RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/19
25 August 1999
(99-3527)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEET ING HELD ON 24-25 JUNE 1999
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its nineteenth meeting on 24-25 June 1999 under the
Chairmanship of Ambassador Nestor Osorio Londoño of Colombia.  The agenda of the meeting as
contained in WTO/AIR/1111 was adopted.
Part I:  The Review Process
Matters Relevant to the Implementation of Commitments under the Reform Programme:  Article 18.6
(a) Canada:  Trinidad and Tobago - Applied terms of access for pork
2. Canada requested a written clarification on the terms of access that apply to pork products,
including the currently applied tariff, other duties and charges and any other administrative
requirements.  Trinidad and Tobago provided a written reply stating that, as far as it could determine,
imports of pork products from Canada had not experienced delays in obtaining the required permits.
While offering consultations with Canada, Trinidad and Tobago asked that further queries be more
specific to enable them to make more focused enquiries.
(b) Canada:  United States - Milk marketing plans in the state of California
3. Canada enquired whether the export subsidy notification made by the United States
(G/AG/N/USA/12) in cluded exports of certain dairy products produced in California.   The United
States noted that exports from California under its milk marketing programme were not included in
the notification.  While they were unable to give details of the quantities exported, or the value of thesubsidies provided, the United States noted that the volumes of exports involved were relatively small
and undertook to examine the issue and provide details as soon as possible.
(c) Canada:  Australia - Milk pricing policy in the state of Victoria
4. Canada requested confirmation from Australia that the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority
established lower prices for milk for processing into certain products for sale by export compared to
milk for processing into the same products for sale within Australia.
5. Australia confirmed that the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority has arrangements in place
which effectively subsidized exports of pasteurized, ultra heat treated or sterilized milk.  The State
level arrangement resulted in the provision of milk for processing for sale by export at a lower pricethan for milk for processing into the same products  for sale within Australia.  The arrangement had
not previously been brought to the attention of the Commonwealth Government and consequently had
not been included in Australia's export subsidy notifications.  Australia would ensure that any product
exported under this arrangement would be reflected in future export subsidy notifications.
Preliminary analysis indicated that only marginal exports had occurred under this arrangement andthese export levels would be well within Australia's export subsidy reduction commitment for "otherG/AG/R/19
Page 2
milk products".  The Australian Government is currently considering proposals for the deregulation of
market (drinking) milk in Australia.  Deregulation would remove all state controls on market milk
including the pricing arrangement that Canada had brought to the attention of the Committee.
6. The Philippines and Switzerland noted that all sub-federal measures should be notified and
that federal governments should ensure that all such measures complied with commitments.
(d) New Zealand:  Venezuela - Milk powder tariffs
7. New Zealand sought reassurance from Venezuela that there would be no breaches of
commitments caused by the application of the A ndean price band system on whole milk powder.
Venezuela undertook to address the issue, noting that there had been delays resulting from the
introduction of a new customs law.
(e) United States:  Chile - Tariff bindings on price band commodities
8. The United States considered that the application of the domestic price band system had
resulted in tariffs in excess of bound levels by Chile.  The representative of the United States sought
details on what measures were being taken by Chile to bring its tariffs into compliance with its WTO
commitments.
9. The representative of Chile noted that low prices in international markets along with the low
tariff levels in Chile, coupled with no subsidies, had had a severe impact on domestic producers.  The
price band system was aimed at reducing the effect of international price fluctuations on the internal
market by using the average historical price and, in normal situations, this should not result in any
breach of bindings.  However, the extent of the price falls in recent times had meant that, in some
cases, the applied tariff was greater than the bound co mmitment.  However, Chile maintained that this
should not have an effect on trade as the demand was relatively stable regardless of price.
10. Chile had undertaken a round of consultations with all interested countries, including the
United States, with the objective of explaining and gaining acceptance for this transitional situation.
They undertook to review the matter if it was not resolved in the near future.
11. While noting that Chile was facing difficult circumstances the United States urged Chile to
comply with their obligations.  The European Co mmunities pointed out that there were other WTO-
compatible measures which could have been taken.
(f) United States:  Jamaica - Import licence regulations
12. The United States sought confirmation on the implementation of new import regulations
which restricted the issuance of import permits for various products destined for hotels, fast food
companies and processors.   Jamaica undertook to give a reply in writing as soon as possible.
(g) United States:  Venezuela - Tariff quota for pork and import permit restrictions
13. The United States sought clarification regarding Venezuela's import procedures for pork, in
particular as regards licences for quantities above tariff quota levels.  In addition, the United States
enquired about new measures for beef and horticultural products and if these measures had been
notified to the Committee on Agriculture.
14. The representative of Venezuela pointed out that it was holding consultations in Caracas
although it maintained that imports exceeded tariff quota levels and no other restrictions were applied.
The representative of the United States stated that it would continue to pursue the matter followingG/AG/R/19
Page 3
reports it had received on difficulties obtaining licences.  The representative of the European
Communities sought more information while Canada expressed its interest in this matter.
Review of Notifications
15. The Committee reviewed the following notifications as listed in the agenda:
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): from
Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/16), Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/18), Latvia
(G/AG/N/LVA/1), Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/30 and G/AG/N/THA/34) and Venezuela
(G/AG/N/VEN/11);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/27), Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/18 and
G/AG/N/COL/10/Rev.1/Corr.1), Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/13), Hungary
(G/AG/N/HUN/17), Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/11), New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/19 and
Corr.1), Slovenia (G/AG/N/SVN/11)  and Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/12);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Canada
(G/AG/N/CAN/28), Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/17) Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/6),
Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/14), Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/19), Israel
(G/AG/N/ISR/10) , Japan (G/AG/N/JP N/35, G/AG/N/JPN/37 and G/AG/N/JPN/38),
Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/18 and G/AG/N/CHE/19), Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/31)United States (G/AG/N/USA/24 and G/AG/N/USA/26) and Venezuela
(G/AG/N/VEN/13);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Brazil
(G/AG/N/BRA/13), Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/1), European Communities
(G/AG/N/EEC/16), Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/11), Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/4 and
G/AG/N/HND/6), Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/12), Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/5), Norway
(G/AG/N/NOR/22), Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/2), Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/29) and
Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/6, G/AG/N/TUR/6/Corr.1 and G/AG/N/TUR/8);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2): from Switzerland (G /AG/N/CHE/20) and United States
(G/AG/N/USA/25).
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): from Argentina
(G/AG/N/ARG/8), Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/24), Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/14),
Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/ 11, G/AG/N/COL/12, G/AG/N/COL/13, G/ AG/N/COL/14,
G/AG/N/COL/15 and G/AG/N/COL/16), Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/7), Egypt
(G/AG/N/EGY/2), Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/12 and G/AG/N/GTM/15), Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/36), Mongolia (G/AG/N/MNG/3), Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/7), Qatar
(G/AG/N/QAT/2), Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/1), Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/32 and
G/AG/N/THA/33), Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/9) and  Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/15 andG/AG/N/VEN/15/Corr.1).
16. With respect to points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings that had been
pursued bilaterally (Part I, Agenda Item C), the representative of Canada informed the Committee that
Canada had submitted further questions to the United States and the European Communities abouttheir notifications relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2).
Concerning notifications G/AG/N/EEC/8 and G/AG/N/EEC/13 Canada had asked the European
Communities for the volume of imports at MFN and at preferential rates for each of its tariff quotas
and the applied duties in each case.  Concerni ng notification G/AG/N/USA/ 23 Canada had asked theG/AG/R/19
Page 4
United States for details regarding the volume of imports at MFN and at preferential rates for its tariff
quotas for beef, dairy, peanuts and peanut products and sugar and sugar containing products and the
applied duties in each case.
17. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the
next meeting in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working Procedures:
(i) on special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/20);
(ii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3): from Switzerland
(G/AG/N/CHE/24 and Corr.1).
18. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18.7
of the Agreement.
Other matters relating to the Review Process
(a) Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process
19. The deferred replies to questions raised at previous meetings are summarized in Part II of the
Annex to this report.
(b) Overdue notifications
20. The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the current status of compliance with the
Committee's notification requirements, as reflected in the Room Document made available by the
Secretariat, dated 24 June 1999.
21. The United States noted that Canada had still to submit its 1996 domestic support notification
and the European Communities its 1996 export subsidy notification.  Canada and the EC stated that
they would be making their respective notifications in the near future.
(c) Notification issues
22. The Committee discussed the Secretariat paper (G/AG/W/45) on notification issues in an
informal session.
Part II:  Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee
Secretariat Background Note on Implementation of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision
23. The Secretariat background note G/AG/W/42 of 10 February 1999 was prepared in response
to the request made at the November 1998 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  Following a
preliminary discussion at the March meeting Members were given the opportunity for a substantive
discussion at this meeting.
Review of the WTO List of Net Food-Importing Developing Countries
24. The Chairman noted that paragraph 3 of G/AG/3 provides that the list of Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries for the purposes of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision shall be reviewed at the
regular March meetings of the Committee on Agriculture but in practice the Committee has acted on
applications as and when these have been presented.G/AG/R/19
Page 5
25. The Committee agreed that Cuba be included in the WTO List of Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries.  Cuba's a pplication was submitted on 11 May and included relevant supporting
statistical data in line with paragraph 2 of the Committee's decision on the establishment of the list.
Mexico stated that, in their opinion, G/AG/3 only required an applicant country to provide the
relevant supporting data to be included in the list of net food-importing countries and the Committee's
approval was not needed.  The revised list has been issued as G/AG/5/Rev.3 dated 28 June 1999.
Process of Analysis and Information Exchange (AIE process)
Chairman's Report
26. The Committee took note of the following report by the Chairman on the recent meeting of
the AIE process:
"(i) In line with paragraph 36 of G/AG/R/10 the following is my summary report as
Chairman of the eleventh meeting of the AIE process held on 23-24 June 1999.
(ii) Consideration of non-trade concerns continued at this meeting with substantive
discussion of the paper by Mauritius "Multifunctional Role of Agriculture in Small Island
Developing States" (AIE/51).   This paper addre ssed the characteristics of agriculture in small
developing island states and its role in their social and economic development.  It was
suggested that flexibility in making and im plementing commitments was needed in order to
allow these countries to address their specific concerns.
(iii) Once again it was noted that different countries focus on different issues which come
under the broad heading of non-trade concerns.  Many less developed countries tend to
concentrate on rural employment, attenuation of the effects of rural out-migration and poverty
alleviation.  On the other hand, some develope d countries place particular emphasis on issues
such as landscape, environment and domestic income equality.  It was noted that food
security was of interest to all Members although particularly for low income countries.
(iv) Specificities of small island states and the importance of their non-trade concerns were
recognized.  It was also recalled that existing provisions were sufficient to address them and
that protectionism in pursuit of non-trade objectives could reduce development opportunities
for other countries.
(v) A number of other papers on multifunctionality were introduced at this meeting and
will be the subject of substantive discussion at the next one.  These included papers by
Norway "Food Security and the Role of Dome stic Agricultural Production" (AIE/57), two
papers by Japan "Multi-functionality in Japan" (AIE/60) and "Food Security" (AIE/61) and bythe United States "The 'Multifunctional' Charact er of Agriculture, Food Security and Other
non-Trade Concerns" (AIE/64).
(vi) The European Communities' paper "Article 5:  Special Safeguard Clause for
Agriculture" put forward the opinion that this provision was introduced to assist tarifficationand that it should remain in force.  In the discussion the concerns expressed at the November
AIE meeting in response to New Zealand's paper (AIE/20) about the application of Article 5
were reiterated although it was noted that special safeguards have not been used extensively.
It was pointed out that the provision does cause some uncertainty for exporters although it
was also considered that special safeguards can be a useful mechanism for addressingconcerns about sudden price falls or import surges.
(vii) Market access issues of concern to developing countries were addressed in the paper by
El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Pakistan "IssuesG/AG/R/19
Page 6
Related to Market Access" (AIE/54).  This paper highlighted a number of factors which
reduced market access opportunities for developing countries and suggested a number of
ways in which the situation could be improved.
(viii) In the discussion there was general recognition that special and differential treatment
will remain an integral element of the forthcoming negotiations although the exact nature ofthe provisions will be a matter to be taken up in the course of these negotiations.  It was also
pointed out that existing special and differential treatment provisions may go some way
towards addressing the concerns expressed in the paper.
(ix) Also on market access, the United States introduced their paper "High In-Quota Duties"
(AIE/56) which outlined some of the issues re lated to in-quota tariff rates and the need for
information on the relationship between quota fill rates and in-quota tariff rates. Canada's
paper "Data Requirements for Agriculture Nego tiations" (AIE/55) also highlighted the need
for information on in-quota tariff rates.  The paper pointed out the information currently
available from various sources and the deficiencies associated with them.  It stressed theusefulness for all Members to have complete and accurate data in the forthcoming
negotiations.
(x) In the discussion of Canada's paper it was stressed that more data would be useful but
that this should not delay the start of negotiations.  It was also pointed out that timely and fullcompliance with notification obligations would go some way towards filling the gaps in
Members' data requirements.
(xi) The European Communities' paper "The Agreement on Agriculture and the Need for
Legal Security" (AIE/53) underlined the importance of legal security for existingcommitments as well as the commitments to be made as a result of the forthcoming
negotiations.  In the discussion it was suggested that this security may need to go beyond the
existing coverage provided by Article 13.  However, different views were expressed about
both any prolongation of the existing peace clau se and about any extension of its scope.  It
was pointed out that before a due restraint clause could be considered some idea of the future
commitments would be needed.  The point was also made that it will be necessary to avoid
undermining other Members' rights to protect th eir trade interests although the view was also
expressed that Members complying with thei r commitments under the agriculture agreement
needed to have assurance that they would not be subjected to undue challenges under other
WTO provisions.
(xii) It was also pointed out that the implementation period for developing countries runs
until the end of 2004 while Article 13 expires at the end of 2003.
(xiii) A number of papers were introduced which were submitted after the deadline of three
weeks before the meeting.  These papers covered the following topics:
- the continuation of reform (AIE/59 by Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and
Thailand);
- the agreed conclusions of the UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Trade in the Agriculture
Sector (AIE/58 by Uruguay);
- export regulations (AIE/62 by Japan); and- special and differential treatment for developing countries (AIE/63 by Cuba,
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sri Lanka andUganda).G/AG/R/19
Page 7
(xiv) The Secretariat noted that the background papers on domestic support (AIE/S2) and
Green Box supports (AIE/S9) had been updated.  In addition, the revision of the background
papers on export subsidies and papers on export credits and on products of interest to
developing countries should be available before the next meeting in September."
27. In relation to the background paper on tariff treatment of products of interest to developing
country Members, the Secretariat stated that the releva nt parts of that paper had been circulated to the
Members concerned and asked Members to examine the data for errors to enable the Secretariat to
finalize and circulate the paper as soon as possible.  The Secretariat asked that Members respond by
9 July at the latest after which date the Secretariat would finalize the paper and circulate it.
De-restriction of Secretariat AIE/S Background Papers
28. The discussion of the proposal to de-restric t the existing AIE/S background papers continued.
At the last meeting there had been widespread support for the proposal, with only Mexico opposing
the proposal.  As Mexico was still not in a position to accept the proposal, it was agreed to revert tothe matter at the next meeting.
Other Business
(a) Brazil - United States supports for soya beans
29. Brazil expressed concerns regarding the loan price measure used by the United States which
kept farmers' prices for soya beans above world market prices, thus encouraging higher production at
times of low world prices and high stock levels.  The representative of Brazil noted that the United
States was actually increasing its support to the sector compared to previous years.
30. The United States pointed out that the programme referred to had been in existence for some
time, was included in their current total aggregate measure of support calculation and that it was
complying with its commitments.  The European Communities shared the concern of Brazil on the
level of support given to one specific sector.  Australia encouraged both the United States and the
European Communities to reduce their use of trade and production distorting supports pointing out
that these had effects on other countries.
(b) Japan:  Tariffication of Rice
31. Japan explained the current situation concerning the tariffication of rice.  Special
arrangements for rice imports had ended on 31 March and from 1 April 1999 Japan had applied only
tariffs to imports.  The representative of Uruguay stated that Uruguay had held bilateral talks with
Japan and was still considering the results of these consultations.
(c) Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sl ovak Republic and Slovenia:  AIE Reports
32. On behalf of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, the
representative of Hungary expressed their serious concern on the report of the March AIE meeting on
the paper AIE/45.  In their opinion the summary did not represent either the paper or the discussion at
the meeting.  They pointed out that their paper stated that the existing Green Box and Blue Box fordomestic supports exempt from reduction commitments were not suitable for countries which had
undergone, or were undergoing, transition to market based economies.  The paper suggested that
special consideration should be given in the fort hcoming agriculture negotiations to the particular
needs of transition and post-transition economies.  Hungary went on to claim that the discussion of the
paper was not adequately represented in the Chairman's summary as it did not reflect the views of thedelegations who had expressed support for the views put forward in the paper AIE/45.G/AG/R/19
Page 8
33. The European Communities supported the Hungarian statement but noted that, in its opinion,
the summary made of the June AIE meeting was perfectly balanced.  The Chairman noted the
concerns of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.
(d) Conclusion of the AIE Process
34. Given that the next meeting in the AIE process would be its last, the Chairman suggested that
he should submit, on his own responsibility, a short factual summary report to the Committee onAgriculture on the AIE process as a whole, in additi on to the report that he would normally be making
on the September AIE meeting itself.  This summary report on the AIE process as a whole would
simply cover issues such as the number of informal papers submitted by Members, background notes
by the Secretariat, the topics covered and the number of meetings held.  Following its consideration
by the Committee at its September meeting this report could then be attached to the Committee'sannual report to the Council for Trade in Goods (see paragraph 37 below).
35. Korea pointed out that time would be needed to consider AIE papers already submitted but
not yet discussed as well as papers which would be submitted by the deadline for the next meeting
and to consider the Chairman's report.  The Chairman noted this point and stated that a draft of his
report would be made available to Members well in advance of the AIE meeting which would assistMembers in their consideration.
36. The EC and Japan supported the Chairman's proposal but suggested that some flexibility
would be needed on the deadline for the submission of AIE papers.  The United States, Mexico and
Australia also supported the proposal but suggested that the papers should be made available before
the September AIE meeting in order to give Members a chance to examine them.  This was agreed.
(e) Annual Report to the Council on Trade in Goods
37. As the final meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods and the General Council prior to the
Seattle Ministerial Conference will take place before the November meeting of the Committee on
Agriculture, it was agreed that the Chairman woul d prepare a short factual report for the Council for
Trade in Goods for consideration by the Committee at its September meeting and that the Chairmanwould submit the report to the CTG on his responsibility as Chairman.
(f) Other
38. The representative of the FAO made a statement on the FAO's work in carrying out a
programme of capacity building in developing countries with particular emphasis on preparing them
for the forthcoming agriculture negotiations.  One element of this was a series of regional capacity
building workshops in the areas of agriculture, SPS, TBT and TRIPS.  In addition a two-day
symposium in Geneva on 23-24 September on agricultural trade and food security was beingorganized.  Details of the symposium would be made available on the FAO website  (www.fao.org).
Japan welcomed the announcement by the representative of the FAO and asked other Members to
assist the FAO in making the symposium a success.
Date of Next Meeting
39. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on 29 and
30 September 1999.  The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be
issued on Thursday, 16 September 1999.G/AG/R/19
Page 9
ANNEX – Part I
Page
Part I Summary of specific points raised on  notifications and responses thereto
(24-25 June 1999 meeting)
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):
Guatemala (GTM/16); Hungary (HUN/18); Latvia (LVA/1); Venezuela (VEN/11);11
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):
Canada (CAN/27); Colombia (COL/18); Guatemala (GTM/13); Hungary
(HUN/17); Israel (ISR/11); New Zealand (NZL/19 and Corr.1); Slovenia
(SVN/11); Venezuela (VEN/12);14
(iii) relating to the use of the special  safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
Japan (JPN/35, JPN/37, JPN/38); Switzerland (CHE/18); United States (USA/24);18
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):
Brazil (BRA/13); Egypt (EGY/1); European Communities (EEC/16); Guatemala
(GTM/11); Honduras (HND/4 and HUN/6); Israel (ISR/12); Mexico (MEX/5);
Norway (NOR/22); Sri Lanka (LKA/2); Thailand (THA/29); Turkey (TUR/6 and
Corr.1, TUR/8);20
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  United States (USA/25); Switzerland (CHE/20);38
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):
Brazil (BRA/14); Colombia (COL/11, COL/12, COL/13 and COL/14, COL/15,
COL/16); Pakistan (PAK/7); Sri Lanka (LKA/1); Thailand (THA/32); Turkey
(TUR/9); Venezuela (VEN/15 and Corr.1).39
Part II Deferred replies to questions on notifi cations raised at previous meetings
(i)
(ii)relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):
European Communities (EEC/12); Zimbabwe (ZWE/1);
relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  United States (USA/25).42
44
Attachments
1. G/AG/N/CAN/27   - Import volumes under tariff quotas for poultry and bovine meat,
199845
2. G/AG/N/CAN/27   - Imports within tariff rate quotas, calendar year 1998 49
3. G/AG/N/GTM/13  - Import data for products subject to tariff rate quota  commitments,
calendar year 199852
4. G/AG/N/HUN/17   - Import data for products subject to tariff quota arrangements,
calendar year 199853
5. G/AG/N/BRA/13   - Table of de minimis  calculation – 1997 54
6. G/AG/N/LKA/2     - Breakdown of subsidies provided under Article 9.1(d) and (e) in
199755G/AG/R/19
Page 10
ANNEX – Part I
Review of Notifications by the Committee on Agriculture on 24-25 June 1999
Summary of Specific Points Raised and Responses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Guatemala   G/AG/N/GTM/16   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada/New Zealand:  Meat of bovine animals,
fresh, chilled or frozen  – Reasons for implementing a tariff
quota in 1999;Guatemala turned to this solution in anticipation of the need to
offset disruptions in the domestic market for sensitive pr oducts
caused by the behaviour of multilateral trade flows. Tariff
quotas were thus activated in cases where the domesticindustry required such a measure, as in the case of meat of
bovine animals. The assigned quantity is 1,595 t onnes, the
applied in-quota duty is 0, and the out-of-quota duty is 30 percent ad valorem .
reason for the unequal allocation of volumes semi-annually (40
and 60 per cent); possibilities for reallocation to the second
half of the year;
Additional comments:  Some Members warned that if import
demand is strong during the second period and if there is
under-utilization during the first period, this practice will
amount to reducing the access opportunities foreseen in thetariff quota.This allocation method was designed in response to the
seasonal character of domestic production as meat output
increases during the rainy season, from July to December.  No
reallocation is taking place from the first semester to the
second one.
reasons for limiting the validity of import licences to 90 days. This is to ensure that import rights are not monopolized, and
that availability of, and access to, the tariff quota are not
restrained.
New Zealand:  Yellow maize  – Confirmation that a tariff-only
regime is applying; tariff applied.
Note:  The section concerning yellow maize has been omitted
during translation of the original Spanish document into
English. The Secretariat undertook to issue a revised
notification.The administration details are contained in page 5 of the
notification.  The in-quota tariff rate is 5 per cent and the out-
of-quota rate is 35 per cent. The tariff quota quantity for the
year 1999 is 401,820 tonnes.G/AG/R/19
Page 11
Hungary   G/AG/N/HUN/18#   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Brazil/Canada/New Zealand : Bovine animals and
meat; swine; poultry;  bananas, cashew-nuts, sheep and
goats  – Reasons for reducing the maximum amount per
application and thus the maximum size per import permit thatcan be requested at one time.
Additional comments:  Canada
 believes that this method
places additional costs and high administrative burdens on
exporters .  Australia found that such limits do not offer viable
export opportunities to distant suppliers.The purpose is to ensure a fair and continuous access to tariff
quotas.  The actual limits are determined on the basis of the
usual shipment sizes of various products as reflected in the
customs declarations and on the basis of importers' feedbackon the prevailing market conditions. As regards meat products,
importers themselves requested the reduction of the quantityapplication limits after facing financing problems due to the
Russian economic crisis. Should distant suppliers experience a
lack of viable export opportunities, this would be rather related
to factors like: the size of the domestic market; size of tariff
quotas; transportation patterns which would necessitate the
splitting up of large shipments. In certain instances, the
application limits may result in additional costs. But, according
to the Hungarian delegation, this must be assessed against the
benefits of not having to face the monopolization of the entiretariff quota by one single importer.
New Zealand: other vegetables (fresh or chilled) – Reasons
for reducing the maximum quantity limits.As a result of tariff reductions, the applied m.f.n. rate is now
below the bound in-quota rate for other vegetables, fresh or
chilled. This tariff quota has therefore not been implemented in
1999. A revised notification will be submitted to reflect thissituation.
Brazil:  Brazil nuts, melons, other sugars, fruit juices  –
Reasons for increasing the maximum amounts that can be
allocated to importers; whether such increases are foreseen inthe future.Any need for modification is normally considered within the
framework of the yearly review of the operation of the tariff
quota administration mechanism.
Australia: Cereals (1001, 1101, 1002, 1003, 1005) and dairy
products  - Whether the expansion of quantity application
limits has been considered.Any need for modification would normally be considered
within the framework of the yearly review of the operation of
the tariff quota administration mechanism.
Brazil: Poultry  – Whether licences are distributed on a first-
come first-served basis.Import permits for all tariff quotas, including poultry, are
allocated on a first-come, first served basis.
Latvia   G/AG/N/LVA/1#   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Brazil:  Raw sugar cane  – Whether there are quantitative
limits in the allocation of the tariff quota.No, any individual importer may apply for the quantity that
best suits him.
New Zealand: Operation of the "competition" for tariff quota
quantities; criteria used to determine the size of the quota
allocations.Importers are not subject to any specific requirements to
compete for a tariff quota quantity. The only requirement is to
submit the correct documentation as per Regulation No. 106.
When considering individual applications, the Customs Tariff
Council (CTC) requests background information to the
Customs Board on import transactions made by applicants,
fulfilment of tax obligations and other regulations and
procedures. Thereafter, each applicant receives the quantity
requested, as long as the total tariff quota volume is notexceeded.  If the quantities requested ca nnot be accommodated
within the tariff quota, the allocation is made on a pro rata
basis.  The CTC may however decide to adjust the quantity
taking into consideration information on fulfilment of the
quota volume in previous years.  In the case of new applicants,
i.e. with no record of import performance, the CTC may decide
to allocate a lesser quantity than requested for precautionaryreasons.G/AG/R/19
Page 12
Venezuela   G/AG/N/VEN/11#   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada:  Yellow maize and sorghum  – Status of
requirements listed in G/AG/N/VEN/6(b)(i)(a) and (b).The applicants must be registered as importers by the Ministry
of Agriculture, provide information on imports realized over
the last two years and production plans by product line.  It is
worth noting that while the yellow maize tariff quota volume isestablished at 583,000 tonnes, some 900,000 t onnes have been
imported.
New Zealand:  Basis on which the Inter-Ministerial
Commission decides to extend the period of validity oflicences.-G/AG/R/19
Page 13
Table MA:2 Notifications
Canada  G/AG/N/CAN/27   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Brazil:  Bovine meat  and poultry  – Volume of in-quota
imports under each TRQ on a tariff line basis (6 to 8 digits);Attachment  no. 1  refers.  Information on tariff quota fill by
tariff line on basis of issued permits is also available on the
Exports and Import Controls Bureau Web Page www.dfait-
maeci.gc.ca/~eicb/agric/agric-e.htm
treatment of preferential trade under NAFTA. All in-quota imports of beef and veal are duty free but imports
from the United States and Mexico are not counted against the
tariff quota volume, as indicated in Canada's Schedule.  The
chicken and turkey tariff quotas are administered on a global
basis.  Under the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement
(CUSTA), imports from the United States are now duty free.
The access provisions of CUSTA were later incorporated in the
NAFTA.
Korea:  Margarine  (1517.10, 90) – Reason for low fill rate
compared to other commodity lines.There is very little demand for import permits since the
Canadian industry is very compe titive.  The duty free access
granted to oilseeds can also reduce the incentive to obtain an
import permit for margarine. The administration of the tariff
quota is not believed to be an impediment to trade.  Imports are
issued on a first-come, first-served basis, and since the
establishment of the tariff quota, all requests for permits have
been met.  Canada has also progressively liberalized
conditions.  For example, the previous 200 t onnes limit per
applicant was increased to 500 tonnes in 1998 to reflect the
increasing size of the tariff quota and to make the system moreflexible.
European Communities: Volume of imports and applied duties
per HS tariff line under (a) m.f.n. and (b) preferential trade
arrangements.This information cannot be provided by the HS tariff number
for practical reasons.  However, a compilation at the level of
the tariff quota commitment for 1998 is given inAttachment no. 2 .
Note: Additional questions were submitted by Hungary  after the deadlines established in the working procedures. Canada
undertook to provide answers at a later stage.
Colombia  G/AG/N/COL/18  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Thailand:  Cereal groats and meal  – Reason for notifying a
zero tariff quota quantity while notified in-quota imports are7,760 tonnes.The tariff quota quantity established in Schedule LXXVI for
this product amounts to 0.01 tonne.  Since the notified numbers
are not formatted to take into account decimals, a zero is
shown.G/AG/R/19
Page 14
Guatemala  G/AG/N/GTM/13   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Japan: Wheat or meslin flour  – Reason why no
imports were registered;Since an adequate supply is available on the domestic market,
there is no strong incentive to import these products.
However, if the entire quota for flour has not been allocated by
the end of the year, the wheat equivalent of the unused portionis added to the wheat quota, as provided for in Article 2 of
Government Agreement No.152-96. In establishing the said
quotas, the following criteria must be met: "(a) The annual
wheat quota shall be 94 per cent of the quantity, in metric
tonnes, obtained by deducting from the projected domestic
consumption of wheat the estimated domestic wheat
production for the following year.  Feed wheat shall not be
included in that quantity. (b) The flour quota shall be six per
cent of the quantity mentioned in subparagraph (a) above
expressed as a flour equivalent. The wheat equivalent of the
leftover flour quotas shall be added to the wheat quota at suchtime as is established in the supplementary provisions to be
issued in connection with the implementation of this Decision
and in accordance with the conversion factor indicatedtherein. "
given the persistent low rate registered over the last four years,
whether the implementation of a tariff-only regime has been
considered.Given the above explanation, the volumes of wheat and flour
tariff quotas are calculated jointly to stimulate competition in
the flour sector which is normally supplied through domestic
production. For this reason, there is currently no interest in de-
linking the two tariff quotas or to apply a low tariff to flour.
Canada:  Import data for all scheduled tariff quota products. Attachment no. 3  refers.
Hungary   G/AG/N/HUN/17#  Tariff Quota F ill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Brazil/Japan/New Zealand/United States:
Reason why only 7 out of 67 tariff quotas have been f illed; in
particular for the following products:
Apples; melons; pears; vegetables; fruit juices;Hungary is an efficient producer and exporter of many
temperate zone fruit and vegetables.  The canning and fruit
juice producing industries mainly process the low-priced
domestic inputs.  Imports take place only out-of-season or in
case of severe production losses.
beer; Privatized breweries were bought up by leading mu ltinational
companies and production became highly efficient, which was
reflected in low domestic prices and significant exports.
Brazil nuts; The present tariff quota volume reflects domestic consumption
of coconuts in the base period, which exceeded that of cashewand brazil nuts, the other two products that fall under HS
heading 0801.  The m.f.n. tariff for coc onut however has not
been raised above the in-quota tariff and therefore coconut
imports are not counted against the tariff quota. This, in fact,
means an improvement of market access opportunities forbrazil nuts.
cereals  (wheat, rye, barley, maize); Rye and barley:  Used predominantly in animal feeding. Since
the establishment of the tariff quota (on the basis of domestic
consumption), livestock numbers have drastically decreased
(by 50 per cent in the case of swine). In addition, substitution
effects occurred due to abundant domestic supplies of wheatand maize.
Wheat and maize:  Favourable climatic conditions and soil
fertility confer natural competitive advantages, both for
production and exports. This explains why Hungary has never
imported significant quantities of these commodities.
citrus fruits; Hungary's free trade partners are the traditional suppliers.
Preferential access conditions under FTAs apply to most tariff
quota products.
G/AG/R/19
Page 15
Hungary   G/AG/N/HUN/17#  Tariff Quota F ill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
dairy products ; Milk and cream: Established as a minimum access
commitment based on domestic consumption in the base
period.  Since then, consumption decreased by more than 30
per cent and chocolate manufacturers, the major users of milkpowder, switched to whey powder as a lower-priced input.
Sour cream, yoghurt and kephir:  Most dairies were privatized
and are now owned by multinational companies (Da none,
Parmalat, Avonmore).  Brands are now produced using
inexpensive domestic milk.  Cheese: Consumption is
concentrated on low-priced domestic brands.
potatoes; Domestic production normally satisfies internal demand at
relatively low prices.
poultry; This is a highly competitive Hungarian export pr oduct which
represents the second most important sector in the food
industry as far as export revenues are concerned.
sugar confectionery; The duty rates applied to most tariff lines falling under this
tariff quota are below the in-quota rate.  Trade takes place atthe m.f.n. rate and is not counted against the tariff quota.
tobacco; Same as above. In addition, there are significant preferential
market access opportunities for FTA partners.
wine  and champagne . Domestic prices were well below import prices.
New Zealand: in-quota rates, m.f.n. rates, and total imports for
the following products: bovine animals and meat; milk and
cream; sour cream yoghurt; kephir; butter; cheese and
curd; leguminous vegetables; potatoes .Attachment no. 4 refers.
Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/11#  Tariff Quota F ill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Bovine meat products ; citrus juices  – Whether the
administration of these tariff quotas provides for sub-allocation.The volume of imports within the respective tariff quotas was
reported at a disaggregated level for clarification purposes.
This method of reporting does not reflect any sub-allocation of
these tariff quotas.
Australia/New Zealand: Edible fats and oils  – Explanation of
the large fall in imports.A corrigendum will be submitted to amend the import volumes
previously notified for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, which
should also be zero.  The applied m.f.n. duty is equal to the in-
quota rate for all the tariff quota quantity.
New Zealand/United States:  Other cheese  – Reason for the
underfill; incidence of allocations made to overlapping free-trade area agreements (FTAs).The country has been suffering from recession for the past
three years.  Price-wise, this category of cheese is regarded as
premium cheese, demand for which has been declining
including on the domestic market. This particular quota (whichwas subject to Annex 5 Special Treatment) was tariffied in
1998. All tariff quotas were allocated in 1998 regardless of
overlapping FTAs. FTA quotas were underf illed as well.G/AG/R/19
Page 16
New Zealand   G/AG/N/NZL/19 and Corr.1  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Korea:  Fresh apples, fresh pears  -  Underlying reasons
behind persisting low fill rates despite the application of a zero
rate of duty to all imports; whether the current import system
will be continued.The current fill rates entirely reflect import decisions taken by
individual traders in the market-place.  The applied tariff rate
for both products is zero, no quantitative limits are imposed,
and no restrictions apply to individuals or companies wishingto import such products which are currently imported from a
number of countries including the United States, France and
Japan.   New Zealand is one of the largest three exporters of
apples and pears in the world and, with new apple varieties and
up-to-date storage technologies, domestic production is
competitive almost all year r ound.    New Zealand is not
considering changing its current system.
Slovenia   G/AG/N/SVN/11#  Tariff Quota F ill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Argentina: High quality beef  (0201.10, 20, 30 and 0202.10, 20,
30) -  Reasons for underf ill; reallocation methods.This is due to the lack of commercial interest shown by
importers.  For unfilled portions of the tariff quota, the
reallocation process usually takes place in September of eachyear.
Japan/United States: Yellow corn  and wheat flour  – Reasons
for underf ill.This is due to the lack of commercial interest shown by
importers.  However, some quantities of yellow corn and
wheat flour were imported from neighbouring countries underpreferential market access arrangements.
New Zealand: Given the continued underfill of all tariff quotas,
whether Slovenia is considering alternative methods of
administration.Public tenders are published in the official journal at the
beginning of each year.  A commission consisting of
representatives of the ministries of agriculture and economic
development allocates tariff quota volumes to applicants in
line with the established selection criteria: size and type of
company, number of employees, etc.  A first-come, first-
served method will be intr oduced as part of the EC pre-
accession programme.
Venezuela   G/AG/N/VEN/12  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Barley  – Reason for the sharp drop of imports
between 1996 and 1997.Consumer demand contracted under depressed economic
conditions.  On the other hand, imports of malt, a highlysubstitutable product domestically, were high.
Canada:  Cereal flours ; wheat flour  – Reasons for the low
level of imports.Venezuela is a traditional importer of wheat, not wheat flour.
New Zealand/United States:  Dairy  products – Reasons for
underfill; applied rates for: milk and cream, whole milk, butter
and other fats and oils derived from milk and cheese.The market is severely depressed.  No trade restrictive
measures are maintained. Traders take decisions regarding the
origin, quantity and most appropriate timing for all import
transactions.  Shipments must only comply with hygiene and
sanitary requirements.
United States:  Meat  products – Reasons for underfill. Consumer demand contracted under depressed economic
conditions.
Canada: Pork  – Terms of access, including applied tariff, other
duties and charges, administrative requirements.Undertook to provide an answer in writing.
Japan:  Rice  – Reasons for the low fill rate. This import level reflects the prevailing market conditions:
domestic supplies currently satisfy market needs and there is
even a small exportable surplus.  For these reasons, only
specialty rice imports (riz sauvage, basmati, etc.) took place.
Australia: Sorghum  – Reasons for continuing low fill rate. Consumer demand contracted under depressed economic
conditions.G/AG/R/19
Page 17
Venezuela   G/AG/N/VEN/12  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Wheat, with 10 per cent damaged grains; wheat  –
Whether the Schedule has been formally amended to mergethese two TRQs.Both tariff quotas were merged and total 1,314,643 tonnes.
The resulting tariff quota has not been implemented sincebetter market access conditions apply.
Japan: Meaning of the footnote with respect to theimplementation of tariff quotas.The footnote only refers to the administration of the sorghum
and yellow maize tariff quotas (please refer to Table MA:1).
No quantitative restrictions are placed on other tariff quotaproducts.G/AG/R/19
Page 18
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/35  (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand:  Wheat flour  – Calculation details for
the trigger price: conversion to wheat flour equivalent of the
import price of wheat, adjustment for reference milling cost in
the base period and source of data.Since there were no imports of wheat flour in the base period,
the trigger price was determined as follows: the average c.i.f.
price of wheat in the base period (Yen 24.02 per kg.) was
multiplied by a c onversion ratio (wheat content = 1.4) and
added to the external milling cost (Yen 13 per kg.).  The
conversion ratio is sourced from Japan's Schedule while theexternal milling cost comes from the US report Wheat
Situation and Outlook Report .
New Zealand:  Food preparations  – Clarification on how the
trigger price was determined; reason for not using other
countries' c.i.f. prices from the 1986-88 period.The c.i.f. prices from 1986-88 are not available because the
tariff line which provides the basis for their determination was
not created until the intr oduction of the Harmonized System
in 1988.  Japan is of the view that, in this case, the use of the
c.i.f. price in 1988 as the basis for the trigger price isappropriate and complies with Article 5 para. 1(b).
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/37  (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand:  Volume of imports for each product
subject to an additional duty during fiscal year 1998 (whether
volume- or price-based safeguard); whether the price-based
SSG was only applied on the single date notified to imports of
food preparations  containing not less than 30 per cent natural
milk constituents and wheat flour .Condensed milk: 51.8 tonnes; inulin : 0.
Food preparations containing not less than 30 per cent milk
constituents and wheat flour: the price-based SSG was only
applied to individual import cargos which fell short of the
trigger price on the single notified date.  The volumes subject
to the SSG are not usually announced because information onindividual declared import volumes may be disclosed.
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/38  (Table MA:4) – Preliminary review
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
The following questions were received after the established
deadlines .
Hungary:  Wheat starch  – C.i.f. prices, exchange rate,
conversion ratio, milling cost, for each year in the base period;
explanation of the calculation method; reason for not using an
import price that is representative for the region.
Additional comment:  In Hungary 's view, Japan should have
sourced the reference milling cost in exporting countries  rather
than domestically, as such practice may inflate the trigger level.Exchange rate: Yen 145.09 per US$; conversion ratio: 2.2.
For all other items, including calculation method, see answersprovided with respect to JPN/35 above.
Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/18  (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand: Pork  – Calculation method used to
determine trigger prices: neighbouring countries used to identify
wholesale prices and availability of unit import or export values
in the base period; conformity of this method withArticle 5.1(b);  reason for using the 1988-90 base period.
Additional comments:  New Zealand
 expressed concern that
wholesale prices should be used instead of unit import or export
values.No representative export or import prices were available in
the base period in Switzerland. Wholesale prices in the
German market during the base period were therefore used.
Before 1995, Switzerland was self-sufficient in pork
production and no imports took place during 1986-88 nor
during 1988-90.  For meat products, the base period 1988-90was selected to take into account the changing structure of the
HS 96 nomenclature.G/AG/R/19
Page 19
United States   G/AG/N/USA/24*  (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Reason why, in some cases, the volume of trade
identified as being affected by the SSG is larger than the over-
quota imports on the same tariff line reported by the US
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.The United States confirms the correctness of the notified
data which is based on detailed records of the US  Customs.
The data from the Bureau of the Census may not always
reflect minor technical adjustments sometimes made toincorrect entries under specific HS codes by the US Customs,
hence the minor discrepancies.
Canada:  Reason why no over-quota imports are reported for
certain tariff lines while a SSG has been reported on them.See above explanation provided regarding these minor
discrepancies.
Canada:  Information on the extent to which import prices fellbelow price triggers by reference to the thresholds set out inArticle 5.5(b), (c), (d) and (e).No such information is available at this time.  This would
require an extensive disaggregation and tabulation of the data.G/AG/R/19
Page 20
Table DS:1 Notifications
Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/13#   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
General services
Australia/Korea: "Agrarian organization; agrarian reform
settlement" – Operation of the programme;It was not until 1995 that the Land Act, published on
4 November 1966, an agrarian reform settlement programme,
acquired importance in public policy, as reflected in thenumber of families that were settled between 1995 and 1998
(287,539 families). The programme is carried out through
expropriations of land that does not have a social function, as
defined in the Constitution, or land used to grow illicit crops.
The land is indemnified with Bonds of Agrarian Debt (TDA)
and its constructions in money.  The TDA is the largest
component of the programme (66.7 per cent). Colonization and
settlement projects are then formulated using the register of the
National Institute for Settlement and Agrarian Reform
(INCRA) to identify "landless families". This implementation
phase represents 13.2 per cent of the notified expenditures. Animportant component, which accounts for 17.3 per cent of total
costs, promotes the fixation, initial subsistence and productive
structure of the settled families. These payments are not linked
to any production requirements. The remaining components
are: "agrarian studies and research", "assistance for rural
workers unions", "maintenance and upgrading of rural
register", "institutional cooperation and re-registration of ruralproperty".
whether payments are made to individual producers; whether
the reform projects specify the quantity or type of pr oduction
to be undertaken; conformity with Annex 2 criteria.The programme, of a social nature, is in conformity with
Annex 2, para 1, items (a) and (b).  It is not linked to the
production of specific agricultural products nor is it tied to
specified levels of production.  The individual credits to the
individuals who benefit from the agrarian reform programme(PROCERA) and are linked to production are accounted for in
ST/DS:2 as required in Article 6.2.
Public stockholding for food security purposes
Hungary: These questions were conveyed directly in writing to
the delegation of Brazil  – Eligibility criteria operation;The criteria for distribution are based on the "map of hunger",
drawn by the governmental Institute of Applied Ec onomic
Research (IPEA) which identifies the municipalities of Brazil
where hunger problems are most acute. To become eligible, the
municipalities are instructed to create Community Councils in
which the participation of opposition members is mandatory.It is this Council that defines the municipality's needs and
chooses the target population. The programme also foresees as
target beneficiaries indigenous communities, tapers of rubber
trees of the Amazon forest and registered landless who are
waiting to be settled.  Dr ought-stricken populations in the
North East of Brazil were also included last year.
range of products and relation to nutritional objectives; Assistance is provided through donations of products which
form a basic food basket (5 kgs. of rice, 5 kgs. of beans and
5 kgs. of corn meal;  3 kgs. of noodles;  2 kgs. of cassava
flour).  For the  rubber tree tapers, the cassava flour is replaced
by 2 kgs. of salt.  The programme does not seek to alter the
nutritional intake of the populations concerned but only to
supplement deficiencies in a way that is consistent with thenational diet.G/AG/R/19
Page 21
Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/13#   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
origin of products; whether government purchases are
involved.These products are part of public stocks formed under the
policy of guaranteed minimum price. The additional products
needed to meet the established distribution goals are acquired
by the government through public auctions. In 1995, more than3 million baskets were distributed.  In 1998, more than
19 million baskets were distributed through the regular
programme and 10,325,726 baskets under emergencyprogrammes to assisted those affected by the drought.
Payments for relief from natural disasters
Australia/Hungary: "Government agricultural insurance
programme" – Confirmation that it relates to Annex 2, para. 8;
extent of government financial participation; eligibility criteria.Confirmed. The Programme of Guarantee of Agricultural
Activity (PROAGRO) is a crop insurance programme against
(a) natural disasters and their direct/indirect consequences
(b) disease or pest that have no expanded method of control.Eligible producers must respect the agro-ecological zones,
comply with the recommended periods for planting and pay an
adherence tax which varies according to the type of crop and
risks involved. The programme is designed to be self-sufficient
financially. Only in case of generalized disasters when deficits
may occur, government participation is foreseen through
payments of the national treasury.
AMS
Canada/Korea/New Zealand/Thailand:  Substantiation of de
minimis  claims (product and non-product specific AMS).Attachment no. 5  refers.
New Zealand: Barley , cashew nuts , edible beans , oats -
Reasons for the increase in the production and marketing credit
payments (ST/DS:7).Banks are free to lend to those sectors which offer the greatest
potential for return and offer guarantees.  Government does not
specify which form of credit (production, marketing or
investment) nor which crops should benefit from the official
credit system. Barley: Increased production influenced the
volume of credit made available for the commercialization.The increased supply of raw material to the breweries may
have encouraged banks to finance the stock of barley. Cashew
nuts:  A cause for the increased level of credit payments could
not be identified. A good export performance must have
prompted banks to finance stocks of cashew nuts. Edible
beans: No increase was observed.  Oats : Credit provided did
increase but it must be noted that it stood at very low levelspreviously. The current level can therefore be considered as
"normal".  The increased supply of oats to some largerindustries may have encouraged bank lending to the sector.
United States:  Sugar  and alcohol  – Decision taken by the
Interministerial Council for Sugar and Alcohol (CIMA) on
April 1999 regarding further support for PROALCOOL; how
this will affect the operation of the programme; and effects on
sugar cane production and processing;Brazil did not provide further support for the Proalcool
programme. On 13 April 1999, the CIMA) authorized the
purchase of hydrated ethyl alcohol fuel by PETROBRAS to
build the nation's strategic fuel stock.  The Council determined
that the purchase had to be made through public auctions andat market prices and thus proceeded in this manner.
Operation of the programme and types of benefits provided; The programme of production and use of alcohol as fuel has
the following objectives: reduction of external dependency on
energy supply, scientific and technological development and
internal supply of bio-mass fuel of renewable origin, as well as
environmental advantages for the use of "clean" fuel.  In
Brazil, the product is used as an add itive to gasoline and, also,
as pure fuel for motors created to operate exclusively onalcohol.  The Brazilian fleet of automobiles is made up of
approximately 13 million units, of which 3.8 million run on
100 per cent alcohol while the rest run on a mixture of 24 per
cent alcohol and 76 per cent gasoline.  The programme
provides for the competitiveness of hydrated ethyl alc ohol as
an alternative source of fuel, compared with gasoline.G/AG/R/19
Page 22
Brazil   G/AG/N/BRA/13#   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
whether the related support is reflected in the product-specific
support of sugar cane; related notification to the WTO.The programme was not notified to the WTO simply because
its costs do not constitute internal measures of support for
producers of sugar cane, sugar and alcohol.  For this same
reason, the costs are not reflected in the product-specificsupport for sugar cane.
whether debt restructuring has been initiated to benefit sugarproducers, m illers and refiners.The Brazilian Government has not initiated programmes to
restructure or forgive debts held by sugar producers, m illers
and refiners.
New Zealand:  Wheat , maize  – Operation of the PEP
programme.The PEP was implemented as an alternative to the minimum
price programme in order to limit state interference in thecommercialization of wheat and maize (i.e. product
acquisitions).  The PEP encourages producers to use market
mechanisms instead of selling directly to the Government and
to commercialize the product as it is harvested.  A bonus is
offered through public auctions to those interested in
purchasing a pre-established quantity of designated pr oducts
directly from the producers.  The bonus is roughly calculated
as the difference between the minimum price and the internal
market price of the product. From the Government's
perspective, the PEP is a less costly alternative than the
traditional acquisitions programme (AGF).  In the case of
wheat where domestic production is below consumption, the
unnecessary formation of stock and related costs is avoided.The share of wheat production subject to the PEP was
approximately 24 per cent. In the case of maize, the PEP is
used in a more limited manner: only 3 per cent of totaldomestic production benefited from the programme, which is
mainly concentrated in regions that do not benefit fromadequate government storage and distribution facilities.
Egypt   G/AG/N/EGY/1   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Australia:  Reasons for the similarity of the value of measuresfor the three notification years.These values represent the yearly budgetary amounts allocated
to the programmes as well as the actual expenses.  Those
expenses were fixed in order to limit government's
involvement in those areas, in line with Egypt's current policy
to reduce subsidy levels.
United States: "Agricultural research" – Description of the
programme.Egypt has a fixed annual budget for agriculture research for its
governmental agricultural departments and research institutes
of only US$85,000.
Australia/United States:  "Pest control subsidy" – Operation
details; confirmation that support does not involve direct
payments to producers.Egypt has adopted a policy aimed at progressively reducing the
provision of pest control subsidies.  These have declined from
US$74.5 million in 1996 to US$35,000 in 1998.  These
subsidies relate to government expenditures in warning
systems, control and eradication of pests.  They do not involve
any direct payment to producers.
Australia/United States: "Relief from irrigation difficulties" –
Description of the measure; nature of payments provided;confirmation that these do not entail preferential user charges.A fixed annual budgetary amount is allocated to the
maintenance and cleaning of canals, barrages, and other public
irrigation facilities.  Such expenditures are not directed to on-
farm facilities and do not include subsidies to inputs oroperating costs or preferential user charges.G/AG/R/19
Page 23
Egypt   G/AG/N/EGY/1   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:2
United States: Description of the measures listed. Through government cooperatives, Egypt provides low-income
producers with subsidized fertilizers and seeds (for the crops
chosen by the farmers themselves).  These support measures
are implemented on the basis of rules that are established by
the Ministry of Agriculture. In particular, farmers' annual
income should be less than US$750 and beneficiaries shouldhave agriculture as sole activity.
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC /16#  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
General services
Japan: "Research" - Reason for the increase from 1995/96 to
1996/97 in the amounts destined to this programme.Research payments were merged with payments for training
purposes in the first notification year.  The Commission was
able to discriminate them to a large extent in 1996/97.
Brazil/Japan:  "Pest and disease control" - Reason for the
increase in the amounts destined to this programme from1995/96 to 1996/97.BSE-related measures implemented in the United Kingdom
accounted for most of the increase.
Japan: "Extension and advisory services" - EC's involvement
in this category of support, especially since budgetary outlaysare reported for the first time.The reporting of these payments for the first time is due to a
better identification and discrimination of items related to this
category.  Last year, a higher amount was notified under "other
services", which was used as basket category of general
services.
United States: "Marketing and promotion services: Aid to
encourage establishment of producer groups and ease
administrative overheads" – Steps taken by the Commission to
ensure that this aid is not used for unspecified purposes, in linewith Annex 2, para. 2(f).Aid can be granted for a limited period of time only to
encourage the setting up of producer groups.  Aid is spread
over several years in a degressive way and may make up only a
certain percentage of the establishment of the producerorganization and administrative expenditures.  Competent
authorities, both at national and EC level, have to check the
eligibility of expenditures declared for reimbursement and their
compliance with Community legislation.   Whenever such
support would be used for unspecified purposes or for the
purposes of price reductions benefiting producers, this would
be in clear contradiction with the conditions of the aid scheme.
Brazil/United States: "Infrastructural services" – Confirmation
that the provision of irrigation schemes, electricity and water
complies with Annex 2 criteria;  reason for the increase in the
amounts destined to this programme from 1995/96 to 1996/97.Confirmed, these do not involve the subsidized provision of
on-farm facilities and do not include subsidies to inputs or
operating costs, or preferential user charges.  Increased
expenditures were due to the increase in the rate of
applications for an infrastructure programme which concerns
the Federal Republic of Germany.
Domestic food aid
Japan: Details on the newly-introduced policies in order toexplain increased programme expenditures.The programme item "distribution of agricultural goods to
deprived persons" accounts for the increase in expendituresnotified.
Decoupled income support
Australia/New Zealand/United States:  "Transitional aid to
agricultural income" - Consistency with policy-specific criteria
of Annex 2, para. 6;  whether eligible recipients are required to
engage in agricultural activity.Detailed answers were provided to the Secretariat on
24 September 1998?
The programme covers the national aids according to the
accession Treaty of the three new Member states during the
period 1995-1999. A negligible amount of 4.5 million ECU
was granted to farmers in the notification period 1996/97.
These payments are not linked to production.G/AG/R/19
Page 24
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC /16#  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Australia/Canada/New Zealand: "Agri-monetary aid" -
Consistency with policy-specific criteria of Annex 2, para. 6,
in particular para. 6(a) which calls for a fixed and defined baseperiod.Detailed answers were provided to the Secretariat on
24 September 1998?
Member states may be authorized to grant farmers a
compensatory aid under strict conditions when the average
agricultural conversion rate over the previous 12 months is
lower than the agricultural conversion rate over the 12 months
preceding that period.  The aid will be based on this fixed
reference in the past and is not linked to production undertaken
after the introduction of the aid.
Income insurance and income safety-net programmes
Australia/Japan/New Zealand: EC's involvement in thiscategory of support, especially since budgetary outlays arereported for the first time;  operation of the programmes.The figure previously notified should be corrected to read zero
as no such programmes are operated in the EEC.  The bulk of
the notified expenditure corresponds to a tax exemption
programme which was notified by error.  A corrigendum will
be submitted to the Secretariat.
Canada:  New regulations are listed (Council Regulation
1527/95, Commission Regulation 2921/95) - Whether the EC
intend to submit a DS:2 notification; operation of thesemeasures with reference to Annex 2 criteria.Some of the references to specific regulations need to be
updated, which will be done in the next notification. The
references to regulations 950/97 and  951/97 are incorrect and
should be reported under the category "structural adjustment
assistance provided through investment aids".
Payments for relief from natural disasters
United States:  "Compensatory payments in respect of
weather" - Specific provisions and operation details; basis for
determining payments (production loss threshold); contingencyon a formal recognition by government authorities of a naturaldisaster.The payments concern mainly compensation for losses
incurred during an earthquake in the Umbria and Marche
regions in Italy.  The remaining payments concern frost
damages to fruit and vegetables in Italy and drought
compensation in Spain.  Such payments were made after
formal recognition of national disaster by the competentauthorities.
United States:  "Restoration of agricultural production" -
Specific provisions and operation details; basis for determiningpayments (production loss threshold); contingency on a formalrecognition by government authorities of a natural disaster.
Australia/United States: "Replanting and conversion of frost-
damaged olive groves" – Operation details; consistency with
para. 8(c) which calls for de-coupling payments from specifictypes of production.This measure expired and was actually not applied during the
notification period.  A corrigendum will be submitted to the
Secretariat.
Structural adjustment assistance provided through producer retirement programmes
Brazil/Japan/New Zealand: Reason for the increase from
1995/96 to 1996/97 in the amounts destined to this programme
category.Due to a lack of information, the expenditures indicated for the
1995/96 correspond to Community-level contributions only
and do not include public expenditures at national level.  The
1996/97 amount relates to total public expenditures.  However,
the amount should be revised downwards to 656 m illion ECU.
As a result of these corrections, only a slight increase of
expenditures can be observed, which can be justified by a
higher application rate to the programme after the accession of
Member states in 1995 and by the application of these newprogrammes in the German Lander. The European
Communities undertook to submit a corrigendum to the
Secretariat.
Structural adjustment assistance provided through resource retirement programmes
Brazil: Reason for the increase from 1995/96 to 1996/97 in theamounts destined to this programme category.A higher amount of applications are made in the Federal
Republic of Germany.G/AG/R/19
Page 25
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC /16#  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Australia/United States: "Set-aside" - Confirmation that
payments (a) require land to be retired for a minimum of three
years, and (b) are not related to the production and prices
obtained from the use of land remaining in agricultural
production. Whether the cu ltivation of i ndustrial crops on set-
aside land for non-food uses is perm itted; consistency with
Annex 2 criteria.There are two different set-aside regimes. The set-aside regime
notified under the Green Box category is a programme which
provides farmers with an alternative use of their land given the
difficult market situation for agricultural products. The land
must be set aside for at least five years and production of
arable or industrial crops is not allowed.  The set-aside regime
falling under the 1992 arable crop farm policy is a separate
regime.  The area to be set aside is related to the number of
requests for compensatory aids. It can be planted with
industrial crops under strict cond itions.  The compensatory
payments made under this regime are notified under the BlueBox category.
Canada:  One new regulation is listed (Council Regulation950/97) - Whether the EC intend to submit a DS:2 notification;
operation of this measure with reference to Annex 2 criteria.Some of the references to specific regulations need to be
updated, which will be done in the next notification.
Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids
Australia/Canada/United States:  Whether, for each listedmeasure, payments are in response to objectively demonstrated
structural disadvantages and are limited to the amount
necessary to compensate for these disadvantages.Applicants must submit an investment plan showing the
disadvantages faced and indicating the way the proposed
investments will improve their structure.  Payments are limited
to a certain share of the investment and an upper limit for
eligibility is set.  This share is defined according to the type of
investment needed, the target area, and the structuraldisadvantages concerned. These in turn are assessed against
objective criteria.  For example, for certain less favoured areas,
the density of aid is higher.  Payments are not related to the
type or volume of production but only to the volume of
investments undertaken. They are not related to production
prices. They are effectuated mostly in the form of capital
grants.
United States: "Construction of processing, …  equipment" and
"purchase of machinery and equipment, animals, buildings and
plantations" - Eligibility requirements; structure and operation;
consistency with para. 11 criteria which refer only to the
provision of payments that are determined by reference to
clearly-defined criteria and shall not designate the type ofoutput to be produced.The activities described in this category of support are eligible
for support under the aid scheme to improve the processing
and marketing of agricultural products under Regulation
951/97. A detailed answer in respect of this scheme was givenlast year.
Australia/Canada:  "Aid for young farmers" – Consistency
with para. 11 criteria; nature of "objectively demonstratedstructural disadvantages";  base period used.The investment aids for young farmers (in particular
Regulation 950/97) are intended to facilitate the structural
adjustment of holdings after the first installation of farmers.Structural disadvantages justifying this measure are
demonstrated by the negative demographic data concerning the
age structure of European farmers.  Only 8.3 per cent of farm
owners or managers are under 35 years of age while 24.5 per
cent are over 65 years.  There is no base period as investment
aid is not related to the type or volume of production
undertaken in any year after the aid has been authorized.  Theaid is not related to either domestic or international prices.
Canada:  New regulations are listed (Council Regulations
950/97 and 951/97) – Whether the EC intend to submit a DS:2
notification; operation of these measures with reference toAnnex 2 criteria.These are not new regulations.  These references constitute a
codification of existing legislation which became necessary to
consolidate, in one single version, all the amendmentsintroduced in the previous regulations.G/AG/R/19
Page 26
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC /16#  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Environmental programmes
Brazil/Japan:  Reason for the increase from 1995/96 to 1996/97
in the amounts destined to this programme category.The reasons for such an increase are the following.  The year
1996 was the first year during which agri-environmental
payments were made in the new EC Member states.  In other
EC Member states, the implementation process was notcompleted in 1996 which also resulted in new expenditures.
Since the entry into force of Regulation 2078/92, no new
policy measure under the agri-environmental scheme has been
introduced.  However, under this same Regulation, new
programmes were introduced:  these were proposed by ECmember States and approved by the Commission.
Canada/Japan:  One new regulation is listed (Council
Regulation 950/97) – Whether it can be assumed that the
increase in expenditures over the previous year is due to this
regulation; whether the EC intend to submit a DS:2
notification; operation of this measure with reference to Annex2 criteria.It must be noted that certain references to specific regulations
need to be updated. The EC delegation undertook to introduce
these amendments in the next notification . The increase in
expenditures is not attributable to the establishment of
Regulation 950/97, which does not concern environmentalprogrammes but rather the modernization of farm structures.
Australia/New Zealand/United States: "Support and protection
of organic production by creating cond itions of fair
competition" - Operation details; Explanation of how these
payments are limited to the amount necessary to compensate
for extra costs or lost income involved in complying with theprogramme; confirmation that such payments do not have the
effect of providing price support to producers.Payments are conditional upon the fulfilment of specific
criteria related to production methods or inputs.  The detailed
provisions on production methods or inputs that can be used in
organic farming are laid down in Regulation 2092/91.  This
Regulation does not provide for any financial support toorganic farming production.  Payments for farmers who
undertake to introduce or continue with organic farming
methods are granted aid under agri-environmental programmes
in line with Regulation 2078/92.  Such payments are made in
return for the environmental services provided by farmers
which go beyond minimum standards of environmental care.
Regarding the "conditions of fair competition", these relate to
the compensation of extra-costs involved in introducing or
maintaining organic farming methods.
United States: "Protection of environment and  … sensitive
areas" – Operation details; explanation of how payments are
limited to the amount necessary to compensate for extra costsor lost income involved in complying with the programme.The programmes are developed by national, regional or local
authorities and are then submitted for approval by the
Commission. A description of the geography and farming
activities in the area concerned and the proposed objectivesand conditions for support are included in the proposals.  The
amount of the payments is limited to the extra costs or loss of
income which in turn are based on model calculations.  The
descriptions of the measures are encompassed in the
Regulations.
United States: "Aid for forestry measures in agriculture" -
Operation details; explanation of how payments are limited to
the amount necessary to compensate for extra costs or lost
income involved in complying with the programme.See above replies.
United States: "Conservation of genetic resources in
agriculture" – Operation details; explanation of how payments
are limited to the amount necessary to compensate for extra
costs or lost income involved in complying with theprogramme.See above replies.G/AG/R/19
Page 27
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC /16#  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Regional assistance programmes
Australia: "Compensatory allowances in Less Favoured Areas
paid per hectare or per livestock unit" - Consistency with
Annex 2, para. 13(b) regarding the relationship between
payments and production.
Additional comments: Some delegations expressed concern
with respect to the continued coupling of this type of support
with surface areas, in view of Annex 2, para. 13(b).Support is given either in headage payments in case of farms
keeping cattle, sheep, goat or equine animals, or in hectare
payments. Compensatory allowances are only paid up to a
stocking density of 1.4 livestock unit per hectare. In case ofhectare payments, the payments per hectare of total forage area
may not exceed a certain amount.  The full amount of co-
financing is only given to the first 60 units per holding.
Beyond that and up to 120 units per holding, the maximum
eligible amount is reduced. Beyond 120 units per holding, no
further units are eligible for payment.  This demonstrates the
degressive nature of the support scheme.  Within the
framework of Agenda 2000, these payments will be granted on
an hectare basis only from the year 2000 onwards.
Additional comments:  Concerning ST/DS:1, the United States  expressed disappointment with the general lack of detailed
information to support the inclusion of many of the programmes under the Green Box category, i.e. operation details anddescription of the measures with reference to Annex 2 criteria.
Supporting Table DS:3
United States:  "Supplements to per hectare compensatory
payments for durum wheat  producers" – Appropriateness of
current classification in view of the area adjustments reported
in the Official Journal; whether the areas or the yields of the
other programme items have been subject to similaradjustments.The total base area of arable crops in the EC remained
unchanged since 1992 except from adjustments resulting from
the reunification of Germany and to the enlargement of the
European Union. Some slight revisions were made within the
total base areas. The revised figures became the new basis for
the payments.  Revisions of yields did take place because of
errors being discovered, but all such yields continue to bebased on historical periods.
United States:  "Compensation for set-aside requirement" -
Set-aside compensatory payments are also notified in ST/DS:1:whether these are separate programmes; if so, operationdetails; conformity with Article 6.5.See above reply in conjunction with ST/DS:1.
United States:  Share of cereals produced under the "simplified
scheme" under which small producers receive compensatory
payments without having to set-aside any land.No data are available regarding the quantity of cereals
produced under this scheme.
AMS
Brazil:  Reason for the increase from 1995/96 to 1996/97 in theAMS.The Total Current AMS notified for 1995/96 will be revised
upwards as a result of an error in the production figure for
tomatoes.  The EC Delegation undertook to submit a
corrigendum . The new figure will be approximately
50.24 billion ECU.  There was therefore only a slight increase
in the amount of support from one year to the other.
United States:  Reason why references to the specific legalbasis for the measures listed in ST/DS:5, 7 and 8 were omitted.These will be provided in the upcoming notifications.
Canada/Venezuela:  Details on terminology used in the
notifications (G/AG/R/15 refers).Information on the definitions of different prices used in the
EC market organizations is provided in the section Deferred
replies .
Korea:  Explanation sought on the difference between the
"price gap policy" (applied to olive oil in ST/DS:6) and the
"price support" policy (referred to in ST/DS:5), in terms of
policy objectives and implementation mechanisms.Undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.
Supporting Table DS:4
United States:  Whether all products subject to an entry price
system are listed; if not, which ones.All fruit and vegetables classified according to an entry price
are listed but the names used may be shortened versions of therelevant tariff line items.  Grape juice and grape must are also
classified by reference to an entry price.G/AG/R/19
Page 28
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC /16#  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Canada/New Zealand:  Substantiation of the de minimis  claims. Durum wheat:  since the AMS is negative, there is no need to
justify the claim;  Common wheat, maize, barley, rye, triticale,
grain sorghum: 21.849 billion ECU; (c) Potatoes for
processing to starch: 336 billion ECU.
Supporting Table DS:5
New Zealand: Cotton  - Confirmation that no market price
support was provided in 1996/97.Confirmed. See replies given in respect of EMS for cotton
(ST/DS:8 below).
Thailand: White sugar  - Nature of associated fees and levies;
confirmation that such fees are collected in the EC only withrespect to white sugar.European producers in the sugar sector pay the production
levies which are used mainly for financing the export refunds
for sugar.  The amount shown refers to the levies paid by the
producers of sugar beet for the production of white sugar.
United States: Footnote 7 – Consistency with methodology
established in Annex 3; explanation of how these data werederived.The external reference prices are taken from the constituent
data used in AGST/EEC.  Therefore the reference to OECD
data should be deleted.  The EC Delegation undertook to
submit a corrigendum in this regard .
Supporting Table DS:6
Canada:  Sugar  -  Whether the support for the beet sector in
Spain notified in G/SCM/N/25/EEC is included in the amountshown with respect to "Direct aid Spain".The EC delegation undertook to provide a response in writing.
Japan: Tobacco  -  Whether a policy change accounts for the
increased value of non-exempt direct payments.In 1995/96, support to growers consisted of two main
instruments:  (a) a premium paid to help raise gross income
and at the same time gear production to market requirements
and permit disposal of tobacco grown in the EC;  (b) a special
conversion premium granted within the framework of a three-
year programme for conversion to certain tobacco varieties.
The amount of 52.5 million ECU was reported in the 1995/96
notification referred only to the conversion premium. Since
this programme ended, the related expenditures are not shownin the 1996/97 notification.  The bulk of support in 1996/97
(i.e. 1,005.3 million ECU) is channelled thr ough the first
scheme that still exists.  The overall amounts shown for thetwo years are roughly at the same level.
Supporting Table DS:8
Korea: Apples, pears  - Details on the specific contents of the
"price support" policies; calculation details; reasons why the
EMS was calculated for these products.Undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.
Korea: Citrus fruit, lemons, peaches, plums and pears for
processing  -  Explanation of the "minimum price" policy;
calculation details.Undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.
Korea: Cotton, wine  - Operation of the "guide price"; specific
calculation details for each product.Undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.
Japan: Potatoes for processing to starch  - Whether the
decreasing value of the EMS over the previous year is relatedto decreasing yields.In the previous notification, the production of potatoes was
mistakenly used instead of the starch content of potatoes.  A
corrigendum will be submitted to correct the figures .  The
correct figure should be 1.58 m illion t onnes which results in an
EMS of –159.7 million ECU.
Japan/Korea : Tomatoes  - Details on the specific contents of
the "price support" policy;Undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.
reason why the EMS was calculated for this product;calculation details;Undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.
reason for the increased value of the EMS from 1995/96 to
1996/97.This is due to an error in the figures notified for 1995/96. A
corrigendum will be provided, showing that the result is
actually a slight decrease in the value of support.
G/AG/R/19
Page 29
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC /16#  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Supporting Table DS:9
Thailand:  "Insurance subsidies" - Nature of such subsidies;
difference with the measures reported in ST/DS:1 (p. 4 refers).Undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.
United States: "Other" - Meaning and nature of related
measures.This concerns national aids for marketing and promotion
services, which may qualify for inclusion into the Green Boxcategory.  A  corrigendum may be submitted in this respect .
Guatemala   G/AG/N/GTM/11  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Confirmation that no domestic support was
provided that would fall under Annex 2, para. 2.In 1995, a process of reform and modernization of the
Executive, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
and Food, was launched.  The general services institutions as
described in Annex 2, para. 2, operating on current funds from
the government budget were either dismantled (e.g. the
Directorate-General of Agricultural Services – DIGESA – and
the Directorate-General of Livestock Services – DIGESEPE),
or radically restructured (e.g. Agricultural Science andTechnology Ins titute – ICTA). This reform process gave rise to
the creation of non-governmental organizations (associations
of producers or exporters, international, and professional
organizations, etc.) which were delegated or accredited to
provide general services, the cost of which is covered by the
users.  The State has retained responsibility for the
development of standards and regulations and quality control
services, activities which are financed thr ough administrative
charges to the user for activities such as certification, extensionof permits, registration, etc.
Honduras   G/AG/N/HND/4*  and HND/6*  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Meaning of the footnote "** not yet
implemented ".Thus far, the Government of Honduras has not made any
outlays or any budgetary provisions, nor has it guaranteed any
amount of money to carry out the programmes listed.  In other
words, the programmes have not been initiated.G/AG/R/19
Page 30
Honduras   G/AG/N/HND/4*  and HND/6*  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
New Zealand:  "Land fund"  – Operation details. This Programme was created by Decree No. 199-93 – Land
Fund Law.  This is a non-profit making civil association with
legal personality, its own equity, self-governed, and
administratively, technically and financially independent. The
purpose is to formalize, expand and restructure a financing
scheme, including the re-discounting of mortgages in order to
promote the acquisition of, and facilitate access to, rural land
for agricultural producers eligible as beneficiaries under the
agrarian reform. The initial capital for the programme is
provided by the government.  The capital also includes
resources obtained through the sale of national and communal(ejidal) rural land and the accounts receivable from that source,
as well as funds corresponding to half of the surcharge for land
sales under the agrarian reform exceeding 100 hectares, as
established in Article 70 of Decree 31-92 of 5 March 1992
(Law on the Modernisation and Development of the
Agricultural Sector).  The programme will recover from
debtors the proceeds from sales of land which the State of
Honduras transferred to the National Agrarian Institute under
Article 12 of the Agrarian Reform Law, and other landacquisitions made or to be made by the said Institute under that
law.  The operations include the administration and financing
of the parcelling and the purchase and sale of private land with
full land title, using the banks and savings and credit
associations as financial intermediaries in addition to the
central farmers' associations legally recognized by the State
and the NGOs approved by the Programme. The Programme is
authorized to finance up to 90 per cent of the price of the land,
including the value of improvements.  Loans are guaranteed by
a first mortgage, and the Programme has the authority to
terminate loan guarantees in case of default on payments. Theterms and the interest rates applied to loans are established in
the framework of the policies decided by the Programme's
Governing Board.  Finally, at any given time, at least 90 per
cent of the loan portfolio of the Land Fund Programme must be
placed in operations involving the financing of the purchase of
less than ten hectares of land.  The rest of the portfolio must be
placed in operations financing the purchase of up to amaximum of 25 hectares of land.
"Rural credit banks" – Operation details. This Programme was created by Decree 201-93 of
1 October 1993 to support economic activity in rural areas
through financial intermediation. The rural credit and savings
banks are able to operate as communal and regional banks and
are backed by a central bank which will provide liquidity.They have the authority to receive loan deposits and time
deposits, grant credit to natural and legal persons, deposit
money in the central bank and to obtain funding from the
financial system. The activities and operations of the rural,
communal and central banks will be audited, supervised and
monitored by the Regulatory Commission of the Private Rural
Savings and Credit Bank System, an entity attached to the
Banking and Insurance Supervisory Authority of the Central
Bank of Honduras.
G/AG/R/19
Page 31
Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/12#   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Australia/New Zealand: Payments for relief from natural
disasters - Details on the programmes listed; whether different
criteria are used to assess eligibility and compensation between
farmers covered by the "Natural Disaster Insurance Fund"
(NDIF) and those not covered by these policies; confirmation
that all payments are made following formal government
recognition of a natural disaster; consistency with para. 8
criteria.The Natural Disaster Law (NDL) does not use different sets of
rules or criteria to assess eligibility for payments and
compensation between farmers, be they covered or not by
these insurance policies.  Until 1999, the Natural Disaster
Policy did not cover all the damages caused by natural
disasters.  Only in cases where such damages were substantial,
did the Government declare a natural disaster in line with the
NDL. Compensation was then based on expert assessments andthe same criteria was applied.  The compensation budget,
however, had three components: (a) the "NDIF" representing
the government share in the insurance policy; (b) "Advance for
claims on insurance fund" providing advance payment for up
to 100 per cent of the assessed damages, because of extended
time lags between the occurrence of a natural disaster and
actual compensation; (c) "Natural Disaster Compensation"
providing for the compensation for damages caused less any
advance payments received under (b).  The last two budget
components are covered under the same law (NDL) but were
notified for reasons of transparency.
Korea/New Zealand:  Regional assistance programmes –
Compliance of the "Border settlement programme" withpara. 13 criteria.The population of the Galilee area is compensated because of
the structural damages and losses of income caused byoperation "Sour Grapes" (April 1996). The Galilee area is
regarded as a disadvantaged region because it is an active
border and because of its typography.  Compensation to the
agricultural sector was similar to that granted to the rest of the
population affected by the operation which is the reason why
Israel classified this type of support under this category.  The
classification under "payments for natural disasters" wouldhave also been relevant.
Mexico   G/AG/N/MEX/5*   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
United States:  Sugar  – Whether debt restructuring
programmes have been initiated to benefit sugar pr oducers,
millers and refiners; am ount of debt forgiven or any other
benefits; related notification to the WTO.These questions were conveyed to the concerned capital
authorities and answers will be provided at a later stage.G/AG/R/19
Page 32
Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/22  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
General services
Australia/New Zealand: "Small animal fund", compensatory
payments for stock losses – Details on share of the 43.6 million
NOK expenditure in 1997 used to compensate farmers for lossof animals during the pasture season in the mountains;
consistency with para. 2 criteria and basis for such payments.
Additional comments:  New Zealand
 believes that the
compensation for loss of animals is not provided for under
para. 2 of Annex 2, and is more appropriately included under
para. 8 if the loss of animals is due to a natural disasterrecognized as such by the government.  However, if
compensation is paid for animals lost due to standard farm
practices, it is a coupled payment.This programme covers advice and promotion activities as well
as support relating to pasturing activities.  The general support
to advice and promotion covers several services: improvedbreeding of sheep, poultry and other animals; advice at the
farm level; registration of statistics; etc.
The fund may also support measures aimed at preventing
losses during the pasturing season in the mountains.  Only
organized groups of farmers who cooperate in such activities
or projects are eligible for support.  The compensation for loss
of animals (particularly sheep) due to accidents is available
only in certain extraordinary circumstances.  A substantial part
of the stock must be lost and the type of accident must not becovered by animal insurance.  This programme was included in
the Norwegian Schedule, as well as in previous notifications,
under Annex 2, para. 2. Arguably, it could have also been
included under Annex 2, para. 8.  The fact remains that this is
clearly a Green Box measure.
Australia: "Land registration" and "land allocation " activities –
Conformity with para. 2(g).The "land registration" activities relate to the work c onducted
by the Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory (NIJOS),
principal supplier of agri-environmental, forestry, and other
land-related data.  NIJOS is responsible for the mapping of
natural resources such as soil, vegetation, landscape, land use
and land capability. It is the Ministry's co-ordinator for
environment data, cartographic standards, forestry planning
and geographic information systems.  Expenditures with
respect to "land allocation" and consolidation relate to the
general services provided by the Norwegian LandConsolidation Service (land allocation, consolidation, dispute
settlement on property frontiers).
Public stockholding for food security purposes
Australia/Canada/New Zealand/Philippines/United States:
"Grain price support" – Whether this programme item will be
eliminated from the Green Box category in future notificationssince conformity with para. 1(b) criteria has not beendemonstrated (G/AG/R/13 refers); whether the related
expenditures are accounted for in the calculation of product-
specific market price support and total current AMS; reason
why Norway included this measure in the Green Box category.Grain price support is accounted for in calculations of product-
specific market price support and total current AMS.  This is a
separate budgetary item within the main budgetary item
"public stockholding for food security purposes".  Fortransparency reasons, the total expenditures were reported
entirely under the Green Box although the price support
element is covered in Supporting Table DS:5.
Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids
Australia/United States: "Agricultural Development Fund" and
"interest concessions" – Confirmation that payments are made
on the basis of an objectively demonstrated structuraldisadvantage; conformity with para. 11 criteria.The Fund provides investment aids for structural adjustment
and rural development purposes for rebuilding or maintaining
existing agricultural buildings; promoting diversified economic
activities in rural areas; stimulating investments in measuresenhancing the environment, etc.  The interest rate concessions
relate to interest rates on loans provided by the State Bank for
Agriculture (SBA).  The interest concessions are the difference
between the interests paid by SBA customers and the interests
paid by the bank on their capital.  Support is not conditional
upon production volumes or prices and meets fundamental
Green Box criteria.  The investment support is not intended to
increase the production capacity and meets Annex 2, para. 11
criteria. The bank provides loans for the financing of a house
for residence in agricultural dwellings, as well as for
agricultural purposes, generally to farmers located in remoteareas with structural disadvantages.G/AG/R/19
Page 33
Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/22  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Environmental programmes
Australia/Brazil/New Zealand/Philippines: "Subsidy to
summer dairy operations in mountainous regions" and –
Explanation of expected environmental impacts and
programme objectives; confirmation that producers are onlycompensated for any extra costs incurred; eligible producers;
conformity with para. 12 criteria;  total farm area and types of
crops covered by the subsidy to production on steep areas.The support aims at encouraging the up-keeping of traditional
milk production in mountainous regions in order to conserve
the agricultural landscape through the continued grazing of
cows and cattle and use of agricultural buildings.  Theproduction allowance is intended to compensate for the extra
cost of keeping dairy cows on summer pasture in mountainous
areas. Applicants must fulfil the general conditions for
agricultural support, including compliance with the Nature
Conservation Act and the Pollution Act. Certain health and
quality requirements must also be met.  In addition, farming
must take place during the summer, be connected to a
traditional mountain farm building and be based on a mountain
summer farm connected to a yea r-round agricultural holding.
The mountain farm has to be higher in elevation than the
locations of the permanent dwellings in the area in question.At least four weeks of deliveries to a dairy per summer, or an
equal period of documented direct sale, are required to receive
payments.  The allowance is paid in the form of a lump sum
per year.  In 1997, around 1,831 farms were included in the
programme.
"Subsidy to production on steep areas" – Same questions as
above.The programme aims at securing the cultural landscape
through the encouragement of farming activ ities in steep and
remote areas. Farmers are compensated for the extra costs
incurred due to difficult topographical conditions of
production.  In add ition to the general conditions described
above, specific eligibility c onditions apply: support is only
available to farms that are located in places where the elevation
is equal or steeper than 1:5 on at least 50 per cent of their totalproduction area. Eligible products are: coarse fodder (including
grassland and pasture), grain, potatoes, berries, fruit and
vegetables.  Payments are effectuated according to a per
hectare rate, with a maximum amount of 5 hectares per farm.
In 1997, some 5,940 farms or 23,900 hectares were covered bythe scheme.
Australia:  "Fixed area support to ecological production" –
Nature of production.The objective is to stimulate the conversion to ecological
farming methods.  In accordance with Annex 2, para 12,
payments are intended to cover the extra costs or loss of
income related to the Regulation concerning Production and
Labelling of Ecological Agricultural products.
Other
Brazil/Canada/NewZealand/Thailand/United States:"Social
Welfare: Vacation and replacement scheme" – Explanation of
government refunding of farmers' holidays; demonstration ofdecoupled nature of such payments; whether a revised
notification will be submitted to report these (labour) input
subsidies under AMS support since they do not meet para. 5criteria (G/AG/R/13 refers).The scheme operates in line with Annex 2 criteria and enables
livestock producers to take vacation and farmers' replacement,
in line with national regulations on the work environment.  The
maximum amount of payment is designed to partly compensate
a full time farmer.  Part-time farmers are granted a reduced
amount of compensatory payment. The payment is provided at
a maximum amount based on documented expenses for hiring
workers at the farm.   Payments received do not exceed the
documented cost of replacement of each farmer. This scheme
is not new since it was included in Norway's Schedule and wasalso notified in previous notifications.
Australia/Canada/New Zealand/Philippines/United States:
"Market regulation, promotion and sale. Payments made to
obtain administered prices" – Operation details; conformity
with paras. 5 and 6(b) through (e) as well as fundamentalGreen Box criteria since the objective of the programme is to
provide price support to producers.Several measures are covered by this programme, such as
payments allocated to information and generic marketing
activities of fruit and vegetables in order to facilitate the sale ofthese products and secure supplies in all parts of the country.
It also includes payments to facilitate the demand for
ecological products.  Payments are allocated according to the
applications received. The programme item "payments made to
obtain administered prices" is included in the AMS marketprice support calculations as required by Annex 3, para. 8.G/AG/R/19
Page 34
Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/22  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Supporting Table DS:3
Philippines/United States/Thailand: Information on notified
programmes; conformity with Article 6.5.All Blue Box programmes are operating within the Norwegian
system of marketing levies paid by the individual farmer. All
agricultural products in Norway are subject to this levy
according to the Agricultural Market Regulation Act.  Thesystem of marketing levies aims at limiting production.  Levies
are set taking into account the market situation and are
increased when over production occurs.  Accordingly, the levy
system is an efficient production lim iting measure. Grain
sector: the system of reduced administered prices is applied in
parallel to the marketing fee.  If Norwegian grain production
exceeds a certain level (which is calculated according to
domestic consumption of grain of feed or feeding stuffs), the
administered prices are reduced.  Dairy and milk: Milk
production is subject to the milk-quota system.
Australia/Philippines/Thailand/United States: "Acreage and
cultural landscape scheme" – Description of the measure;
operation details; eligibility criteria; conformity with Article6.5(a).The scheme is based on the utilization of arable land. It aims at
encouraging farmers to maintain the cultural landscape and
cultivated areas, including plants and wildlife, traditional pathsand arterial roads.  At the same time, the programme levels off
farmers' incomes among production types, farm sizes and
regions. The per hectare payments decrease when farm size
increases. Farms with grassland and pasture (coarse fodder
production) are not eligible for support if the area exceeds 40
hectares. Arable land for sown grassland, pasture and other
types of coarse fodder production, grain, potatoes, fruit, berries
and vegetables are eligible crops. As required by
Article 6.5(a)(i), the scheme is based on a fixed total area.
Farmers must apply in order to obtain the payments.  If the
total area applied for increase, payment per hectare would bereduced accordingly.
Australia/United States: "Structural income support to dairy
farmers" – Description of the measure; operation details;
conformity with Article 6.5.The objective of the scheme is to provide income support for
milk production holdings and to equalize income between
large and small holdings and between holdings located in thenorthern and southern parts of the country.  A fixed payment
per holding is made, independently from the level of
production or number of animals. However, holdings
producing less than 30,000 litres of cow milk or 15,000 litres
of goat milk receive lower rates of support. Around 8 per cent
of the holdings fall within this group. More assistance is
provided to the northern part of Norway.  The scheme operates
in accordance with the production-lim iting criteria in
Article 6.5.
Australia/United States: "Regional deficiency payment to milk
production" – Description of the measure; operation details;
conformity with Article 6.5.The operational disadvantages of milk production in less
favoured regions are compensated by securing a certain level
of income and production to the farmers.  The scheme aims at
promoting agricultural employment and maintaining a certainlevel of population in remote rural areas and operates in line
with Article 6(5a)(ii) criteria.  Assistance is calculated on the
basis of a premium per litre of milk pr oduced, but payment is
restricted to the amount of milk produced within the allotted
quota.  Payments are also differentiated according to 9
different geographical zones and the best agricultural areas are
not qualified to benefit from such payments.
Australia/United States: "Regional deficiency payment to meat
production" – Description of the measure; operation details;
conformity with Article 6.5.The scheme's objectives are similar to those described in the
above programme. The level of compensation is also higher at
higher elevations and payment rates vary between six zones.
Assistance is granted to beef and veal, pork and sheepmeat and
is calculated using a fixed rate per kilogram of carcass weight.
Around 55 per cent of domestic meat production was eligible
for support during the notification year. The scheme operates
in conformity with Article 6.5(a)(ii).G/AG/R/19
Page 35
Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/22  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Australia/United States: "Headage support" – Description of
the measure; operation details; conformity with Article 6.5.The scheme aims at strengthening and equalizing incomes in
animal production.  The payment is limited to a certain number
of animals (e.g. 40 milking cows, 250 slaughtering pigs) and
may be provided with respect to the following products: cows,
other bovine animals, goats, pigs for breeding, slaughter pigs,
egg laying hens, horses, rabbits and sheep.  The rates vary
according to the type of animal considered. There are also
limits to the amount of support that can be granted to each
farmer and a maximum limit for the total programme
expenditures. The scheme operates in line with
Article 6.5(a)(iii).
AMS
Australia/New Zealand/United States: Supporting Table DS:4 -
Justification for using a negative total non-product specificAMS to reduce the value of the Total Current AMS.
Additional comments:  The reporting of negative AMS figures
caused serious concerns among various Members, including
Australia, Canada , New Zealand , the Philippines , and the
United States. In particular, the evolution of Norway's
previous practice to report negative AMS figures wasunderlined by Australia. Negative figures used to be derived
from negative amounts of market price support.  Now, they are
derived from negative figures on taxes on fertilizers and
pesticides under non-product-specific AMS.  Such practice was
regarded as a new and most inventive way of reducing the
AMS.  It also sets a precedent in the sense that there is a whole
range of taxes that Members could start netting out from theirrespective support levels.According to Article 6.4(a)(ii), a Member shall not be required
to include in the calculation non-product specific support
where such support does not exceed 5 per cent of the value of
that Member's total agricultural production. The Article doesnot require a Member to exclude such support.
Replies to additional comments:  The fees in question were
included in Norway's Schedule as well as in previous
notifications.  Therefore the practice adopted by Norway is not
new and without foundation. Furthermore, Norway did notdeduct general levies and taxes from the AMS.
Philippines/Thailand:  Supporting Table DS:9 – Basis for
including taxes on fertilizers and pesticides in the calculationof the non-product specific AMS.Annex 3, para. 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture "specific
agricultural levies or fees paid by producers shall be deducted
from the AMS".  These fees are used to discourage the use offertilizers and pesticides.
Sri Lanka    G/AG/N/LKA/2   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
New Zealand:  "Buffer stock in respect of wheat flour " –
Operations;  conformity with Annex 2 criteria.Buffer stocking activities are carried out by the Food
Commissioner's Department.  The stocking policy is to
maintain a minimum of one month consumption requirement
(i.e. approximately 50,000 tonnes) at all times in wheat flour
and one month requirement in grain form, either in silos or
afloat.  This programme is in full conformity with Annex 2,
para. 3.
New Zealand: "Dry rations for refugees, infant milk food
subsidy, wheat flour subsidization, etc." – Conformity with
Annex 2 criteria;This programme meets the criteria of Annex 2, para. 4.  The
aid was granted to displaced and affected families in theEastern provinces during the period 1995 to 1997 in the form
of dry rations and in cash.
whether dry ration products are produced domestically or
imported;The products distributed as dry rations are domestically
produced except for flour and len tils.  Infant milk subsidies of
100 Sri Lankan rupees per month are given to mothers of
newborn infants in the low income group of families for a
period of 12 months.  Regarding wheat flour subsidization,
purchases are made by government at current market prices
which allow recipients to buy food under terms provided inAnnex 2, para. 4.
G/AG/R/19
Page 36
Sri Lanka    G/AG/N/LKA/2   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
reason for the significant decrease between 1996 and 1997. This was due to the gradual phasing out of the wheat flour
subsidy during the period 1995-1997 in the domestic market.
Expenditures in respect of the dry rations for refugees
remained relatively constant.
New Zealand: "Income insurance" – Demonstration of
consistency with Annex 2 criteria.Payments were made taking into account income losses, in line
with the criteria Annex 2, para. 7/para. 8?
Thailand    G/AG/N/THA/29*   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
United States: Sugar  – Whether debt restructuring
programmes have been initiated to benefit sugar pr oducers,
millers and refiners; am ount of debt forgiven or any other
benefits; related notification to the WTO.Thailand confirms that no such programme was initiated
during the notification year under review.  Should there be a
change in this regard in future, the Committee will be
accordingly informed.
Turkey    G/AG/N/TUR/6* and Corr.1, TUR/8   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Absence of Supporting Table DS:1 – Request that this
table be provided for 1995, 1996 and 1997.The applicability of Annex 2 criteria is still being studied by
Turkey.
Canada:  Use of US$ instead of Turkish Lira – Request that
Turkey submits revised domestic support notifications using
the Turkish Lira.The control of a very high rate of inflation has become a major
concern in domestic macro-economic policy, as evidenced by
the results of the second Trade Policy Review of Turkey last
year.  This renders the calculation results of domestic support
in Turkish Lira quite misleading.  Turkey hopes that the next
round of negotiations w ill bring about practical solutions to the
difficulties arising from high rates of inflation.
United States:  Reason why only part of Turkey's cropproduction actually received the applied administered price inview of the provisions of Annex 3 and Annex 4.The state institutions responsible for support programmes for
various products determine the levels of production that are
eligible to receive administered prices on a yearly basis.  Only
a share of the total production was eligible to receive theapplied administered price.
New Zealand/United States:  Request that Turkey calculates
AMS values (and notifies support using ST/DS:5) instead of
using the EMS method. Confirmation sought in this regard;reason why Turkey continues using the EMS method when the
data to develop an external reference price is readily available.
Additional comments:  In its 1997 notification, Turkey referred
to the lack of a fixed external reference price in the base
period as the barrier to the calculation of the AMS.  However,
several Members pointed out that Turkey has now included
reference prices for all the products notified.In Turkey's case, the EMS is believed to be the most
appropriate method to measure support. The issue is however
still under consideration by Turkey.
Support to sugar beet
Brazil/European Communities/United States:  Explanation ofhow sugar beet trade is conducted; add itional information on
how support is granted to the production of sugar beet;
meaning of "no private buyers".-
New Zealand:  Whether the state-owned enterprise, Turkish
Sugar Company, purchases the domestically-produced sugar;
whether it also imports sugar; description of activities carried
out to fund the purchase of domestic sugar.The only buyer of sugar beet in Turkey is the state-owned
Turkish Sugar Company, which purchases all marketed sugar
beet.  Sugar refining is also dominated by this Company. It is
currently being privatized. Its activities will be described in
detail on the basis of Turkey's submission to the WTO
Working Party on STEs.G/AG/R/19
Page 37
Turkey    G/AG/N/TUR/6* and Corr.1, TUR/8   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Brazil:  Whether Turkey considers that such support falls under
the de minimis  clause, despite the substantial amount
mentioned in ST/DS:8.The reason why the EMS calculated for sugar beet is higher
than the " de minimis " level is because a "sugar equivalent" was
used.
European Communities/United States: Reason why a market
price support calculation has been made in the Annex to
ST/DS:8 but is not mentioned in ST/DS:8; justification forexcluding such support from ST/DS:8.This is due to the special structure of the sugar beet industry in
Turkey. The EMS value was only reported in the Annex Table
for transparency purposes. The reason why an EMS was
calculated for sugar beet is because a "sugar equivalent" was
used.
Additional comments:  Several Members stated that, regardless of how the industry is structured (G/AG/R/15 refers), such
support, which exceeds the de minimis level (54 per cent of the total value of sugar beet production) must be included in the
calculation of the Current Total AMS. Canada requested that a revised notification be submitted to appropriately reflect
support to the sugar beet sector.G/AG/R/19
Page 38
Table DS:2 Notifications
United States   G/AG/N/USA/25   New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
See also Deferred replies
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Clarification of method used to determine production
losses and its conformity with Annex 2, para. 8(a) criteria.This programme is a modification, as opposed to a completely
new programme, of earlier ad hoc crop disaster relief
programmes which were included in the Green Box category
during the base period 1986-88.  As these earlier programmes
were accepted as consistent with Annex 2 criteria, the United
States believes that the modified version also meets Annex 2
requirements.  Earlier payments were also based on a 5-yearaverage.  The United States fails to see a substantive difference
between a 5-year and a 3-year average, as it relates to
consistency with the general Annex 2 criteria that measures be
publicly funded and not provide price support, as well as the
overall spirit of the programme-specific criteria contained inpara. 8.
Korea:  Explanation of the differences with the "Emergency
Crop Loss Assistance Programme" (ECLAP) or the "Non-
Insured Crop Disaster Relief Assistance Programme"
(NICDRAP) notified in G/AG/N/USA/10 and USA/17; extentof overlapping payments and beneficiaries; measures in placeto monitor payments;The NICDRAP differs from the ECLAP in that the former is
only available to producers of crops that are not currently
insurable under other programmes, while the latter provides
disaster relief payments to producers of crops that are
insurable, but for which insurance was not purchased.  There isno overlap in payment benefits between these programmes.
basis on which this programme is considered to comply withAnnex 2 criteria.This programme is consistent with Annex 2, para. 8 because:
(a) formal recognition of natural disasters occurred before the
assistance was provided.  The production loss threshold for
eligibility is a loss exceeding 35 per cent of a producer's
historic yields, which are based on a 5-year average.
(b) Payments made are meant to offset income losses from the
natural disasters. (c) Payments do not compensate for morethan the total cost of replacing such losses (payments are based
on 60 per cent of the crop insurance market price elections
established for 1998 crops) and do not require or specify the
type or quantity of future pr oduction. (d) Payments do not
exceed the level required to prevent or alleviate further loss.
(e) Producers cannot receive payments exceeding 100 per cent
of the total loss from this and other income insurance andsafety-net programmes.
Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/20   New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Preliminary Review
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
On the basis of the questions received bilaterally from Canada, Switzerland introduced the modifications that were introduced
to existing domestic support instruments as of 1 January 1999, as a result of the new Federal Law on Agriculture.  Support
now meets Annex 2, paras. 5 and 6 criteria.
1. Payments to cow owners who do not market milk were abolished and replaced by a per head contribution to animals
consuming coarse fodder (equine, bovine, sheep and goat).  The payments are limited to a maximum stocking density
(number of animals per area) established on the basis of ecological criteria.
2. Payments are entirely decoupled and subject to the fulfilment of specific environmental criteria related to production and
farming methods.
3. Consequently, the conditions under which Swiss farmers are eligible to receive decoupled income support are tighter and
subject to the application of sustainable and ecological production and farming methods.G/AG/R/19
Page 39
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/14*   Expo rt Subsidies (Table ES:3)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Absence of ES:3 notification for calendar year
1996.Brazil did not provide food aid during calendar year 1996 and
such information shall be duly notified to the Committee.
Colombia G/AG/N/COL/11*, COL/12*, COL/ 13*   Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand: Sugar confectionery, not containing
cocoa  and chocolate and other food preparations containing
cocoa -  Justification for breach in commitments in 1995,
1996, 1997.In 1995, the quantity of subsidized exports of both pr oducts
exceeded Colombia's commitments.  However, it should be
noted that in the case of sugar confectionery not containing
cocoa, the outlay was only 62 per cent of the commitment level
and in the case of chocolate and other food preparations
containing cocoa, the outlay barely reached 14 per cent of the
commitment level.  The situation was similar in 1996 and1997.
molasses , sugar confectionery  - Subsidies appear to be in
excess of their annual commitment level in 1996 and 1997, and
are also in excess of the cumulative commitment specified inArticle 9.2(b) – Justification.-
indication of how Colombia intends to bring these subsidies in
conformity with its scheduled reduction commitments; steps
taken to meet the commitment not to provide export subsidies
except on the products for which Colombia has reduction
commitments.
Note:  Colombia has reported that it has provided export
subsidies for other products which are neither covered by their
reduction commitments in Schedule LXXVI nor listed in their
base period notification, G/AGST/COL, as having received
export subsidies during the 1986-90 base period . There are 30
such product categories in 1995, 28 in 1996 and 24 in 1997.In order to check that the export subsidy programme is
consistent with the volumes and amounts listed in Colombia's
Schedule, the authorities are designing a subsidy information
and control mechanism. The Government is also studying the
possibilities for subsidization available under Article 9.1(d)and (e) relating to cost reduction measures and international
transport and freight costs.
Other products, which received subsidies on 1 January 1995,
now receive CERT (see explanation below), since the process
of liberalization of agriculture brought with it a serious crisis
and the producers' required support.  As can be seen in the
notifications, the subsidy amounts are negligible, so that they
have no effect on international trade.  For every year,
Colombia used less than 10 per cent of the subsidies bound inits Schedule.
Canada/New Zealand:  Description of Colombia's export
subsidy programme since it appears to provide export subsidies
on products for which no reduction commitments are indicatedin the Schedule.Export subsidies are granted through the Tax Reimbursement
Certificate (CERT).  The CERT may be used for the payment
of VAT and income tax and was designed to promote exports.It is granted on condition that the exporter provides evidence
of the export and the reimbursement of the foreign exchange
generated thereby, and is calculated on the basis of the f.o.b.
value of the export.  It is equivalent to 2.25 per cent of the
f.o.b. price, in exceptional cases 3 per cent. Part of the CERT
represents a refund of taxes paid by the exporter.  The CERT
covers all the products identified in Supporting Table 11
(ST/11) of the base period documentation, including those
described as "minor" subsidized exports (see reply givenbelow).G/AG/R/19
Page 40
Colombia G/AG/N/COL/11*, COL/12*, COL/ 13*   Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand:  Meaning of the reporting of average
base period export subsidy expenditures and volumes for
certain products in the column for annual commitment levels,
using the same figures in each of 1995, 1996 and 1997.
Note: For a number of products, Colombia did not specify
reduction commitments in its Schedule LXXXVI, although
export subsidies on these products during the 1986-90 base
period were indicated in its AGST documentation.  COL/11,
COL/12 and COL/13 include 25, 28 and 30 such products,
respectively. Export subsidies were then provided on many of
these products, sometimes in excess of the average base period
level.The difference between the products listed in ST/11 of
G/AGST/COL and the products listed in the Schedule can be
found in the explanatory note according to which " Colombia
assumes the reduction commitment for budgetary outlays andthe quantities benefiting therefrom for the tariff headings for
which the average subsidy for the period 1986-90, according
to ST/11, exceeds US$100,000 and concerns an export volume
of at least 1,000 tonnes ".  This note means that the bound
subsidy for the products marked with an asterisk in ST/11 is
the average granted for the period 1986-90.  These are the so-
called "minor" subsidized exports, i.e. those which were below
1,000 tonnes or having benefited from less than US$100,000
during this reference period.  The other products, as can be
seen in Table 7(a) and (b) of the Colombian offer, are subject
to reduction beginning in 1995.
status of the technical rectification process (documentG/MA/TAR/RS/51 refers).The group of products identified in ST/11 was included in the
Schedule of commitments through a general note appearing inColombia's Schedule.  The relevant page appears in the offer
that was verified, but does not appear in the actual Treaty.
Consequently, the rectification process, which is in its final
phase, is being pursued, and consultations are being held with
delegations wishing to clarify the meaning of the note inquestion.
Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/14, COL/15, COL/16   Export Subsidies (Table ES:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Reason why the total export quantities fornumerous products are less than the associated subsidized
quantities (ES:1).This is due to the manner in which the CERT operates (see
above explanations). The CERT does not involve transfers to
the producer/exporter, but the granting by the government of
certificates which can be used for the payment of VAT or
income tax.  Consequently, there is a time-lag between the
actual exports and the receipt of the subsidy.  This time-lag
may be up to six months, which is the time-limit for the
reimbursement of foreign exchange in order to claim a CERT.
Pakistan   G/AG/N/PAK/7   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Fresh fishery products  – This product is not covered
by the Agreement on Agriculture and is therefore not eligible
for the provision of export subsidies under Article 9.4. Reasonwhy this product benefited from export subsidies.
Canada: Confectionery ; all types of cut flowers  – Reason for
listing these items in ST/ES:2 when no subsidies are recorded.
New Zealand:  Fruit and vegetables  – Percentage of total
exports benefiting from the transportation subsidy regime.These questions were conveyed to the Delegation of Pakistan.G/AG/R/19
Page 41
Sri Lanka   G/AG/N/LKA/1   Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Information on the export subsidy scheme to reduce
the costs of international transport and freight.
Australia/Canada:  Breakdown of budgetary outlays andquantities of subsidies exports reported in ST/ES:2.The actual payments are reported in Attachment 6 .
Thailand   G/AG/N/THA/32   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
United States:  Corn  - Clarification of activities by the Public
Warehouse Organization (PWO) and confirmation that no
subsidization took place in 1999.In relation to the notification under review which covers
calendar year 1997, Thailand did not apply any subsidy
programme.  Moreover, Thailand has always committed to itsSchedule.
In relation to the question posed by the United States, the PWO
has exported 31,000 tonnes of corn on a commercial basis in
1999.  The export price was higher than the f.o.b. price at the
Chicago market and higher than the price in Thailand.  When
data collection is completed, Thailand will notify theCommittee under the domestic support commitments
accordingly.
Turkey  G/AG/N/TUR/9   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Apples  – Whether exports were subsidized only
during the period 22 June-22 July 1998.Apple exports were also subsidized during the period
1 October-31 December 1998, as indicated in the notification.
Canada/New Zealand:  Barley  and wheat  – Whether the
Turkish Grain Board (TGB) was involved in the exports
reported in Table ES:2; reasons for the significant increase inthe exports of both products between 1997 and 1998.State trading enterprises and private firms alike can export
these products. The reported figures include TGB exports.
Due to the lack of sufficient domestic demand, exports ofwheat and barley increased substantially.
New Zealand:  Dairy products  – Reason why total exports
have decreased in 1998 compared to 1997.This is due to prevailing internal and external market
conditions in 1998.
United States:  Reason why products that receivedadministered support prices are not reported in the notification
(wheat, barley, rye, corn, sugar and tobacco).These products were not granted export subsidies in 1998.
Therefore Table ES:1 does not contain related information.
Venezuela  G/AG/N/VEN/15 and Corr.1   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Other citrus fruit  (0805.90) - Amount of
export subsidies paid in 1997.The figure notified is confirmed.
New Zealand:  Plum and sloes  (0809.40) – Reason why the
quantity of subsidized exports in 1997 is greater than the totalvolume of exports.Venezuela invoked the flexib ility provisions of Article 9.2(b)
to cumulate a small amount of unused subsidies from theprevious year.G/AG/R/19
Page 42
ANNEX – Part II
Deferred Replies to Questions on Notifications Raised at Previous Meetings
Table DS:1 Notifications
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/12     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by Venezuela at the June 1998 meeting (G/AG/R/15) on  definitions and terminology used
1.   Common Market Organization (CMO) for olive oil
The production target price is the price considered optimal with a view to providing a fair income for producers and
maintaining the volume of Community production. For the marketing year 1996/97 this price amounted to ECU
3,837.7/tonne.   The intervention price is the price at which the intervention agencies have to buy quantities of standard
quality olive oil (as determined by the Council) offered by producers during the intervention period (the last four
months of the marketing year). The intervention price for the 1996/97 marketing year was ECU 1,805.8/tonne.  The
representative market price is pitched at a level designed to  ensure normal production of olive oil consistent with trends
in the vegetable oil and fats sector.  In1996/97 it was ECU 2,295/tonne.
2.  CMO for arable crops
Intervention price: the intervention agencies must, at certain periods of the year, buy in the cereals that they are offered
that have the requisite quality characteristics. The cereals are bought in at the intervention price concerned. The
intervention price increases each month in order to lessen the impact of storage costs and to assist balanced disposal of
cereals throughout the year. Intervention prices are set for wheat, barley, maize, sorghum, rye and durum wheat.  Thetarget price has been abolished since the marketing year 1995/96.
3. CMO for beef and veal
In order to stabilize markets and ensure a fair level of in come provision is made for intervention measures. Compulsory
use of a Community scale for grading carcasses makes it possible to establish a single buying-in price for each grade offresh or chilled meat eligible for intervention. For each grad e or group, the buying-in prices and the quantities admitted
for intervention are determined under tendering procedures which ensure equal access for all involved.  Each year, the
Council lays down the intervention price taking particular account of the prospects for developments in production and
in beef/veal consumption, the situation with regard to the market for milk and dairy products, and experience acquired.In the marketing year 1996/97 the intervention price was set at ECU 347.5/100 kg. carcasses weight for quality R 3
adult male cattle.  In order to reduce the amount of purchasing by intervention agencies, conditions and activating prices
for intervention are laid down. Intervention may be activated when, in a Member state or in a region of a Member state,
the following two conditions occur simultaneously for two consecutive weeks:
(a)  The average market price in the Community for the grade or group of grades concerned is below 84% of the
corresponding intervention price;
(b)   the average market price nationally for the grade or group of grades concerned is about 90% of the intervention
price.
Buying-in under the normal arrangements may not exceed the following quantities per year for the European Union as a
whole 350,000 tonnes from 1998.  Acting as a safety net, a buying-in system relating to all bids presented may beintroduced if, for two consecutive weeks:
(a)   the average market price in the Community for young non-castrated males less than two years old or castrated
males as defined in the Community scale is below 78% of the intervention price;
(b)   the average market price in a Member state fo r these cattle falls below 60% of the intervention price.
In this case, buying-in is carried out for the categories concerned in the Member states or regions in which the price
level is below this limit. The quantities bought in under this safety system are not taken into account in applying themaximum quantities for intervention.G/AG/R/19
Page 43
European Communities G/AG/N/EEC/12     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by Venezuela at the June 1998 meeting (G/AG/R/15) on  definitions and terminology used
4. CMO for pigmeat
The pigmeat market organization has two prices:
(a)  The basic price, fixed every year by the Council, indicat es the level of market equilibrium prices, that is prices
helping to ensure stable prices on the markets without engendering structural surpluses in the European Union.  The
only specific function of the basic price is to serve as a trigger for private storage aid.  In the marketing year 1996/97 the
basic price of pigmeat carcasses of standard quality (class E, carcasses from 60 to less than 120 kgs.) was set at
ECU 1,509.39/tonne.
(b)   The buying-in price:  this is derived directly from the basic price, fixed by the Commission at between 78% and
92% of the latter for carcasses of standard quality. When intervention purchasing is in operation the intervention
agencies buy-in at this price.
5.  CMO for milk and dairy products
Each year the Council sets two prices:
(a)   The target price for milk of 3.7% fat content delivered to the dairy is the price aimed at for all milk sold by
producers during the milk year through available outlets on the Community and external markets. In 1997 the target
price was set at ECU 309.8/tonne.
(b)   The intervention prices for butter and for skimmed milk powder are the prices at which the intervention agencies
are required to buy the quantities meeting set quality criteria offered during the intervention period, provided that
purchasing is not suspended.  Since 1 July 1995 no threshold price is set, variable levies having been replaced by fixedcustoms duties.
Zimbabwe    G/AG/N/ZWE/1   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised at the March 1999 meeting
(G/AG/R/18)Response by Notifying Member
Australia/United States:  General measures: Irrigation and
Extension:  conformity of "payments for electricity bills" with
criteria of Annex 2, para. 2(g) which allows for the reticulation
of generally-available public utilities but does not allow for the
inclusion of subsidies to inputs or operating costs, or
preferential user charges.
The inclusion of direct payments in the Green Box category is
inconsistent with the general criteria of para. 2 which states
that general services shall not involve direct payments to
producers or processors.  If these services are being provided
as part of a model farm or experimental station for
research/educational purposes, then they can probably fit
under general services.  Zimbabwe should re-evaluate this
measure in the context of Annex 2, para. 2 criteria and
possibly consider whether it might be more relevant to theprovisions of Article 6.2.Since the irrigation schemes are situated in semi-arid
communal areas, and benefit resource-poor producers who
cannot afford to pay for these inputs, Zimbabwe concurs that
this measure should be most appropriately notified under
Article 6.2.  Zimbabwe undertook to provide a corrigendum to
its notification.
Australia:  Criteria used for the eligibility of payments underthe calf-heifer scheme. Zimbabwe has experienced a devastating drought during the
1991/92 rainfall season and another of similar magnitude in the
1995/96 season. The scheme is classified therefore as "relieffrom natural disasters".  The soft loans were provided to
disadvantaged communal farmers who were the most affected
because they are located in semi-arid regions.  Cattle in
Zimbabwe serve as draught power for tillage and are a source
of milk for food security.
New Zealand: Farms bought for redistribution by Government
– Description of measures.G/AG/R/19
Page 44
Table DS:2 Notifications
United States   G/AG/N/USA/25   New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised at the March 1999 meeting
(G/AG/R/18)Response by Notifying Member
European Communities:  Whether there has been formal
recognition by the competent authorities of a natural disaster ordamaged to specific crops or specific regions.In 1998, US farmers and ranchers were hit hard by numerous
disasters - ranging from heavy rain and flooding to extreme
drought and wildfires.  In addition, four hurricanes and three
tropical storms exacerbated flooding cond itions in the South
Eastern and Mid-Atlantic regions and caused additional
damage. Formal recognition of these natural disasters wasmade throughout 1998, before the emergency package was
enacted into law in October.  This programme is fully
consistent with Annex 2, para. 8 criteria.
Canada/New Zealand:  Reason why a five-year average yieldhas been chosen as the historical yield for this programme (as
opposed to Annex 2 criteria of a three-year period or a three-
year average based on the preceding five years, excluding thehighest and the lowest entry).The years of the lowest and highest production have not been
excluded when calculating the loss incurred.
Canada/European Communities: Confirmation that payments
received for the losses incurred remain below the 100 per cent
threshold defined in the Agreement on Agriculture; provisionsin place which ensure that such criteria is met.The total amount of payments that farmers receive for the
losses to their crops is below the 100 per cent of the producers'
total loss.  The production loss threshold for eligibility is a loss
exceeding 35 per cent of a producer's historic yields which are
based on a five-year average.  The payments do not
compensate for more than the total cost of replacing such
losses (payments are based on 60 per cent of the crop insurance
market price elections established for 1998 crops) and do not
exceed the level required to prevent or alleviate further loss.
Canada:  Confirmation that support notified excludes  spendingon crop insurance.Confirmed.  The natural disaster relief programme notified is
provided to uninsured producers only, therefore excluding
those who participate in the Non-insured AssistanceProgramme (NAP, which covers producers of crops notcurrently insurable under other programmes). Payments made
under the Emergency Crop Loss Assistance Programme are
meant to offset income losses from the natural disasters. The
support being notified excludes spending on crop insurance.
Producers cannot receive payments exceeding 100 per cent of
the total loss from this programme and other income
insurance/safety-net programmes.
Switzerland:  In view of the differing amounts being quoted bydistinct sources, confirmation is sought that the cost of the
measure is not to exceed the notified amount
(i.e. US$1,500 million).-
Switzerland:  Whether DS:2 notifications would be
forthcoming in respect of other similar income-support
measures which have recently been announced and which
could affect the dairy and meat sectors.-G/AG/R/19
Page 45Attachment no. 1
G/AG/N/CAN/27 – Import volumes under tariff quotas for poultry and bovine meat, 1998
CHICKEN
Tariff Code Description Imports 1
(kilograms)
01059291
01059391LIVE FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS (OTHER THAN THOSE FOR BREEDING PURPOSES AND OTHER
THAN STARTED PULLETS AND SPENT FOWLS), WEIGHING MO RE THAN 185 G, THAT ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER TARIFF
ITEM NO. 0105.92.91 OR 0105.93.91 IN THE LIST OF TARIFF PROVISIONS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMSTARIFF.- -
MEAT AND OFFAL OF FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS, FRESH, CHILLED OR FROZEN, NOT CUT IN
PIECES (OTHER THAN SPENT FOWLS), THAT ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER TARIFF ITEM NO. 0207.11.91, 0207.12.91 IN THELIST OF TARIFF PROVISIONS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF:- -
02071191 FRESH 525,937
02071291 FROZEN 13,393
CUTS OF MEAT AND OFFAL, INCLUDING LIVERS, OF FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS, FRESH, CHILLED
OR FROZEN (OTHER THAN SPENT FOWLS), THAT ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER TARIFF ITEM NO. 0207.13.91, 0207.14.91,
0207.14.21 IN THE LIST OF TARIFF PROVISIONS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF:- -
02071391 FRESH 38,358,085
02071421 LIVERS, FROZEN - -
02071491 OTHER, FROZEN 13,175,125
02090021 FAT OF FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS. - -
02109011 MEAT OF FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS, SALTED, IN BRINE, DRIED OR  SMOKED. 20
16010021 SAUSAGES AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS, MADE FROM MEAT, MEAT OFFAL OF BLOOD OF FOWLS OF THE SPECIES
GALLUS DOMESTICUS, AND FOOD PREPARATIONS BASED ON THOSE PRODUCTS (OTHER TH AN IN CANS OR GLASS
JARS OR MADE FROM SPENT FOWLS).3,066
16022021 PREPARED OR PRESERVED LIVER PASTE, MADE FROM FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS (OTHER THAN
IN CANS OR GLASS JARS).- -
G/AG/R/19
Page 46
Tariff Code Description Imports 1
(kilograms)
16023212 PREPARED MEALS, MADE FROM FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS (OTHER THAN SPECIALLY DEFINED
MIXTURES, MEALS IN CANS OR GLASS JARS  AND MEALS MADE FROM SPENT FOWLS).- -
16023293 PREPARED OR PRESERVED MEAT, MEAT OFFAL OR BLOOD OF FOWLS OF THE SPECIES GALLUS DOMESTICUS
(OTHER THAN PREPARED MEALS IN CANS OR GLASS JA RS, SPECIALLY DEFINED MIXTURES AND PRODUCTS MADE
FROM SPENT FOWLS).6,228,352
TOTAL CHICKEN 58,393,978
TURKEY
Tariff Code Description Imports 1
(kilograms)
01059911 LIVE TURKEYS, WEIGHING MORE THAN 185 G. 252,999
MEAT AND OFFAL OF TURKEYS, FRESH, CHILLED OR FROZEN, NOT CUT IN PIECES, THAT ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER
TARIFF ITEM NO.0207.24.11, 0207.24.91, 0207.25.11, 0207.25.91 IN THE LIST OF TARIFF PROVISIONS SET OUT IN THESCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF.- -
02072411 CANNER PACK FRESH 85,913
 02072491 CONSUMER PACK FRESH 18,343
02072511 CANNER PACK FROZEN - -
02072591 CONSUMER PACK FROZEN 23
CUTS OF MEAT AND OFFAL, INCLUDING LIVERS, OF TURKEYS, FRESH, CHILLED OR FROZEN, THAT ARE CLASSIFIED
UNDER TARIFF ITEM NO. 0207.26.10, 0207.27.11, 0207.27.91 IN THE LIST OF TARIFF PROVISIONS SET OUT IN THESCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF:- -
02072610 FRESH 1,198,625
02072711 LIVERS, FROZEN 19,044
G/AG/R/19
Page 47Tariff Code Description Imports 1
(kilograms)
02072791 FROZEN 3,464,641
02090023 TURKEY FAT - -
02109014 MEAT OF TURKEYS, SALTED, IN BRINE, DRIED OR SMOKED. 9,454
16010031 SAUSAGES AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS, MADE FROM MEAT, MEAT OFFAL OR BLOOD OF TURKEYS, AND FOOD
PREPARATIONS BASED ON THOSE PRODUCTS (O THER THAN IN CANS OR GLASS JARS).37,440
16022031 PREPARED OR PRESERVED LIVER PASTE, MADE FROM TURKEYS (OTHER THAN IN CANS OR GLASS JARS). - -
16023112 PREPARED MEALS, MADE FROM TURKEYS (OTHER THAN SPECIALLY DEFINED MIXTURES). - -
16023193 PREPARED OR PRESERVED MEAT, MEAT OFFAL OR BLOOD OF TURKEYS (OTHER THAN PREPARED MEALS AND
SPECIALLY DEFINED MIXTURES AND OTHER THAN IN CANS OR GLASS JARS).224,722
TOTAL TURKEY 5,311,204G/AG/R/19
Page 48
BEEF
Tariff Code Description Imports 1
(kilograms)
02011010 CARCASSES AND HALF-CARCASSES OF BOVINE ANIMALS, FRESH OR  CHILLED. - -
02012010 OTHER CUTS OF MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS, FRESH OR CHILLED, WITH BONE-IN. 233,589
02013010 BONELESS MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS, FRESH OR CHILLED. 4,135,643
02021010 CARCASSES AND HALF-CARCASSES OF BOVINE ANIMALS, FROZEN. - -
02022010 OTHER CUTS OF MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS, FROZEN, WITH BONE-IN. 233,889
02023010 BONELESS MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS, FROZEN. 80,093,542
TOTAL BEEF 84,696,663
1The counts of in-quota imports is based on permits issued by the Export and Import Control Bureau (EICB). These figures may not  equal the quantities reported by Statistics
Canada, International Trade Division, since the EICB data are tabulated according to the unit for the tariff quota (e.g. evisce rated equivalent basis), and not on a product weight
basis.
Source:  Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trad e, Export and Import Controls Bureau. (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.c a/~eicb/agric/agric-e.htm).G/AG/R/19
Page 49Attachment no. 2
G/AG/N/CAN/27 – Imports within tariff rate quotas, calendar year 1998
Tariff Rate Quota Tariff Item
Number1998 Tariff
Quota Quantity1998 Imports11998 Applied Tariffs1
Broiler hatching eggs and chicks 0105.11.21
0407.00.117,949,000 doz. MFN:  0
Other: 13,893,878 doz.MFN: 1.24 cents/each (chicks)
2.17 cents/dozen (eggs)
Other:  duty free
Chicken, live, meat and products 0105.92.91
0105.93.91
0207.11.91
0207.12.91
0207.13.91
0207.14.21
0207.14.91
0209.00.21
0210.90.11
1601.00.21
1602.20.21
1602.32.121602.32.9339,843.7 tonnes MFN:  0
Other:  58,304 tonnesMFN: 2.74 cents/kg.
(live chicken)
free to 7.5%
(chicken products)
Other:  duty free
Turkey, live, meat and products 0105.99.11
0207.24.11
0207.24.91
0207.25.91
0207.26.10
0207.27.11
0207.27.91
0209.00.23
0210.90.14
1601.00.31
1602.20.31
1602.31.121602.31.935,139.6 tonnes MFN:  0
Other:  5,311.1 tonnesMFN: 2.32 cents/kg.
(live turkey)
free to 10.5%
(turkey products)
Other: duty free
G/AG/R/19
Page 50
Tariff Rate Quota Tariff Item
Number1998 Tariff
Quota Quantity1998 Imports11998 Applied Tariffs1
Beef and veal 0201.10.10
0201.20.10
0201.30.10
0202.10.10
0202.20.10
0202.30.1076,409 tonnes MFN:  84,696.6 tonnes
Other:  0MFN:  duty free
Other:  duty free
Concentrated/Condensed milk/Cream 0402.91.10 11.7 tonnes MFN:  0
Other:  14.7 tonnesMFN:   4.09 cents/kg.
Other:  duty free or 2.99 cents/kg.
Yoghurt 0403.10.10 332 tonnes MFN:  327 tonnes
Other:  5 tonnesMFN:   9%
Other:  duty free
Powdered buttermilk 0403.90.11 908 tonnes MFN:  25 tonnes
Other:  1,067.7 tonnesMFN:  4.79 cents/kg.
Other:  duty free
Other products of milk cons tituents 0404.90.10 4,345 t onnes MFN:  4,270.9 tonnes
Other:  111.0 tonnesMFN:  9%
Other:  duty free
Other dairy 1901.90.33 70 tonnes MFN:  2.4 tonnes
Other:  400.3 tonnesMFN:  9.5%
Other:  duty free
Ice-cream 2105.00.91 429.2 tonnes MFN:  0.4 tonnes
Other:  519.4 tonnesMFN:  11.5%
Other:  duty free
G/AG/R/19
Page 51Tariff Rate Quota Tariff Item
Number1998 Tariff
Quota Quantity1998 Imports11998 Applied Tariffs1
Cheese 0406 inc.
0406.10.10
0406.20.11
0406.30.10
0406.40.10
0406.90.11
0406.90.21
0406.90.310406.90.41
0406.90.51
0406.90.61
0406.90.71
0406.90.81
0406.90.91
0406.90.93
0406.90.95
0406.90.9820,411,866 kgs. MFN:  16,656,059 kgs.
Other:   3,968,300 kgs.MFN:   4.09 cents/kg. or 4.79 cents/kg.
Other:  duty free
Eggs and egg products 0407.00.18
0408.11.10
0408.19.10
0408.91.10
0408.99.10
2106.90.51
3502.11.10
3502.19.1017,950,800 doz. MFN:   0
Other:  23,735,864 doz.MFN:   1.84 cents/dozen (eggs)
             12% or  from 8.1 to 8.32 cents/kg.
             (depending on the products)
Other:   duty free
Margarine 1517.10.10
1517.90.216,348.8 tonnes MFN:  30.3 tonnes
Other:  374.1 tonnesMFN:  10.5%
Other:  duty free
1 Other: Imports which could occur at rates other than MFN rates include those under the US and Mexican Tariff (under NAFTA), the  Chilean Tariff (under CCFTA), the
Australian Tariff, the New Zealand Tariff, the General Preferen tial Tariff, the Commonwealth Caribbean Countries Tariff and the  Least Developed Country Tariff, depending on
the product. Full details of applied rates can be found in the Annual Canadian Customs Tariff, published by Revenue Canada.
Sources:    Export and Import Controls Bureau, Department on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
   Canada Customs Tariff 1998.G/AG/R/19
Page 52
Attachment no. 3
G/AG/N/GTM/13  -  Import data for products subject to tariff rate quota commitments,
calendar year 1998
Product description (in Spanish only) HS NumberBound TRQ
quantity
(tonnes)Imports
(tonnes)
Carne de animales de la especie bovina, fresca o refrigerada ycongelada0201 y 0202 1,170 4,294
Carne de animales de la especie porcina, fresca, refrigerada o
congelada0203 367 1,899
Leche y nata (crema), sin concentrar, sin adición de azúcar ni
otro edulcorante0401 12,918 8,452
Hortalizas, (incluso silvestres) de vaina secas desvainadas,
aunque estén mondadas o partidas0713 3,230 2,594
Uvas, frescas o secas, incluidas las pasas 0806 18 2,615
Sorgo de grano (granífero) 1007 3,337 172
Habas (frijoles, porotos, fréjoles) de soja (soya), incluso
quebrantadas1201 1,650 3,059
Harina de semillas o de frutos oleaginosos 1208 29,464 29,411
Aceite de soja (soya) y sus fracciones 1507 1,000 9,151
Aceite de palma y sus fracciones 1511 108 6,223
Aceite de girasol y de algodón 15121 y 15122 182 28,765
Aceite de maíz y sus fracciones 15152 12 2,969
Azúcar de caña o de remolacha y sacarosa químicamente pura 1701 10,534 25
Tortas y demás residuos sólidos de la extracción del aceite de
soja (soya) incluso molidos o en pellets2304 33,820 88,831
Tabaco en rama o sin elaborar, cigarros (puros), los demás
tabacos y sucedáneos de tabaco, elaborados2401, 2402 y
240370 1,551
Note: These products are those for which the Government of Guatemala has decided not to activate bound tariff
quotas for the time being;  better access conditi ons than those established in Schedule LXXXV III are applied to
imports of those products.
Source: Bank of Guatemala for the period January-November.  Figures for December are estimates.G/AG/R/19
Page 53
Attachment no. 4
G/AG/N/HUN/17 – Import data for products subject to tariff quota arrangements, calendar year 1998
Product In-quota rate (%) MFN-rate (%) 1998 Total imports (t) 1998
Bovine animals and
meat15/25 35/43.4/91.9 14,024
Milk and cream 30 65.6 11,544
Sour cream, yoghurt,
kephir40 65.6 4,592
Butter 60 65.6/130.5 431
Cheese and curd 50 78.6/86.1 7,179
Leguminous vegetables 20 59.1 41
Potatoes 10 48.1 23,264G/AG/R/19
Page 54
Attachment no. 5
G/AG/N/BRA/13  - Table of de minimis  calculation – 1997
Product-specific
Production value
Product descriptionTotal product-
specific AMS
US$'000 R$'000 US$'0001AMS/Production
value
%
BarleyBrazil waxCashew nutsCassavaCastor-oil plantCoffeeCottonEdible beansGarlicGrape (and by-products)JuteMaizeOatsPeanutsRamieRiceRyeSisalSorghumSoybeansSugar caneWheat3,176.1
99.5
4,133.71,959.9
778.0
9,724.2
10,284.3
4,914.0
495.2
3,236.6
0.0
88,480.0
371.3564.3
0.0
21,735.1
0.05.2
74.5
44,650.416,089.725,936.739,807
13,11179,512
2,870,119
15,582
5,141,313 (*)
553,625 (*)
1,606,152
101,986420,450
6,110
4,262,465 (*)
33,26883,660
3,949
2,095,856 (*)
1,470
37,30635,954
7,279,366 (*)6,305,348 (*)
368,063 (*)36,951
12,17073,807
2,664,178
14,464
4,772,406
513,900
1,490,905
94,668
390,281
5,672
3,956,618
30,88177,657
3,666
1,945,471
1,365
34,62933,374
6,757,0465,852,917
341,6538.60
0.825.600.075.380.202.000.330.520.830.002.241.200.730.001.120.000.020.220.660.277.59
Non-product-specific
Production value
Product descriptionTotal non-product-
specific AMS
US$'000 R$'000 US$'0001AMS/Production
value
%
Total of agriculturalproduction value70,136.0 62,863,379 58,352,714 0.12
1Exchange rate applied (annual average):  R$/US$1.0773
Source: Estimates based on "Pesquisa Agrícola Municipal" - PAM (Municipal Agricultural Research) of 1996, of the
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and on the variations of estimated total production
value from 1996 to 1997, according to IBGE available data.
(*)  Data of National Accounts from IBGE for 1997.G/AG/R/19
Page 55
Attachment no. 6
G/AG/N/LKA/2 – Breakdown of subsidies provided under Article 9.1(d) and (e) in 1997
Description of product Cost reduction measures
(Rs million)Quantity
(million tonnes)
Fresh fruit and vegetables 3.5 361
Foliage live plantspropagatory material0.90 99
Gherkins 1.60 318
Cut flowers 0.09 5.5
Betal leaves 0.40 80
Total 6.49 863.5
N.B. Actual total of Rs 6.49 million is less than budgetary estimate indicated in Table ES:2 at
Rs 8.8 million.
__________