which hadnotexported meat, although itwaslegally entitled todoso,anditsoperations remained
ofapurely domestic nature; (iii)thisparastatal organisation hadbenefited from domestic support
from theSwiss government andthishadbeennotified totheWTO; (iv)thesalesweremade atthe
prevailing market price tobothdomestic andexporter companies; (v)inDecember 1996, theSwiss
parliament allocated, inthecontext oftheBSEcrisis, 25million Swiss francs tothisparastatal
organisation fordomestic support measures inthefirstquarter of1997; and(vi)subsequently meat
hadagain beenbought-up, raising prices, andconsumption hadstarted torecover. Finally, asregards
aquerybyEcuador,therepresentativeofSwitzerlandstatedthathedidnotbelievethatinternalmeasures,
suchasadministrative instructions given tothisparastatal organisation, should bethesubject of
notification totheCommittee.
29. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatdatashould beprovided ontheamount of
funds usedfororderly meatmarketing purposes bytheparastatal organisation andonthequantities
ofmeatsoldonthedomestic andexport markets, interms oftotals andbreakdown, forthepurpose
oftracking theoperations ofthesystem. Therepresentative oftheUnited States indicated thatthese
matters would bepursued bilaterally. Therepresentatives ofArgentina, Australia, theEuropean
Communities, Canada, Japan andNewZealand expressed theirinterest inthematter andsupported
thesuggestion forfurther bilateral consultations.
Other Matters Relating totheReview Process
30. TheCommittee tooknotethattheChairperson hadinitiated informal consultations, asagreed
orenvisaged attheSeptember andNovember 1996 meetings oftheCommittee, onarange of
implementation-related topics. Some oftheprincipal items included: (i)thegeneric aspects ofmeasures
orarrangements under which importation ofanagricultural product ismade subject torequirements
regarding thepurchase orabsorption ofdomestic products, including theconsistency ofsuchmeasures
withrelevant WTO provisions; and(ii),inthecontext oftheadministration oftariff quotas, issues
relating totheuseofauctioning toallocate tariffquota licences andtheroleofproducers 'organisations
andstate-tradingenterprisesintheallocationorimplementationoftariffsandotherquotas.Othergeneric
tariffquota administration issues onwhich further informal consultations hadyettobeorganised include,
butarenotlimited to:therelationship between theAgreement onAgriculture andtheTRIMS
Agreement; thesub-allocation ofbroadly defined tariff quotas tospecific products; country specific
allocations; thetreatment ofpreferential tradewithin MFN tariffandother quota commitments; and
theextension ofthebenefits ofsuchcommitments tonon-WTO Members.
31. Inaddition, twoinformal consultations hadsofarbeenorganised, asagreed bytheCommittee
atitsOctober 1996 meeting, regarding Canada 'ssystem ofspecial milkclasses. Itwasalsonoted
thattheCommittee hadagreed atitsNovember 1996 meeting thatinformal consultations would beG/AG/R/10
Page8
organised attheappropriate stage, regarding therequest made bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods
concerning modified subsidy notification formats.
32. Therepresentative ofArgentina suggested thatinthefurther informal consultations onthe
administration oftariff quotas, itwould beuseful, asastarting point, todevelop andenrich some of
theproposals thathadbeenmade intherecent discussions onsuchmatters astheauctioning oftariff
quota licences. Onthegeneral subject offurther informal consultations, itwasnoted bythe
representatives ofAustralia andNewZealand thatthere would needtobeacontinuing anddistinct
roleforinformal consultations onspecific compliance issues, suchasthose referred toinparagraph
7oftheCommittee 'sreport fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference, whereas further discussions
onmostofthegeneric issues which hademerged sofarinthecourse ofimplementation should now
bepursued aspartofthebroader process ofanalysis andinformation exchange. Therepresentative
ofSwitzerland stated thatmissing orincomplete notifications constituted aserious problem restricting
theaimofinformal consultations, inthattheyprevented Members from getting thefullpicture. He
suggested thattheSecretariat carry outahorizontal analysis ofwhatinformation wasavailable, lacking
orunclear. Itwasalsonoted withregard tomissing orincomplete notifications, thattheprovision of
Article 18:7enabled Members tobring totheattention oftheCommittee anymeasure which itwas
considered ought tohavebeennotified.
33. With regard tothedocument which hadbeencirculated asG/AG/W/30, therepresentative
ofSouth Africa stated thatduring theNovember 1996 meeting oftheCommittee, anapparent lack
ofbackground information hadbeen signalled inrelation toSouth Africa 'sDS:1 notification.
Accordingly, intheinterest oftransparency andcompleteness, South Africa wished toprovide, for
theinformation ofinterested Members, acomplete setoftheSupporting Tables relating toSouth Africa 's
BaseTotal AMS which should havebeencirculated aspartofdocument G/AG/AGST/ZAF dated 22
March 1995.
PartII:Other Matters within thePurview oftheCommittee
Review oftheWTO ListofNetFood-Importing Developing Countries, including requests by
Botswana andPakistan tobeincluded intheList
34. TheChairperson noted thatParagraph 3oftheCommittee onAgriculture 'sdecision onthe
establishment ofaWTO ListofNetFood-Importing Developing Countries (G/AG/3 refers) provided
forthelisttobereviewed bytheCommittee atitsregular March meetings. Asoutlined ininformal
consultations prior tothecurrent meeting, theChairperson proposed thatthereview provided forin
G/AG/3 belimited totherevision oftheListinconnection withtheapplications byBotswana and
Pakistan tobelisted asNetFood-Importing Developing Countries. AsbothBotswana andPakistan
hadsubmitted relevant supporting statistical datainlinewithparagraph 2oftheCommittee 'sdecision
ontheestablishment oftheList,theCommittee agreed thattheWTO 'sListofNetFood-Importing
Developing Countries berevised toinclude Botswana andPakistan (therevised listhassincebeenissued
asG/AG/5/REV.2).
35. Asrequested bytherepresentative ofPeru, itwasagreed thatanitemrelating tothefollow
uptoparagraph 18(i)oftheCommittee 'sreport fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference ontheNet
Food-Importing Developing Countries Decision would beincluded ontheagenda oftheCommittee 's
nextregular meeting.G/AG/R/10
Page9
Follow-up totheSingapore Ministerial Declaration regarding theprocess ofanalysis andexchange
ofinformation
36. TheCommittee agreed thattheprocess ofanalysis andinformation exchange, asprovided
forinparagraph 12ofG/L/131 andasagreed tobytheSingapore Ministerial Conference
(WT/MIN(96)DEC, paragraph 19refers), would beundertaken through open-ended informal meetings
oftheCommittee onthebasis, interalia,ofpapers tobesubmitted byMembers. Suchpapers, including
anycontributions thatmayberequested fromtheSecretariat, would remain informal documents and
would beavailable toallMembers. Thedetailed arrangements forcarrying outtheprocess ofanalysis
andinformation exchange, including thefrequency ofmeetings, would beorganized asappropriate
bytheChairperson following consultations. Fortransparency purposes anitemrelating totheprocess
ofanalysis andinformation exchange would beincluded intheagenda ofregular meetings ofthe
Committee.
37. TherepresentativeofJamaicastressedtheimportanceofensuringfullparticipationintheprocess
ofanalysis andinformation exchange andofensuring thattheinformal papers were appropriately
identified andmade available toallMembers oftheCommittee. Thedetailed arrangements forcarrying
outtheprocess should beconfirmed bytheCommittee. Therepresentative alsoexpressed theview
thattheinclusion ofanitemrelating totheprocess ontheagenda ofregular meetings should serve
toensure notonlytransparency butalsotheintegrity oftheprocess andthefullest participation of
Members.
Regular observer status forinternational intergovernmental organizations
38. TheCommittee agreed togrant regular observer status totheFAO, theIMF, theInternational
Grains Council, theOECD, theUNCTAD, theUNWorld Food Programme andtheWorld Bank,
subject, asappropriate, tosatisfactory arrangements being made orconfirmed asregards suchmatters
asreciprocal observer status fortheWTO Secretariat asagreed bytheCommittee atitsJune1995
meeting (G/AG/R/2, paragraph 22refers). Itwasagreed thatthenewChairman should consult as
appropriate regarding theapplications forobserver status bytheACPSecretariat andtheInter-American
Development Bank (G/AG/W/29 refers).
Other Business
39. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thathehadraised onprevious occasions anumber of
queries withrespect totheoperations oftheEuropean Communities 'svolume-based special safeguard
onfruits andvegetables. However, theanswers received sofarfromtheEuropean Communities lacked
details onthemethodology thatmight beusedbytheEuropean Communities inactually triggering
thespecial safeguard. Similarly, therepresentative ofArgentina indicated thathestillhadproblems
withtheEuropean Communities 'answers toearlier questions regarding theuseofamore recent base
period thatwould beconsistent withArticle 5:4oftheAgreement onAgriculture. Therepresentative
ofArgentina expressed thehopethat,astheEuropean Communities haddecided nottoapply thevolume-
based special safeguard forthetimebeing, itwould beinabetter position toexplain themethodology
tobeemployed andtoupdate thebaseperiod. Asregards thepossibility ofusing thespecial safeguard
onamonthly basis, therepresentatives ofArgentina andMexico expressed theview thatanysuch
application should beconsistent withMFN principles. Therepresentative ofNewZealand, while
commending theEuropean Communities onitsdecision nottoimplement thespecial safeguard where
therewasnoriskofdisturbance toitsdomestic market, expressed theviewthatsuchasystem appeared
tobeunnecessary andirrelevant inasituation where reference prices ruled theEuropean Communities '
fruitandvegetables market.G/AG/R/10
Page10
40. TherepresentativesofMexico,theUnitedStates,Chile,Colombia,CanadaandBrazilexpressed
theirinterest intheissue andinreceiving anyrelevant information made available bytheEuropean
Communities.
41. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted intervening Members 'recognition
thattheEuropean Communities would beapplying thespecial safeguard wholly inconformity with
thepossibilities available toit.Therepresentative observed that,asnoted bysome Members, thesystem
hadnotyetbeenapplied andhadthusnotbeennotified totheWTO. Therepresentative stated that
theservices oftheEuropean Communities wereintheprocess ofreviewing thepossibility ofusing
more recent dataandMembers would bekeptinformed ofdevelopments.
42. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesinformedtheCommitteethattheUnitedStatesgovernment
wasconcerned about thenewEuropean Communities regulation (EC300/97 of19February 1997)
which expanded export subsidies available forcheese. Asaresult ofthisnewregulation, Community
origin butter, butter oil,natural cheese andskim milkpowder usedinthemanufacture ofprocessed
cheese under inward processing arrangements (IPA) would become eligible forexport refunds. The
UnitedStatesviewedthisschemeasameansofcircumventingtheEuropeanCommunities'exportsubsidy
commitments oncheese. Therepresentative requested theEuropean Communities tonotify the
Committee howthescheme operated andexplain whythescheme wasnotaviolation ofitsexport
subsidy commitments. Therepresentatives ofAustralia, NewZealand, Canada, Argentina andMexico
shared theconcerns expressed bytheUnited States. Therepresentative ofNewZealand observed that
theproduct description intheAnnex toPartIV,Section IIoftheEuropean Communities Schedule
indicated thatcheese andcurdunder HScode0406 30came under thecheese commitment, andthat
subsidised processed cheese exported from theEuropean Communities therefore hadtobecounted
against theEuropean Communities 'export subsidy commitments oncheese.
43. Therepresentatives ofNewZealand andArgentina alsosought further technical information
asto:(i)howexport refunds would befixed forthebasic component products thatwould gointo
themanufacture ofprocessed cheese; (ii)whether thiswould beonthebasis ofanIPAcategory or
onthefinalmarket destination oftheendproducts; (iii)howmuch imported product wasnecessary
forthemanufacturing process toqualify asanIPAoperation; and(iv)whether thefinalexport product
assuchwould beineligible forexport restitutions.
44. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted thattheUnited States 'question had
beenraised under other business. However, bywayofpreliminary response, therepresentative stated
thatother trading partners oftheEuropean Communities made useofinward processing arrangements.
Thenewsystem forprocessed cheese would openupadditional trade opportunities fortheEuropean
Communities 'WTO trading partners, because thesystem required theuseofproducts imported from
third countries. Itwasnotconsidered thatthesystem involved anyexpansion intheuseofexport
subsidies forcheese assuch, since export refunds would begranted onlyonbasic components such
asbutter, skimmilkpowder orvarious other forms ofcheese. Theendproduct exported under this
IPAscheme would notbesubsidised. Therepresentative stated thattheIPAsystem wasalready well
established andthatinusing itforprocessed cheese theEuropean Communities would, ofcourse, meet
itscommitments relating tothebasiccomponents involved aswellastheEuropean Communities 'export
subsidy commitments asawhole.
Date ofNext Meeting
45. ThenextregularmeetingoftheCommitteeonAgriculturewillbeheldon25-26September1997.
Theairgram convening thismeeting andthedraftagenda willbeissued onFriday, 12September 1997.G/AG/R/10
Page11
46. TheCommittee alsotooknotethatinsetting the1997schedule ofregular meetings (G/AG/R/6,
paragraph 40refers), theCommittee hadmade provision forthepossibility ofanadditional regular
meeting towards theendofJune. Whether suchameeting istobeheldwould bedecided bythenew
Chairman inconsultation withdelegations.
Election ofanewChairperson
47. TheCommittee tooknotethat,inlinewiththe"Guidelines fortheAppointment ofOfficers
toWTO bodies" (WT/L/31), theChairperson oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods (CTG) hadconducted
consultations ontheappointment oftheChairpersons ofthesubsidiary bodies oftheCTG, asaresult
ofwhich consensus hadbeenreached onthenomination ofH.E.Ambassador Nestor Osorio Londoño
asChairperson oftheCommittee onAgriculture (G/C/M/17, paragraph 5refers).
48. TheCommittee elected Ambassador Osorio Londoño asChairperson oftheCommittee by
acclamation, toholdoffice untiltheendofthefirstmeeting in1998, under Rule12oftheCommittee 's
Rules ofProcedure (G/L/142).
49. ThenewChairman expressed hisownandhisdelegation 'sacknowledgment andappreciation
oftheextraordinary taskcarried outbyMrsApiradi Tantraporn, asacting andinterim Chairperson
oftheCommittee onAgriculture, inforging oneofthemain linksinthechain which tookMembers
toSingapore. Ambassador Osorio stated thathewaspleased toaccept theappointment andlooked
forward toworking withMembers oftheCommittee toensure thatthebestpossible progress wasmade
under theCommittee 'sextended agenda andinthefulfilment ofallMembers 'commitments under
theUruguay Round reform programme. Delegations congratulated Ambassador Osorio Londoño on
hisappointment andassured himoftheirfullest cooperation.
50. Delegations conveyed toMrsApiradi Tantraporn theirappreciation forherleadership and
amicable mediation, firmguidance, humour andefficiency, aswellasherwisdom andsense ofbalance,
andforthesolidfoundation which shehadhelped tocreate foraddressing theCommittee 'smandate.
MrsApiradi Tantraporn saidthatshehadtriedtofollow inAmbassador Danai 'swisefootsteps and
thanked Members oftheCommittee andtheSecretariat fortheirhelpincarrying outwhat attimes
hadnotbeenaneasytask.G/AG/R/10
Page12
ANNEX
Review ofNotifications bytheCommittee onAgriculture atitsMeeting on13-14 March 1997
Summary ofSpecific Points Raised andResponses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
ElSalvador G/AG/N/SLV/1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/United States/Australia -
CanElSalvador confirm thattheapplied tariff
rates forimports ofproducts listed inSection I-B
ofitsSchedule, areequal to,orlower than, the
bound in-quota tariffs? Confirmation requested that
imports ofthese products arenotsubject toany
limitation interms ofvolume.Undertook toprovide response.G/AG/R/10
Page13
Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Canada/New Zealand/Argentina -
Clarification sought regarding thebasis onwhich
thetariff quota formilk powder isallocated.
Could Mexico explain theroles ofCONASUPO
andSECOFI?
Australia/Argentina -Arethere anypossibilities
fornewcomers? Isthere anauction premium?CONASUPO nolonger isthesolechannel of
importation. Nowadays anyimporter canimport
milk powder bypaying thedutyorifithasthe
corresponding import certificate. SECOFI isthe
onlyentity which issues import certificates. The
certificates areallocated onthebasis oftraditional
imports and,therefore, CONASUPO receives a
great majority ofsuch certificates. Usually, around
60percentofCONASUPO 'simported milk
powder isconsumed byLICONSA forthesocial
programme andtherestisconsumed bythe
private industry. CONASUPO usesauctioning to
allocate tariff quota toprivate industries. In1995,
134,646 tonnes ofmilk powder were imported,
thatis,14,646 tonnes beyond thetariff quota
commitment. Theapplied tariffs forimports
within thetariff quota, aswellasbeyond thetariff
quota commitment, were zero.
Mexico undertook toprovide aresponse.
Australia/Canada/New Zealand/European
Communities/Colombia -What isthemeaning of
Annex 1toTable MA:1?Milk powder istheonlyproduct forwhich Mexico
hasopened tariff quotas. Annexes toTables MA:1
andMA:2 listother products subject totariff
quota commitments forwhich tariff quotas were
notopened in1995.
Australia -IfMexico intends toopen tariff quotas
forother products inthefuture, howwillMexico
allocate them, inparticular forthetariff heading
"sugar andproducts withhighsugar content"
which covers 32tariff lines?Mexico willnotify asappropriate ifitdecides to
open other tariff quotas. Toputforward an
opinion inthisregard atpresent, thatiswhen
Mexico donoteven know ifthose rights willbe
used, would bepurely speculative.
Australia -Mexico 'sSchedule indicates thatforall
products subject totariff quotas, except coffee,
sugar andsugar products withahighsugar
content, aspecific country-allocation applies
(NAFTA orUSA). How does Mexico allocate
shares oftheglobal tariff quota between products
atHSeight-digit level?Toputforward anopinion regarding theallocation
ofglobal tariff quota when inreality such tariff
quotas have notbeen used would bepurely
speculative. Such information would benotified
when, andonlyif,those tariff quotas were tobe
applied.
New Zealand -Information requested withrespect
totheimport arrangements relating totariff quotas
forcheese.Aspreviously explained, Mexico isnotapplying
tariff quotas inthese products. Depending onthe
typeofcheese, imports within thetariff quota are
subject toatariff of20percent(HS0406.3001,
0406.3099, 0406.9003, 0406.9005) or40percent
(HS0406.1001, 0406.9099).G/AG/R/10
Page14
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/8 andCHE/8/Corr.1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/Canada/European Communities/New
Zealand/Argentina -Noted thatunder item(5)
"animals forslaughter; meat mainly produced on
thebasis ofgreen fodder" anditem (6)"animals
forslaughter; meat mainly produced onthebasis
ofconcentrated fodder", Switzerland hasincreased
theshare ofthequota allocated through auctioning
fordried meat (HS0210.2010), preserved beef
(HS1602.5011/5091), hamproducts andpreserved
ham(HS0210.1191//1991) andother meat from
20percentin1996 to30percentin1997. How
willSwitzerland ensure thatthein-quota tariff
bindings willnotbebreached inthesituation
where there isasmall sub-allocation andtherefore
ahighdemand?
New Zealand -Concerns raised regarding the
extension oftheuseofauctioning given thatthe
legal basis forthepractice under WTO rules is
questionable.
Korea -Supported theviews ofSwitzerland
regarding theextension oftheuseofauctioning to
allocate tariff quotas. Korea 'sexperience
demonstrates thattheauction system isthemost
efficient method interms ofquota fill.
European Communities -What arethepractical
lessons thatSwitzerland haslearnt from theuseof
auctioning?
Australia/European Communities -Noted the
changes intheadministration oftariff quota for
white wine, inbottles andinbulk. Why andwhen
didSwitzerland implement thischange andhow
willSwitzerland ensure thatitdoes notbreach its
bindings?
Australia -What isthelevel ofthepremium thatis
paidforquotas? What istheapplied in-quota
tariff?
Australia -Considered thatSwitzerland was
breaching itsbindings.Aside from thepercentage oftariff quota allocated
through auctioning, allshares ofthetariff rate
quotas have been fully allocated. Theincrease
from 20percentto30percentintheshare ofthe
tariff sub-quota allocated through auctioning is
partofagradual process which aims atusing only
theauction method by1999 forthatsub-quota.
Switzerland regards auctioning asaninternal
measure forallocating tariff quotas atthebound
rates, which isprimarily intended toincrease
competition andtoshiftthequota rentfrom
importers toGovernment. Inmany cases,
auctioning isconsidered tobethebestavailable
option forallocating tariff quotas.
Switzerland isready toshare withmembers ofthe
Committee onAgriculture itspositive experience
withauctioning.
Auctioning wasimplemented on1January 1997.
Since 1January 1996, thetwotariff ratequotas
forwhite wine, bulkandbottled have been merged
intoonesingle "white wine" tariff quota. Thefull
amount ofthe"white wine" tariff quota is
auctioned andallocated inonesingle process.
Importers arecompletely freeinchoosing
geographical origins, qualities, timeofdeliveries
andtheform ofimports, i.e.bulkorbottled.
Theaverage auction premium amounted toSwF
0.80 perlitreofwhite wine which isconsiderably
lower thantheout-of-quota tariff ofSwF 5.80 per
litre. Accordingly, theimpact oftheauction
premium ondomestic prices isnil.Thein-quota
tariff applied isSwF 0.50 perlitreofwhite wine.G/AG/R/10
Page15
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/8 andCHE/8/Corr.1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/European Communities -Noted thatsome
responsible administering agencies have changed,
inparticular forpotatoes, durum wheat, bread
grains andcoarse grain. What arethereasons and
theimplications ofthese changes?
European Communities/Canada -Clarification
sought ontheadministration oftariff quotas for
frozen vegetables.
Canada -Clarification sought regarding the
purposes required toimport livebovine animals
within thetariff quota. Why didSwitzerland add
thepurpose "forextensive stock raising" tothelist
(tariff quota No. 2,point (b)(ii), page 4,refers)?
Enquiry about onepurpose omitted inthe
notification.
Argentina -Clarification sought regarding the
general remarks which state thattheallocation of
thetariff quota issubject todomestic purchase
requirement (Part A,item(b)(iii), page 2,refers).
How does Switzerland claim thatmarket access
opportunities arepreserved?
Argentina -Noted thatBUTYRA isthesole
importer ofbutter within thetariff quota. Does
Switzerland intend toallow imports byother
importers?
Argentina -Clarification sought regarding the
concept of"market demand" fortariff quotas Nos.
(18)and(19), respectively apricots andother
fruits, fresh (item (b)(iv), page 15,refers).The"Régie Fédérale desAlcohols" (RFA) which
washistorically incharge oftheproducts that
were used fortheproduction ofspirits, namely
potatoes, certain fresh fruits andfruitproducts,
hasbeen reorganized. Asof1997, responsibility
hasbeen transferred from theRFA totheFederal
Office ofAgriculture (OFAG). TheFiduciary
Office ofSwiss Holders ofCompulsory Cereals
Stocks (OSSOC) isnowadministering tariff quotas
forcereals. These changes have noimpact onthe
administration ofthetariff quotas.
Tariff quota shares areinitially allocated to
importers onthebasis ofthehistorical imports. In
linewithaparliamentary mandate calling for
increased competition, re-allocation isoperated as
follows: atleast once every three years, 20per
centofthetariff quota isre-distributed onthe
basis oftherespective performance over thethree
preceding years andonthebasis ofthefollowing
criteria: 35percent(ofthe20percent) according
toout-of-quota imports and65percent(ofthe20
percent) according tothepurchase ofdomestic
production.
Thispurpose wasadded inorder torespond to
newdemand created bylowinput/low output
forms oflanduseasaresult ofchanges inSwiss
agricultural policies.
Thepurpose (b)"cross-breeding toimprove the
stock" ismissing duetoatypographical error.
Thiscriteria isaninternal distribution mechanism
which does notaffect either theorigin ofimports
orquota fill.
BUTYRA holds themonopoly ofimports ofbutter
within thetariff quota. Aslongasthequota is
filled Switzerland does notseeanyproblem. A
proposal toreform thedairy sector isbeing
considered bytheParliament.
Inorder toensure thatimports donotexceed
market demand, allocation oftariff quotas maybe
subject todomestic purchase requirement. A
commission composed ofimporters, producers and
consumers makes recommendations onthebasis of
estimates ofproduction anddemand forecasts.G/AG/R/10
Page16
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/8 andCHE/8/Corr.1 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Argentina -What isthedifference between
auctions andtenders (item (b)(iii) fortariff quotas
Nos. 20and21,pages 15and16,refer)?
Argentina -Clarification sought regarding the
limitations oneligibility ofapplicants foranumber
oftariff quotas, inparticular forlivebovine
animals, liveswine, livesheep andgoats, eggs,
dried andnotdried, bovine semens (tariff quotas
Nos. 2,3,4,10and12,item (b)(ii), refer). Cana
normal trader, whodevotes himself onlyto
importing, benefit from thetariff quota shares?
Argentina -Clarification sought withregard tothe
note"asneeded" (item (b)(iii), tariff quotas Nos.
24and28,pages 17and18,refer)
Colombia -Noted that20percentofthetariff
quotas forcutflowers isallocated according to
purchases. How does theallocation operate?There isnodifference intheconcept, onlyfor
some administrative details.
With respect todried eggs, alltraders areeligible.
Since Switzerland hasbecome aMember ofthe
WTO, thebovine semen monopoly hasbeen
abolished. Accordingly, anytraders ordistributors
mayimport bovine semen. Regarding egg
products, anytrader mayimport anyquantity
without limit atthein-quota tariff. Forremaining
products Switzerland willpursue thematter.
Switzerland willrespond shortly.
20percentofthetariff quota isallocated to
companies which buySwiss flowers.
Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/4 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand /European Communities -
Clarification sought regarding the"other methods
proposed bythetariff quota management
Committee" toallocate tariff quotas (item (b)2,
page 2,refers).
Argentina -Arethere anyprovisions for
newcomers?
New Zealand -Clarification sought onhow
Tunisia implements theadministration oftariff
quotas. Doimport monopolies forgrains andsugar
playarole?
New Zealand -Clarification sought withrespect to
thefootnote which states thatout-of-tariff quota
imports areeffected withanimport licence.Todatetariff quotas have been allocated onthe
basis oftraditional trade flows. Incaseofany
problem withimporters, Tunisia could review its
method ofallocation.
10percentofthetariff quota isreserved for
newcomers.
Tariff quotas areallocated onthebasis of
traditional trade flows through theTunisian Grain
Board forgrains andtheTrade Board forsugar.
Notariffs areapplied onimports ofsugar.
Ifapplications exceed thetariff quota quantities,
requests aresatisfied onaproratabasis according
totheDecree establishing quota management
modalities. Import licences areissued for
statistical purpose.G/AG/R/10
Page17
Table MA:2 Notifications
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/4/Corr.1 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -How does Iceland sub-allocate aglobal
tariff quota covering several tariff lines?Tobepursued bilaterally.
Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/2 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Does theimport quantity formilk
powder include preferential trade under NAFTA?
Australia/New Zealand/Japan/European
Communities -Could Mexico provide information
ontheapplied tariff rates andthequantity of
imports forproducts subject totariff quota
commitments, other thanmilk powder?
Australia/New Zealand/European Communities -
Clarification sought regarding tariff heading "sugar
andproducts withhighsugar content". What isthe
access regime forthefractions listed inthe
Schedule (HS1701, 1704 and2202.9001) butnot
inAnnex 1toTable MA:1?Preferential trade under NAFTA isincluded inthe
volume ofimports notified, butitspreferential
character isirrelevant since allimports
(NAFTA/non-NAFTA andin-quota/out-quota)
were dutyfree. In1995, Mexico imported 34,409
tonsofmilk powder from theUnited States.
In1995, Mexico imported 1,222,652 tonsof
wheat; 68,064 tonsofbarley; 2,660,516 tonsof
maize; 24,665 tonsofpotatoes; 24,674 tonsof
beans; 1,926 tonsofcoffee; 122,627 tonsofmeat
andedible offal; 50,384 tonsofanimal fats;3,288
tonsofhardandmedium-hard cheese and90,544
tonsofproducts withhighsugar content. Imports
were above thetariff quota commitments forall
products except beans, cheese andproducts with
highsugar content. Theapplied rateofdutyon
imports was50percentexcept forcheese and
roasted coffee. Depending onthetypeofcheese,
imports were subject toatariff of20percent(HS
0406.3001, 0406.3099, 0406.9003, 0406.9005) or
40percent(HS0406.1001, 0406.9099). Roasted
coffee imports (HS0901.2101 and0901.2201)
were subject toatariff of20percent.
With respect tosugar (HS1701 and1704) Mexico
does nothave atariff quota, neither inthereality,
norinitsSchedule. Tariff lineHS2202.9001
should have been included inAnnex 1toTable
MA:1.G/AG/R/10
Page18
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/6 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Argentina -Why were tariff quotas
foranumber ofproducts notfilled?
Australia -Doin-quota import quantities for1996
include preferential trade?Under-utilization oftariff quotas isthereflection
oflower domestic demand andconsequently lower
commercial interest, lower domestic prices andthe
export position oftheSlovak Republic formany
products.
In-quota import quantities include preferential
trade under Article XXIV ofGATT 1994, except
forpreferential trade withtheCzech Republic.
Thailand G/AG/N/THA/18 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia/Argentina/European
Communities -Could Thailand explain whymany
ofitstariff quotas were under-utilized, in
particular forcoconut, riceandsugar?Under-utilization oftariff quotas isareflection of
aself-sufficiency situation andThailand 'sposition
asanexporter ofmany oftheproducts. Import
prices aretherefore notcompetitive orattractive
enough. Other reasons forunder-utilization include
substitution byproducts withlower costof
importation, forexample thesubstitution offresh
milk bymilk powder, andimports from non-WTO
Members.G/AG/R/10
Page19
Tables MA:3 toMA:5 Notifications
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/16 Volume-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Areimport dataused tocalculate the
trigger level based onacalendar yearorafiscal
year, inorder tomatch theperiod forwhich tariff
quota isbeing administered?
Canada -What isthe"current period "used to
calculate thevolume ofimports?Data used tocalculate thetrigger volume isbased
onacalendar year.
The"current period" covers April 1996 to
November 1996.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/17 Volume-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Clarification sought onthe
linkage between thespecial safeguard
mechanism under Article 5ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture and the
emergency measures described in
document L/7621 dated 16February
1995.
European Communities -Clarification
sought regarding theuseofonetrigger
level inorder tosafeguard imports ofa
group ofproducts.Volume-based special safeguard andemergency measures are
different andindependent measures. Each measure is
invoked inaccordance witheach standard andprocedure.
With respect tomeat ofswine, Japan applied voluntarily a
tariff ratethatislower thanthebound rate. Emergency
measures were introduced following theconclusion ofthe
Uruguay Round Negotiations andoperate asfollows: when
thequantity ofimports from thebeginning ofthefiscal year
totheendofeach quarter exceeds 119percentofthe
average quantity ofimports over thecorresponding periods
during thethree preceding years, Japan willapply thebound
rate.
Safeguard mechanism isinvoked inlinewithArticle 5ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture asfollows: when thequantity of
imports exceeds 105percentoftheaverage quantity of
imports over thethree preceding years, Japan mayapply an
additional duty. Astofiscal year1996 "emergency
measures" were invoked on1July1996, safeguard was
triggered on1January 1997.
Asthere arenoprovisions inArticle 5oftheAgreement on
Agriculture concerning thespecial safeguard unit, Japan
grouped together theproducts thathave similar
characteristics andhighsubstitutability asonespecial
safeguard unit.
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/14 Price-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -What wasthein-quota import quantity
fordried leguminous vegetables (inwhich Azuki
beans areincluded) when theprice-based safeguard
wastriggered?When theprice-based safeguard wastriggered on
2December 1996, allthetariff ratequota had
been allocated: thatis,120,000 tonsfortheperiod
from April 1996 toMarch 1997. Japan imported
64,000 tonsout-of quota from April 1996 to
November 1996. Theprice-based safeguard was
triggered forashipment thatwasnotimported
within thetariff quota.G/AG/R/10
Page20
Table DS:1 Notifications
Australia G/AG/N/AUS/7/Rev.1/Add.1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Information requested
regarding the"Murray-Darling Basin
Initiative" programme included inthe
notification asanenvironmental
programme. Could Australia confirm
thatthemeasure meets thecriteria set
outinparagraph 12ofAnnex 2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture?The"Murray-Darling Basin Initiative" programme covers a
collection ofmeasures which does notfitclearly under one
category asdescribed inAnnex 2oftheAgreement on
Agriculture. However theobjectives oftheprogramme are
clearly environmental andnotdesigned todeliver assistance to
agricultural producers. Itprovides funding foranumber of
sub-programmes which include: theimplementation ofa
broadly based natural resources management strategy; ongoing
investigations andtheconstruction ofsaltinterception schemes
under salinity anddrainage strategy; acoordinated drainage
programme ofjoint government andcommunity works
measures tocombat landsalinization andwaterlogging; andthe
regulation oftheriver Murray todistribute water toaffected
states andcooperative education andinformation programmes
throughout theBasin. Theprogramme meets thefundamental
requirements for"green box" measures. Thesupport is
provided through apublicly-funded government programme
andisdeemed tobenon- orminimally trade distorting.
Malta G/AG/N/MLT/1 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Information requested
regarding thethree measures referred to
inSupporting Table DS:1. Could Malta
confirm thateach measure meets the
basic criteria ofAnnex 2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture, aswellas
thepolicy-specific criteria relating to
each sub-category of"green box"
measures?
New Zealand -Thenotification
reported onlythree measures exempt
from reduction commitments. Could
Malta confirm thattheother measures
described inG/AG/AGST/MLT areno
longer implemented?Thethree programmes meet thecriteria setoutinthe
Agreement onAgriculture. "Contribution towards marketing
expenses ofco-operative societies" isdesigned tosupport
marketing andpromotion expenses offarmer co-operatives.
Support isnotused bysellers toreduce theselling price, nor
toconfer adirect economic benefit topurchasers. The
"Assistance tofarmer" programme supports thephysical
restructuring ofaproducer 'soperation inresponse tohis
structural disadvantages interms ofsizeandquality of
cultivable landandofwater forirrigation. Payments arenot
based onthevolume ofproduction orontheprices ofany
product. They constitute aonetimegrant anddonotrequire
theproducer toproduce anyparticular product. Under the
"refund ofsocial security contribution 'stofarmers and
fishermen" programme, theGovernment refunds 50percent
ofthecontribution made byfulltimefarmers whoare
members ofaco-operative, tothenational insurance scheme.
Refunds areprovided onthebasis ofcontributions paidby
farmers which relates solely toincome.
Theother measures described inG/AG/AGST/MLT were not
implemented in1995, butmaybeapplied inthefuture as
appropriate.G/AG/R/10
Page21
Malaysia G/AG/N/MYS/6 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada/New Zealand/Argentina -Clarification
sought withrespect to"Price Subsidy and
Guaranteed Minimum Price" programme referred
toinSupporting Table DS:1. How does the
programme operate? What isthelevel ofsupport
granted foreach ofthese measures? Does Malaysia
claim thatthemeasure isinconformity withthe
"green box" provisions setoutinAnnex 2ofthe
Agreement ofAgriculture? What wasthetotal
value ofproduction forricein1997?
Korea -Information requested regarding the
eligibility criteria fortheprogramme, domestic
andworld price levels andthevarious ways of
deciding theprice support.
Canada -Could Malaysia provide further details
withrespect totheother "green box" measures
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1. How do
theymeet thecriteria setoutinAnnex 2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture?
Canada -Confirmation requested regarding the
monetary value unit. Istheunit"RM" used inthe
notification thesame currency as"M$" in
document G/AG/AGST/MLT?
New Zealand -Clarification sought withregard to
"drainage andirrigation facilities" referred toin
Supporting Table DS:1. Wasthesupport provided
solely fortheconstruction ofcapital works orfor
operating themeasure? Could Malaysia provide a
breakdown oftheexpenditures?
Canada -Clarification sought withrespect tothe
three programmes under theSixth andSeventh
Malaysian Plan, namely newlanddevelopment,
regional development andinsitu development
relating toopening newlands foragriculture. Is
anysupport forthese programmes reflected inthe
notification?Theprogramme isa"poverty redressal scheme"
forpaddy farmers. With anaverage farm sizeof
1.2hectare, theannual income ofpaddy farmer
perhectare, including price support and
guaranteed minimum price, ranges from RM518
toRM1,584, depending onitslocation andyield.
Theprogramme hasnotrade effect because
Malaysia hastoimport 20-30 percentofits
requirement forrice. Malaysia considered
therefore thattheprogramme isinconformity with
thegeneral "green box" criteria setoutinAnnex 2
oftheAgreement onAgriculture.
Rice production in1995 amounted to2.126
million tons, withatotalvalue ofRM1.05
billion.
Allthemeasures described inSupporting Table
DS:1 arefinanced bytheGovernment. They do
notinvolve direct payment either inkindorcash
totheagricultural producers anddeemed tobe
non- orminimally trade-distorting.
Malaysia confirms thatRMorMalaysian $arethe
same currency.
Thesupport provided does notinclude operating
costs.
Malaysia does notprovide anysupport tothese
programmes.G/AG/R/10
Page22
South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/5 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thattwonew"green box"
measures areadded inSupporting Table DS:1
compared tothose included inG/AG/AGST/ZAF,
under item1"General services" andunder item6
"other". WillSouth Africa notify these measures
asnewormodified policies using Table DS:2?Thenotification contains anumber of"green box"
measures which have notyetbeen notified. South
Africa intends tosubmit appropriate DS:2
notification.
Turkey G/AG/N/TUR/3 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Noted thatTurkey notified domestic
support inUS$while itsAGST Supporting Tables
areexpressed inTurkish Lira. Could Turkey
provide information ontheexchange rateused in
thenotification andonthecorresponding exchange
rateforthebaseperiod?
Canada -Table DS:1 indicates thatdomestic
support isprovided within thedeminimis level.
Could Turkey supply datatosupport thede
minimis claim? What isthedeminimis percentage
used ?
Canada/New Zealand -Noted thatsupport was
calculated using aggregate measurements of
support (AMS) inG/AG/AGST/TUR, whereas the
notification indicates theuseofaproduct-specific
equivalent measurement ofsupport (EMS) method.
Could Turkey provide more detailed information
ontheestimation oftheproduct-specific EMS
referred toinSupporting Table DS:8? Why arethe
EMS forbarley andryenegative?
Canada/New Zealand -Why didTurkey notnotify
any"green box" andany"special anddifferential
box" measures using, respectively, Supporting
Table DS:1 andSupporting Table DS:2?Data areexpressed inUS$inthenotification due
tohighinflation anddevaluation rates. The
exchange rateiscalculated onthebasis ofthe
monthly average rates from theTurkish Central
Bank. During thebaseperiod US$1equals TL
988.78 andin1995 US$1equals TL56,587.52.
Thedeminimis percentage used is10percent.
Detailed calculations willbesubmitted tothe
Secretariat tobecirculated asanaddendum tothe
notification.
Turkey calculated anequivalent measurement of
support duetothelackofnecessary statistical
information. Negative price support values for
barley andryestemmed from theprice difference
between themarket price andtheprice paidbythe
Government in1995. Turkey wasanetexporter
ofthese products inthebaseperiod. Onecanthink
inabsolute terms sofarasthese negative values
areconcerned.
Turkey isconsidering thepossibility ofmaking a
notification intheform ofSupporting Table DS:2.G/AG/R/10
Page23
Table DS:2 Notifications
Cyprus G/AG/N/CYP/2 New orModified Support Measures Exempt from Reduction (DS:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -With respect totheproducts
benefiting from themeasure, what are
thelevels ofproduction during thebase
period andthelevels ofsupport
provided during the1992 marketing
year?Production levels during thebaseperiod were asfollows:
Cow'smilk
(million
litres)Beef
(tons)Edam
cheese
(tons)Potatoes
(tons)
1986
1987
198868
73
783,600
4,100
4,000260
348
470172,000
150,000
164,000
During 1992 nosupport wasprovided topotato growers.
Cow'smilk, beefandcheese benefited indirectly from
subsidies provided onfeedgrains. Since thefeedgrain
subsidy applies toallkinds oflivestock, itisnotpossible to
discern thespecific support allocated todairy producers.
Payments were provided inorder tocompensate therevenue
foregone duetodamage caused bymahogany browning and
internal netnecrosis. Cyprus granted asumofC£60.000 to
100farmers. Theaverage compensation amounted toC£600
perfarmer andcovered only50percentoftheir losses.
Farmers were eligible forthisprogramme when their fields
were inspected byagricultural officers oftheDepartment of
Agriculture. discern thespecific support allocated todairy
producers.
Canada -Clarification sought regarding
the"financial assistance topotato
growers". How isthemeasure
compatible withthecriteria on30per
centproduction losses setoutin
paragraph 8(a)ofAnnex 2ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture? What were
therequirements toparticipate inthis
programme? How many farmers benefit
from theprogramme andwhat wasthe
average amount ofassistance provided
byfarmers?Payments were provided inorder tocompensate therevenue
foregone duetodamage caused bymahogany browning and
internal netnecrosis. Cyprus granted asumofC£60.000 to
100farmers. Theaverage compensation amounted toC£600
perfarmer andcovered only50percentoftheir losses.
Farmers were eligible forthisprogramme when their fields
were inspected byagricultural officers oftheDepartment of
Agriculture.G/AG/R/10
Page24
Cyprus G/AG/N/CYP/2 New orModified Support Measures Exempt from Reduction (DS:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Clarification sought regarding
the"package ofmeasure to
limit/stabilize dairy andbeef
production". Could Cyprus provide a
breakdown oftheexpenditure allocated
toeach measure? How does "recurrent
aidtolocal edam cheese manufacturers"
comply withtherequirement that
livestock beremoved from marketable
production?Provisional expenditures foraone-time measure amounted to
C£3,5million andforrecurrent measures toC£3,25
annually. They areallocated asfollows:
One-time cost:
Slaughter of7,000 cows
Slaughter anddisposal of5,000 calves over12
months ofage
Compensation forwithin-quota milk poured
awayC£million
1,2
1,3
1,2
Recurrent cost:
Premium forslaughtering calves below theage
of12/14 months
Disposal subsidy foredam cheese
Others (including compensation forwithin-quota
milk poured away)1,0
0,85-1,25
1,0-1,4
In1995, production oflocal edam cheese wasclose to1,700
tonsanditwasstillnecessary topour away 11million litres
ofmilk. Until 1995 local edam cheese wasprotected through
asystem oflinking cheese imports todomestic production. In
1996, adirect subsidy wasintroduced tosecure disposal of
local cheese below costs. Inorder toconform withtheoverall
aimtolimit/stabilize dairy production anupper limit wasset.
Inthemeantime thesubsidy wasreduced by50percent(now
running atC£0.50/kg) andthere isnoguarantee thatlocal
cheese willbedisposed off.Production ofedam cheese
amounted to1,313 tonsin1996.G/AG/R/10
Page25
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/5 New orModified Support Measures Exempt from Reduction (DS:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Clarification sought withregard toan
"individually allotted production quota" referred to
inTable DS:2, item(3).
Canada -Does themeasure include oneortwo
direct payments perfarmer?
Canada -Could Iceland confirm thatonly
applicants whoownbetween 0.6and0.7winter-
fedsheep areeligible forpayments?
Australia -What does "asheep production unit"
mean?
New Zealand -Why didthefunding increase from
ISK1,400 to1,500 million? What wasthelevel of
support provided tosheepmeat in1992?Thereference toan"individually allotted
production quota" ismisleading since thesupport
measure does notinanywayinvolve production
quotas. Sheep farmers arefreetoproduce
sheepmeat inanyquantities. Thesupport measure
isdecoupled from theproduction, i.e.sheep
farmers areentitled tofulldirect payment whether
theyactually produce ornot.Only sheep farmers
whoownaminimum of0.6winter-fed sheep in
relation toeach sheep production unitareeligible
toreceive fullpayments. Thenumber ofsheep
production units owned byeach farm isfixed and
based onhistorical quota volume andnoton
production. Insummary, eligible farmers received
fixed andnon-transferable direct payment whether
producing sheepmeat ornot.
Themeasure involves onlyonepayment per
farmer.
Only farmers whoownaminimum of0.6winter-
fedsheep inrelation toeach production unitare
eligible forfullpayment. There isnolimit onhow
many winter-fed sheep afarmer canown.
Thesheep production unitoriginated inthe1980s
quota system. Onesheep production unit
corresponds to18,2 kgsofsheepmeat.
Thenewprogramme isfundamentally different
from theoneitreplaces, accounting fortheslight
increase. Thelevel ofsupport in1992 isnot
relevant.G/AG/R/10
Page26
Tables ES:1 toES:3 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/12 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Thenotification reports that
Canada exported 13,738 tonsofcheese and
36,989 tonsofother milk products without
export subsidies in1995/96. Given theprice
gapbetween Canadian andworld prices, how
does Canada establish thatnoexport subsidy
hasbeen granted forthese products? Could
Canada provide abreakdown ofthedifferent
products exported under thecategory of"other
milk products" andindicate whether these
products were exported withtheassistance of
thespecial milk class system?Aprice gapbetween Canadian prices andworld prices
does notdemonstrate ipsofacto theexistence ofan
export subsidy. Itdemonstrates thatproducers are
accepting lower returns. Thefullextent ofsubsidized
exports isrevealed inthenotification, soallfurther
exports areunsubsidized. In1995/96, thedifferent
products exported under thecategory of"other milk
products" were asfollows:
0401.10
0401.20
0401.30
0402.21
0402.29
0402.91
0402.99
0403.10
0403.90
0404.90
2105.00
Totaltons
0
1,303
1
4,627
290
19,708
224
101
1,778
4,099
4,858
36,989Source:
Statistics
Canada,
Trade of
Canada.
New Zealand/Argentina -Noted thatCanada
hadexported 14,845 tonsofbutter in1995/96,
ofwhich 4,429 tonswithsubsidy. How does
Canada establish thatnoexport subsidy has
been granted for10,416 tons. Who administers
exports ofbutter, subsidized ornot?Who
financed theexports of4,429 tonsof
butter?exports ofbutter, subsidized ornot?
Who financed theexports of4,429 tonsof
butter?
New Zealand -Thenotification indicates that
38,444 tonsofskimmed milk powder were
exported in1995/96, ofwhich 38,073 tons
withsubsidy. How does Canada establish that
noexport subsidy hasbeen granted for371
tons? How didCanada administer exports?
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding
the1995/96 annual report oftheCanadian
Dairy Commission (CDC) indicating that15.9
million kgsofbutter and39.3 million ofkgs
ofskimmed milk powder were exported.
Could Canada explain thediscrepancies
between these figures andthefigures notified
inTable ES:2?In1995/96, Canada granted export subsidies for4,429
tonsofbutter. Thisquantity, purchased previously at
thesupport price, wassoldforexport from the
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) inventories. The
CDC paidfunds from levies collected from producers
tofinance theexports ofthese 4,429 tons. These
exports were undertaken byprivate traders. For
remaining 10,416 tonsofbutter exported, producers
received onlytheworld price i.enoassistance is
conveyed through thespecial milk class system.
Exports were undertaken bytheCDC andprivate
traders.
In1995/96, Canada subsidized exports ofskimmed
milk powder withlevyfunds. Exports were
undertaken bytheCDC andprivate traders.
Thedatanotified comes from Statistics Canada, the
official body oftheGovernment. Thediscrepancies
between thefigures areduetothedifferences inthe
timing oftransactions.G/AG/R/10
Page27
Israel G/AG/N/ISR/3/Rev.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members
New Zealand -According toArticle 10:3 oftheAgreement onAgriculture, howdoes Israel establish
thatnoexport subsidy hasbeen granted inrespect ofthequantity ofcutflowers andfruits (non citrus)
exported above theannual quantity commitment level?
Response provided byNotifying Member
Israel 'sexport subsidy commitments cover awide variety ofornamental products. During the1995
marketing year, Israel operated aprogramme known as"theflower Agreement" between growers and
theMinistry ofAgriculture. Theprogramme provided minimum export price guarantees foraspecific
listofornamental products thatwere shipped during themajor export season, i.e.from thefirstweek of
October toMothers 'Day. TheAgreement guarantees payment ofthedifference between theguaranteed
f.o.b. price (based onhistorical price level) andthecommercial revenue actually returned. Theprice
guaranteed waslimited tothebudgeted allocation ofUS$8million. Iftotal claims exceed thebudget
allocated, theguarantee funds arepaidproportionally. In1995, Israel exported several varieties for
which nominimum price wasguaranteed. Formany varieties, commercial revenues perflower exceeded
theminimum price guaranteed andaccordingly, noexport subsidy waspaid. Inaddition, exports ofa
considerable number ofvarieties tookplace inthesecond season, i.e.from mid-March totheendof
September when noprice guarantee wasineffect. Asaresult total exports ofcutflowers reached 1,101
million units butonly652million units were eligible forandreceived export subsidies.
With respect tofruit, asimilar "fruit Agreement" anda"vegetable Agreement" areoperated. These
Agreements apply toamore limited range offruits which mayvaryfrom yeartoyear. In1995, table
grapes, mangoes, melons, watermelons andstrawberries were covered andsubsidized exports accounted
for32,000 tons. Exports ofavocados andexotic fruits didnotbenefit from theprogramme and
accounted foradditional quantities reported inTable ES:2.
Mexico G/AG/N/MEX/4 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Thenotification indicates thatMexico did
notprovide anyexport subsidy toanyofthe
products initsSchedule in1995. Didthepolicy
change inorder toeliminate export subsidies? If
so,could Mexico provide further information on
thenewpolicy?
European Communities -Does Mexico intend to
notify total exports using Table ES:2?Mexico didnotgrant anyexport subsidy to
agricultural products in1995. What change of
policy isbeing referred tobyCanada?
Mexico willnotify totalexports withrespect to
maize, wheat, sugar andbeans.G/AG/R/10
Page28
Slovak Republic G/AG/N/SVK/7 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response provided byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia -According toArticle 10:3
oftheAgreement onAgriculture, howdoes the
Slovak Republic establish thatnoexport subsidy
hasbeen granted inrespect ofthequantity
exported above theannual quantity commitment
level?Thequestions willbeconveyed totherelevant
authorities forareply.
South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/6/Rev.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Clarification sought withregard tothe
revised subsidized exports foranimal fats.Why
didthefigures show asubstantial decrease?
European Communities/United States -Noted that
theGovernment decided tophase outtheGeneral
Export Incentive Scheme (GEIS) in1997. Does
thismean thatSouth Africa willgrant nomore
export subsidies toagricultural products?
Japan -Concerns expressed withrespect tothe
implementation ofSouth Africa 'sexport subsidy
outlay commitment fortea,cocoa andcocoa
preparations.
United States -When does South Africa intend to
notify itsexport subsidy for1996? How does
South Africa intend tocompensate other Members
forexceeding itscommitments in1995?Thecorrection isduetoadataentry error between
tariff lines HS 15.05 and HS 19.05. In
consequence, subsidized exports interms ofvalue
andvolume relating tobread, pastry, cakes and
biscuits were increased andthose foranimal fats
corrected downwards.
The GEIS isconsidered bySouth Africa asa
prohibited subsidy interms ofWTO rules andisto
bephased outaccordingly bytheendof1997, also
foragricultural products. Envisaged replacement
support measures willbeWTO compatible. The
GEIS isnotstructured inawaythatdirectly enables
compliance with commitments interms ofthe
Agreement on Agriculture. Therefore, the
Government reclassified downwards certain
agricultural products which benefited from ahigher
category ofsubsidy tolower categories and
substantially reduced thebenefits inallcategories.
This system ledtocompliance inmost individual
items, butalsoin1995 resulted inanaggregate
level ofexport subsidies toagriculture which was
lessthan20percentofSouth Africa 'sannual value
commitment.
South Africa cannot guarantee thatitwillbein
compliance with each ofit'sexport subsidy
commitments in1996 which itwould soon be
notifying. South Africa stated thatexceeding it's
commitments were notintentional andthat the
termination oftheGEIS andtheveryconsiderable
reduction inoverall export subsidy payments should
betaken intoaccount inassessing theissue.G/AG/R/10
Page29
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/5/Rev.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Noted thattotalexports quantities
ofdairy products, fruits andpotatoes exceed the
annual quantity commitment level. According to
Article 10:3 howdoes Switzerland establish that
noexport subsidy hasbeen granted inrespect of
thequantity ofexports inquestion?
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding a
press report indicating thattheSwiss Union for
Cheese Trade made alossofSwF 449million
withsales amounted to79,588 tons, given that
boththese figures areabove Switzerland 'sannual
commitment levels for1995.Switzerland hadreported allsubsidized exports
under Table ES:1. Dairy products exported
without subsidies areprimarily skimmed milk
powder, whey andcertain categories ofyogurt.
Certain fruits andtypes ofpotatoes were andare
competitive ontheexport market without
subsidies.
TheSwiss Cheese Union isneither engaged
directly norexclusively incheese export trade, but
plays animportant roleintheallocation ofseveral
categories offunds within themilk market
organization, including exports subsidies, domestic
production support andpromotion andsales
support. Allthese measures have been notified to
WTO. Thefinancial performance mentioned inthe
press report istheresult ofallthese operations.