RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/22
25  April 2000
(00-1645)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22-23 MARCH 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its twenty-second meeting on 22-23 March 2000 under
the Chairmanship of Ambassador Nestor Osorio Londoño of Colombia.  The agenda of the meeting as
contained in WTO/AIR/1267, modified by the deleti on of the question raised by Canada regarding
G/AG/N/HUN/21, was adopted.
Part I:  The Review Process
Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the Reform Programme:  Article 18.6
(a) Australia:  Fiji – Import licensing system for brown rice
2. Australia noted that Fiji had introduced an import licensing system for brown rice which
appeared to involve the imposition of a quota for a period of 5 years.  Under the system, brown rice
imports would be limited to 25,000 tonnes in 2000.  Australia asked Fiji to explain how this new
system would work and whether it was consistent with Fiji's commitment to apply a tariff-only import
restriction.
3. In response the representative of Fiji explained that the proposed import licensing mechanism
involved the imposition of quotas limiting the import of brown rice to 25,000 tonnes in 2000, with the
limit to be reviewed annually thereafter.  The pol icy measure would be implemented jointly by the
Ministry of Commerce, Business Development and Investment (MCBDI) and the Fiji Revenue and
Customs Authority (FRCA).  The delegate of Fiji explained that the remedial policy measure was
intended as a safeguard measure to address difficulties facing the local rice industry in accordance
with the Tokyo Declaration on Safeguard Action fo r Economic Development Purposes (Section C of
Article XVIII of GATT 1994 and the Decision of 28 November 1979 (L/4879) refer).  Australia stated
that it understood Fiji's policy objectives in the matter  and would work bilaterally with Fiji to resolve
the issue.
(b) Canada:  Panama – Tariff increases
4. Canada reverted to the statement made by Panama at the November 1999 meeting
(G/AG/R/21, paragraph 4 refers) and inquired as to  when Panama would effectively issue a Cabinet
Decree establishing a new tariff on tomato sauces consistent with Panama's WTO bindings.  Canada
also noted that, from 1 March 2000, Panama was implementing an "extraordinary" quota for pork tobe imported as a raw material at a 3 per cent duty.  Canada asked how this tariff quota related to the
tariff quota for pork in Panama's Schedule CXLI and how it would be administered.  In particular,
Canada sought information on the type of in-quota access Panama intended to provide for the lines
under HS 0210 and 1602, which were covered in its Schedule, but were not included in the
extraordinary quota.  Canada also asked whether Panama could provide an MA:1 notification for thisnewly implemented tariff quota.G/AG/R/22
Page 2
5. Panama informed the Committee that an error on tariff code HS 2103.20.90, had been
remedied by Cabinet Decree No. 26 of 17 Nove mber 1999.  Concerning the extraordinary quota for
pork, Panama noted that this quota was additional to the one listed in Schedule CXLI and was
administered in line with Resolution No. 5 of the Commission for the Allocation of Tariff Quotas.
The extraordinary quota for pork would only be opened after the quota listed in Panama's Schedule of
Concessions had been filled.  The delegate of Pa nama informed the Committee that Panama would be
submitting an MA:1 notification in accordance with the Committee's notification procedures.
(c) New Zealand:   Venezuela – Dairy import regime
6. New Zealand sought details on the arrangements Venezuela had put in place for the
administration of tariff quotas for whole milk pow der, skimmed milk powder and cheese and asked
when Venezuela would provide the relevant MA:1 notification to the Committee.  New Zealand asked
whether Venezuela would, in setting the tariff quota quantities, respect the minimum levels set out in
its Schedule, and whether efforts were being made to minimize the impact of the new arrangementson existing trade arrangements.
7. The delegate of New Zealand expressed concern about rumours that significant quantities of
the tariff quotas were being reserved for buyers of domestic milk and stated that New Zealand would
examine Venezuela's licensing arrangements for in -quota imports to ensure consistency with all
relevant WTO provisions.  New Z ealand also sought confirmation that licences for products imported
over the out-of-tariff quota duty would be automatic licences.
8. The delegate of Venezuela noted that Venezuela had submitted an MA:1 notification on
28 February 2000 detailing the administration arrangements of the aforementioned quotas.  Thenotification had been circulated as documen t G/AG/N/VEN/14 dated 3 March 2000. Venezuela
confirmed that it respected the minimum levels set out in its Schedule in setting the tariff quota
quantities for whole milk powder, skimmed milk powder and cheese.  Measures had been taken to
minimize the impact of the new arrangements on existing trade arrangements, including:  (i) the
publication of relevant information on the web site of the Ministry of Production and Commerce(www.platino.gov.ve/MA C/INDICE-P.HTM) ; (ii) regular contacts with the private sector;
(iii) provisions for traditional importers;  (iv) oppor tunities for new importers;  and (v) the application
of the relevant WTO import licensing provisions.
9. The delegate of Venezuela further noted that the tariff quotas were not reserved for any
particular importers.  Traditional importers were allocated 90 per cent of the quota and the remaining
10 per cent was reserved for new importers. Regarding products imported over the out-of-tariff quota
duty, any arrangement concerning licences would be made in accordance with Venezuela's
obligations under the WTO.
10. New Zealand stated that they would prefer an expeditious bilateral resolution of the matter
and Uruguay indicated its intention to seek additional clarifications from Venezuela.  The UnitedStates noted its concern over the implementation and administration of tariff rate quotas for dairy
products and, in particular, that the licence administration process for milk was non-automatic and
non-transparent.  The United States also indicated that it would follow-up on the question of the
issuance of licences being linked to domestic abso rption requirements.  The delegate of Venezuela
noted that although the tariff rate quotas were being administered through a non-automatic licenceprocedure, the licence administration process should be not be interpreted as being non-transparent.
(d) United States:  Korea – Applied tariffs in excess of bound rates
11. The United States stated that while Korea had brought its applied tariffs for peanuts, potato
flour and potato flakes in line with its commitments, tariffs for popcorn remained in excess of theG/AG/R/22
Page 3
bound level.  The United States asked when Korea would bring the applied tariffs for popcorn in
conformity with its WTO commitments.
12. The delegate of Korea stated that Korea had faithfully implemented its Uruguay Round
commitments in administering the tariff rates for the aforementioned products.  The issue referred to
by the United States had resulted from a discrepancy in the way in which in-quota tariff rates during
the interim period were calculated.  Korea had adjusted the in-quota tariff rates of potato flour, potatoflake and peanuts with effect from 1 January 2000.  Korea added that, regarding popcorn, it would
carry out inter-agency consultations within the Government in order to adjust for the discrepancy.
(e) United States:  Turkey – Export subsidy commitments for grains
13. The United States stated that the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) had sold approximately
1.1 million tonnes of wheat for export in calendar year 2000 at prices substantially below domestic
prices. Furthermore, the United States understood that the TMO was planning to hold an additional
export tender in March.  The delegate of the United States asked how Turkey intended to ensure thatsubsidized exports by the TMO did not exceed Turkey's wheat export subsidy commitment of 1.2
million tonnes for 2000.
14. The delegate of Turkey noted that so far in calendar year 2000, the TMO had contracted an
export commitment for only 610,000 tonnes of wheat and would be holding an additional export
tender for 600,000 tonnes of wheat in March 2000.  However, Turkey's total wheat exports would stillremain below its total export subsidy commitment for 2000.  Moreover, Turkey had not granted
export subsidies to wheat exporters since the entry into force of the Agreement on Agriculture in 1995
although they reserved their right to do so if necessary.  As to the question of exports being sold at
below domestic prices, the delegate of Turkey stated that wheat benefited from domestic support
programmes in Turkey as notified to the Committee.   Hence, low international wheat prices in recent
years combined with the high production of wheat in 1999 had resulted in the disposal of large
amounts of excess stock on international markets.
15. The delegate of the United States, supported by Argentina, New Zealand and Canada,
considered that given the differences between prevailing domestic and international wheat prices this
was a clear case of an export subsidy programme and that the United States would be following theissue with great attention.
Review of Notifications
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
Bulgaria (G/AG/N/BG R/1), Guatemala (G/ AG/N/GTM/17), Indonesia
(G/AG/N/IDN/16 and IDN/17) , Poland (G/AG/N/POL/29 an d POL/34), South Africa
(G/AG/N/ZAF/28), United States (G/AG/N/USA/29) and Venezuela
(G/AG/N/VEN/14);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/26), Bulgaria (G/AG/N/BGR/3), Canada
(G/AG/N/CAN/31), European Commun ities (G/AG/N/EEC /19 and EEC/22),
Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/17 and HUN/22), Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/8/Add.1,
IDN/9/Add.1, IDN/ 12/Add.1 and IDN/14/Add.1), Isr ael (G/AG/N/ISR/14), Korea
(G/AG/N/KOR/22 and KOR/27), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/24 and Corr.1), Philippines
(G/AG/N/PHL/20), Poland (G/AG/N/ POL/30 and POL/32), Tunisia
(G/AG/N/TUN/15) and United States (G/AG/N/USA/30);G/AG/R/22
Page 4
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/27), Bulgaria (G/AG/N/BGR/2), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/32),
Guatemala (G/AG/N/GT M/18), Indonesia (G/ AG/N/IDN/20) , Israel
(G/AG/N/ISR/15) , Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/44, JP N/45 and JPN/48), Korea
(G/AG/N/KOR/28), Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/22), Poland (G/AG/N/POL/28,
POL/31 and POL/33) and Tu nisia (G/AG/N/TUN/17);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/30), Costa Rica (G/AG/ N/CRI/6), Cyprus (G/AG/N/CYP/9),
Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/2), European Communities
(G/AG/N/EEC/16/ Rev.1), Hong Kong, China (G/AG/N/HKG/8), Indonesia
(G/AG/N/IDN/18), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/47), Macau, China (G/AG/N/MAC/4),
Maldives (G/AG/N/MDV/2), Malta (G/AG/N/MLT/1/Rev.1 and MLT/4), Norway(G/AG/N/NOR/25), Peru (G /AG/N/PER/3), Philippine s (G/AG/N/PHL/14, PHL/15
and PHL/19), Singapore (G /AG/N/SGP/6), Slovak Repub lic (G/AG/N/SVK/14/Rev.1
and SVK/18/Rev.1), Tunisia (G/AG/N/T UN/16) and Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/16);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2): from Czech Republic (G/AG/N/CZE/23), European Communities
(G/AG/N/EEC/17), Slovak Republic (G/AG/N/ SVK/20) and United States
(G/AG/N/USA/28);
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/28 and AUS/29), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/33), Colombia
(G/AG/N/COL/11, CO L/12, COL/13, COL/19 and COL/19/Corr.1), Cyprus
(G/AG/N/CYP/8/Rev .1), Estonia (G/AG/N/EST/1), European Communities
(G/AG/N/EEC/20 and Rev.1, EEC/23), Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/19), Hong Kong,
China (G/AG/N/HKG/9), Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/21), Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/19),Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/ 13), Macau, China (G/AG/N/MAC/5), Maldives
(G/AG/N/MDV/1), Malta (G/AG/N/MLT/5), New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/21),
Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/23 and NOR/23/Corr.1), Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/21),
Singapore (G/AG/N/ SGP/7) and Tunisi a (G/AG/N/TUN/14).
16. Specific points raised in relation to notifications listed in paragraph 15 above are summarized
in Part I of the Annex to this report.
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 domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2): from Canada
(G/AG/N/CAN/35), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/24/Corr.1) and Macau, China
(G/AG/N/MAC/6);
(ii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Macau, China
(G/AG/N/MAC/7).
18. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18.7
of the Agreement.G/AG/R/22
Page 5
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 notifications20. As had been agreed at the March 1997 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/R/10,
paragraph 10 refers) the Secretariat made available a Room Document dated 22 March 2000, showing
the current status of compliance with the notification obligations.
Part II:  Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-
Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing C ountries:  WTO List of Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries
21. The Committee took note that no new applications had been received for inclusion in the
WTO list of Net Food-Importing Developing Count ries as it appears in G/AG/5/Rev.3 dated
28 June 1999.
Other Business
22. The European Communities noted that the Appellate Body of the WTO had ruled that the
United States Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) regime was inconsistent with the United States
obligations inter alia under Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, because the FSC regime
circumvented the United States export subsidy commitments for scheduled and unscheduled products.
In particular, the delegate of the European Communities noted that the Appellate Body had confirmedthat the FSC regime provided a potentially unlimite d amount of subsidies.  The  EC asked when the
United States would be making a notification on its scheduled and unscheduled export subsidies from
1995 onwards.
23. The United States responded that they were re viewing the report of the Appellate Body and
noted that agriculture was only a small part of the general activities covered by foreign salescorporations.
24. Argentina, supported by Brazil and Australia, noted that the measures under the FSC regime
violated both the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures and the Agreement on
Agriculture.  They further noted that in this, the final year of the implementation of the Agreement on
Agriculture for developed countries, trade-distorting domestic support had also been increasing and
questioned the use of emergency payments by the United States.  Australia added that a vicious circle
was being created by high levels of domestic support, falling world prices and the use of exportsubsidies.  Brazil stressed that, though legal, the emergency payments had to be addressed in a
broader perspective given the negative impact they have had on some Brazilian exporters.
25. Regarding the question of domestic supports, the delegate of the United States noted that the
United States was fully abiding by its obligations under the WTO agreements.G/AG/R/22
Page 6
Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
26. As consultations on the appointment of Chairpersons to the various WTO subsidiary bodies
were still continuing, the Committee took note of the decision in this regard by the General Council at
its meeting on 7-8 February 2000 (WT/GC/M/53 refers) and agreed that the question of the
appointment of a new Chairperson and Vice-Chairper son be reverted to as and when appropriate.
27. The Committee as a whole expressed its warm gratitude to Ambassador Nestor Osorio
Londoño for the highly professional job he had done as  Chairman of the Committee over the last three
years, including in the preparations for the mandated negotiations.  A large number of delegations and
the Secretariat also expressed their individual appreciation for the excellent work that
Ambassador Osorio had done, as well as for his unfailing good humour and fairness.
Date of Next Meeting
28. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on  28 June 2000.  The
airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be issued on Friday,16 June 2000.G/AG/R/22
Page 7
ANNEX – Part I
Page
Part I Summary of specific points raised on  notifications and responses thereto
(22–23  March 2000 meeting)8
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  Poland
(POL/29 and POL/34);  South Africa (ZAF/28);  United States (USA/29);8
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):
Bulgaria (BGR/3); Canada (CAN/31); European Communities (EEC/19 and
EEC/22); Hungary (HUN/17); Korea (KOR/22); Norway (NOR/24 and Corr.1);
Philippines (PHL/20);  Poland (POL/30 and POL/32);  Tunisia (TUN/15);10
(iii) relating to the use of the special  safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):   
Japan (JPN/44 and JPN/45);  Poland (POL/28 and POL/33);15
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):
Australia (AUS/30);  Costa Rica (CRI/6); Cyprus (CYP/9); European Communities
(EEC/16/Rev.1); Indonesia (IDN/18); Japan (JPN/47); Malta (MLT/1/Rev.1 andMLT/4);  Norway (NOR/25);  Peru (PER/3);  Philippines (PHL/14, PHL/15 and
PHL/19); Slovak Republic (SVK/18/Rev.1); Tunisia (TUN/16);17
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2): Czech Republic (CZE/ 23); European Communities (EEC/17);
Slovak Republic (SVK/20); United States (USA/28);24
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):
Canada (CAN/33); Colombia (COL/11, COL/12, COL/13; COL/19 and Corr.1);
European Communities (EEC/20/Rev.1); Norway (NOR/23 and Corr.1).27
Part II Deferred replies to questions on notifi cations raised at previous meetings 30
(i)
(ii)relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):
Argentina (ARG/9); European Communities (EEC/16 Rev.1);
relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  European Communities  (EEC//17);30
34
(iv) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):
Cyprus (CYP/8);35
Attachments
1. G/AG/N/CYP/9   -      Production of  wine grapes, 1980-1998 36
2. G/AG/N/EEC/17  -     Definition of a disadvantaged region 37G/AG/R/22
Page 8
ANNEX – Part I
Review of Notifications by the Co mmittee on Agriculture on 22-23 March 2000
Summary of Specific Points Ra ised and Responses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Poland   G/AG/N/POL/29 and POL/34   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Butter and other fats and oils; certain
categories of wheat and meslin flour; cereal flours
(other than wheat and meslin); malt; rape and colza
seed; sugar  – Reasons for introducing tariff rate quota
(TRQ) systems for these products.These TRQs were introduced in 1999 and 2000 in full
compliance with Poland's obligations under the WTO.  All
products concerned were subject to tariffication during the
Uruguay Round (UR) and are listed in the Polish Scheduleof Concessions.   Poland modified the application of itsTRQ system taking into account market developments and
the experienced gained during the first years of
implementation. The aim of these modifications is toensure broad access to TRQs and an even distributionthroughout the year.
Australia/New Zealand:  Meat of bovine animals, of
swine, of poultry; certain categories of wheat and
meslin  – Reasons for reducing the period of validity of
quota allocations (from a year to a quarter) and the period
of validity of permits (from 90 to "a maximum of 30 days
effective during the quarter") for 1999 and 2000; whether
Poland has considered that such restrictions may have anegative impact on exporters' ability to use the TRQs;
whether Poland has considered eliminating these
restrictions.In Poland's view, these measures are not restrictive.  On the
contrary, they can help overcome some unfavourableoutcomes such as the obstruction of access to the TRQs,speculation, and monopolistic practices.
New Zealand: Efforts made to ensure TRQ fill, in particularfor those TRQs which s how consistent underfill.-
Additional comments:  Australia  and New Zealand  expressed their on-going concern regarding the limitations imposed by
Poland on validity periods which, in their view,  discriminate against distant suppliers.
South Africa     G/AG/N/ZAF/28     Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Maize and maize equivalent ;  Wheat and wheat equivalent
Australia/Canada:  Reasons for introducing TRQ systems
for these products; whether the out-of-quota applied rate
has increased;TRQ import arrangements were introduced because the
applied tariff for these products was raised above the level
of the in-quota tariff rate.
Switzerland: Details on allocation method;  whether alocal purchasing requirement applies;TRQs are allocated to processors of wheat and maize.
Permits are allocated to applicants on the basis of their
most recent market share calculated from wheat and/ormaize milled for local consumption regardless of origin.The allocation of permits is therefore not linked to a localpurchasing obligation.
Australia/Canada/Switzerland: Provisions for newentrants.For both maize and wheat, 5 per cent of the quota is
allocated to new entrants, i.e. processors of wheat and
direct users and processors of maize that have no record of
processing.
G/AG/R/22
Page 9
United States      G/AG/N/USA/29     Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Other cane or beet sugars or syrups
Canada:  Whether the conditions indicated under items
(c) and (d) in USA/19 still apply;
Japan: Omission of HS 1702.9010 and HS 2106.9044and related changes in administration method.The conditions and tariff items noted still apply but were
inadvertently omitted.  These deletions have been correctedin a revised notification which was recently submitted tothe Secretariat.
Switzerland: Raw sugar cane  – Criteria used in country
allocations for FY 2000; criteria used to allocate additionalquantities.The raw sugar minimum access commitment is allocated in
accordance with the provisions of Article XIII of GATT
1994, on the basis of the representative period 1975-81.
This was the last period when U.S. trade in raw sugar wasrelatively unrestricted.  An additional allocation of rawcane sugar was made to Mexico in FY 2000, consistent
with NAFTA obligations.  The U.S. Government has, on
many occasions, including FY 1999, allocated more thanthe WTO minimum TRQ quantity.G/AG/R/22
Page 10
Table MA:2 Notifications
Bulgaria      G/AG/N/BGR/3    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand:  Beef, meat of swine, sheepmeat,
dairy (skimmed milk powder, butter, cheese), grains
(wheat, barley, maize, rice, wheat flour), oilseeds, wine  –
   Reasons for low rates of TRQ fill.The low fill rates registered in 1997 should be considered
against the background of an economic and political crisis
which started at the end of 1996 and prevailed well into
1997.  The crisis resulted in shrinking purchasing powerand domestic demand and adversely affected tradedevelopments.  Unfavourable climatic conditions caused
shortages of pork, grains, cheese, milk powder and
oilseeds.  As a relief measure, autonomous TRQs weretemporarily introduced in 1997 and extended in 1998, withproducts being imported either on a duty-free basis or at
very low tariff rates (below the in-quota tariff rates).  The
notified imports for these products therefore represent thevolume of imports registered after the autonomous TRQs
were filled.  The improved level of imports in 1998 for 47
out of 73 TRQs is the result of the gradual economic
stabilization undertaken by the Government.  Over thenotified period, all the scheduled market accessopportunities were opened and no restrictions applied.
Thus the rate of TRQ fill was influenced by supply and
demand factors.
New Zealand:  Whether Bulgaria has considered moving to
a tariff-only regime given that in 1997 and 1998, the
applied m.f.n. rate was lower than the in-quota tariff rate.The unusual trading conditions which prevailed in 1997
and 1998 (see above reply) and the relatively short period
of application of the TRQs do not provide a solid groundfor reconsidering the current import regime.
Canada      G/AG/N/CAN/31    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Japan/United States: Barley; barley products;
wheat  – Reasons for low rates of fill.There are no restrictive conditions as these TRQs are
administered on a first-come, first-served basis at theborder with no prior allocation or import permits required.
Underfill was generally due to the competitiveness of
domestic prices and production.  Imports may risetemporarily, as they did for wheat in MY 1996/97, whenthe quality of the Canadian wheat crop was lower than
usual. It should be noted that increases in fill rates have
occurred despite the increasing size of these three TRQsover the implementation period. Barley: the fill rate
increased to 18% in 1998/99 from a level of 12% in
1997/98. Barley products : modest import demand was due
to limited domestic requirements and a competitive
domestic market which is relatively stable in tonnageterms.  Imports are primarily specialty malts and malt
extracts used in beer production and for food processing.
The fill rate increased to 60% in 1998/99 from 58% in theprevious year.  Wheat: the fill rate of 33% in 1998/99 was
higher than that in 1997/98 (27%).
European Communities: Request for import data for MY1998/99 similar to that provided for calendar year 1998(CAN/27, Attachment 2 refers).A written answer will be provided at a later date.G/AG/R/22
Page 11
Canada      G/AG/N/CAN/31    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand/Switzerland:  Cream  – Reasons for underfill. The fill rate in 1998/99 was almost 83%.  Several factors
can explain why the TRQ was not filled.  First, the TRQ
quantity was set on the basis of a period of historically highimports (1986-88).  Since then, domestic demand has beenrelatively weak, in part due to the trend away from the
consumption of high fat products.  The TRQ is
administered on a first-come, first-served basis withpriority given to importers with established distributionlines for specialty creams.  Once the requirements of these
companies have been met, the balance, if any, is allocated
to applicants that can demonstrate that they have in place adistribution line for specialty creams.  In MY 1998/99 allrequests for permits were granted.
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/19    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia: Butter  – Level of imports for 1998 with an
indication on whether the figure provided is based on actualimports or on authorizations to import;At present, there are no reliable data on TRQ fill available
to the EC. This information will be communicated at a laterstage.
Philippines:  Manioc (cassava)  - Reasons for low rates of
fill;Major manioc producing countries are also increasingly
becoming major users themselves.  In other countries,
demand for manioc is also increasing.  In addition, in the
EC market other animal feeds are abundantly available atcompetitive prices.  These factors combined explain thelow rate of TRQ fill.
Australia/Philippines: Meat of swine – Reasons for low
rates of fill;Combination of low prices and sufficient supplies in EC
markets.
Australia:  Reasons for low rates of fill for the followingTRQs
    Sheep meat;  live sheep; Caused by relatively weak internal markets characterized
by reduced demand and the de-stocking that had taken
place in previous years in certain s upplying countries.
    Wheat; quality wheat ( clarification of previous
explanations).Wheat: The notification indicates a 100% use.  One year
earlier, the fill was low due to a duty free out-of-quota rate.
Quality wheat:  Both the in-quota and the out-of-quota duty
rates were zero during 1997 so there was no interest to
apply for in-quota imports.
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/22    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States: Eggs in shell and egg albumin  – Reasons
for low rates of fill;This was due to a combination of relatively low prices and
sufficient supplies in the EC market.
Australia/Philippines: Meat of swine – Reasons for low
rates of fill;This was due to a combination of relatively low prices and
sufficient supplies in the EC market.
Australia:  Reasons for low rates of fill for the followingTRQs
    Oats;  worked oats; Importers have shown a lack of interest.
    Wheat (durum). The applied duty rate was zero so there was no interest to
apply for in-quota imports.
G/AG/R/22
Page 12
Hungary      G/AG/N/HUN/17    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States: Bovine meat  – Whether high quality beef is
currently excluded from this TRQ.Imports of high quality beef (i.e. round, tenderloin, strip
loin, T-bone steak with and without bone) are not excluded
from this TRQ.
Korea     G/AG/N/KOR/22    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States: Rice - ST Annex 5  – Whether the minimum
market access (MMA) requirement has been met for 1997and 1998; clarification of apparent discrepancy between
notified figures and imports effectively registered during
each reporting period; request for rice import statisticsbroken down at 6- and 10-digit level of HS code.
Australia indicated its interest in this issue .The discrepancy arises from the time-lag between the
establishment of a given purchase contract and actualdelivery.  Even if a purchase contract is made in a specific
implementation year, the purchased goods sometimes
arrive at the beginning of the following year (mostly inJanuary or February), due to delivery conditions.  For thisreason, some rice imports are not included in customs
clearance data for the specific implementation year but
rather included in the customs data of the following year.This has led to differences shown between the MMAquantity and the customs clearance data.  As scheduled,Korea has imported the entire MMA quantity of rice by
concluding purchases from exporters within each given
calendar year.
Norway     G/AG/N/NOR/24 and Corr.1      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand/United States: Butter -  Reasons for
low rates of fill;The actual import figures reflect commercial interest.
There has been so far little in terest in this TRQ.  Some
signals indicate that this may change.
United States:  Reasons for low rates of fill; The actual import figures reflect the commercial interest in
the different products.  In general, price and marketconditions in 1998 did not favour quota use.
Hen's eggs ; The 91% fill rate reflects commercial interest.
Meat of fowls, turkeys, other poultry ; Domestic demand has increasingly shifted towards fresh
products.
Australia/New Zealand:  Reasons for low rates of fill; These are minimum access TRQs.
Meat of bovine animals ;
Additional comment:  New Zealand  expressed concerns
that the bulk of the 1999 TRQ of 903 tonnes could not be
imported despite having been allocated. Norwegianimporters are reportedly concerned about this situation
and have sought to be allowed to import their allocations
in 2000, a request which was rejected by the NorwegianGovernment. This lack of flexibility reinforces NewZealand's concerns about the use of auctioning toadminister minimum access quotas.Norway considers that a 80% rate of fill is rather high. This
figure reflects the actual market situation in 1998.
Additional comment: The importation of beef under the
Norwegian GSP scheme may have also affected the fill rate
as GSP imports from LLDCs ar e duty free.  As regards
imports under TRQs for 1999, Norway will be pleased to
answer any questions when the notification for 1999 ispresented to the Committee.
Meat of sheep or goat ; Norway considers that a 93% rate of fill is rather high.  In
addition to this minimum access TRQ, there is a currentaccess TRQ for sheepmeat from Iceland which is notsubject to auctioning.
Australia:  Meat of swine  – Reasons for low rates of fill; This is a mi nimum access TRQ.  Norway considers that a
95% rate of fill is rather high.G/AG/R/22
Page 13
Norway     G/AG/N/NOR/24 and Corr.1      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia: Milk and cream, groats and meal of corn,
buckwheat, pellets of wheat and cereal, rolled flakes of
barley, oats and other cereal flours, flakes granules andpellets;These products relate to current access commitments which
are listed at the end of page 3 and subsequent pages.  For
almost all of these products, the in-quota tariff rate equalsthe applied out-of-quota tariff rate.
Canada/New Zealand:  Auctioning - Noted that the
concerned TRQs have experienced underfill since 1995.
Whether a change in the method of administration has beenconsidered to allow licences to be freely issued on demand.Auctioning is applied to minimum access quota allocations.
In Norway's view, the system is transparent and
predictable.  Importers' interest in participating hasincreased significantly over the years.  To stimulateimports, the auctioning fee is not reimbursable. The in-
quota tariffs are applied in accordance with scheduled
commitments. Norway's experience of the system has beenvery good.  The underfill seems to be related to price andmarket conditions.
Additional comments:  New Zealand  considered that recourse to auctioning as a method of TRQ allocation is inconsistent
with the intent of the minimum access quotas established as a result of the Uruguay Round.
Philippines     G/AG/N/PHL/20      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
European Communities: Pork and poultry meat  –
Reasons for low rates of fill.All pork and poultry meat TRQs were allocated in 1998.
The corresponding licences were issued to applicants,enabling them to import at the lower in-quota tariff.  The
decision to import rests with the licence-holder and is
beyond the control of the Philippine Government.  Businessdecisions could be affected by such factors as theavailability and prices of the products in the domestic and
import markets, exchange rates, interest rates, etc.  In 1998,
the Asian financial crisis, marked by currency depreciationand soaring interest rates, could have affected the fill ratesregistered by the pork and poultry meat TRQs.  However,
there was a marked improvement in the fill rate for poultry
meat compared to the 1997 implementation year.
Poland     G/AG/N/POL/30 and POL/32     Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Meat of bovine animals, of poultry; milk and
cream; wheat flour; rye flour, lupulin; rape and other
oils; wines  -  Reasons for low fill rates in 1998 and 1999;
Australia:  Meat of swine; butter and other fats; wheat
and meslin; rape and colza seeds  -  Reasons for low fill
rates in 1999;Importers were not interested due to general marketconditions, particularly declining domestic prices andstrong competitiveness of domestic products.
New Zealand:  Noted the limitations on licence validity andquantity limits applied to dairy products (G/AG/N/POL/29discussed under Table MA:1 section) and expressed
concern that the restrictive administration of some beef,
dairy and fruit and vegetables  TRQs results in consistent
underfill; whether Poland has considered moving to a tariff-only regime for TRQs showing consistent underfill.The limitation of the validity of import permits to 30 days
and the limitation of the quantity to 20 tonnes do notconstitute restrictions for the fulfilment of TRQs. In 1999,
only five product groups were subject to limitations on the
validity of import permits and one product was subject toquantity limits.  In the current year, only three products arecovered by the quantity limits, the purpose of which is toensure broad access to the TRQs.  The Polish
administration did not issue any negative decision
regarding the allocation of TRQ licences.G/AG/R/22
Page 14
Tunisia   G/AG/N/TUN/15    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/United States:  Barley  – Reasons for the decline in
fill rate compared to 1997;This fluctuation reflects the variation in import demand.
The import levels in 1997 had been exceptionally high,
exceeding the TRQ quantity.  In 1998, the fill rate reached70%.
United States:  Beans; cheese  – Reasons for the low rate of
fill;
New Zealand:  Bovine meat;  sheepmeat  -  Reasons for
zero imports;
New Zealand/United States: Butter; milk powder  -
Reasons for the decline in fill rates compared to 1997;All market access opportunities in 1998 were opened in
accordance with Tunisia's schedule and duly notified(Table MA:1).  The low fill rates merely reflect prevailingeconomic conditions and the absence of import demand
during 1998.  Domestic demand highly depends on
consumer attitudes, internal production and prices.
New Zealand: Confirmation of the correct TRQ quantity
for the 1998 reporting period (a) shelled almonds;(b) tomato concentrate.Tunisia confirmed that the notified TRQ quantities are
correct.  Import levels remained relatively identical overthe 1996-1998 period.  The absence of imports is due to the
lack of demand. Shelled almonds:  As the publication of the
TRQ administration modalities was delayed, all imports
benefited from in-quota duty rates with no limits placed onquantities.G/AG/R/22
Page 15
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
Japan      G/AG/N/JPN/44    Volume-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Inulin
Australia/New Zealand:
Tariff rate applied prior to the SSG; 122.5 Yen/kg.
Rate of additional duty levied as a result of SSG; 40.83 Yen/kg.
Volume of imports affected. Zero tonne.
Australia: Imports between May 1999 and the time of SSG application
Fiscal Year 1999 April May June July August September October
Volume of imports
(tonne)19 19 12 34 19 38 0
Aggregate imports
(tonne)19 38 50 84 103 141 141
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/45    Price-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Peas (Pisum sativum)
Australia/New Zealand:
Tariff rate applied prior to the SSG; 364.5 Yen/kg.
Rate of additional duty levied as a result of SSG;
Extent to which the import price was below trigger price;
   Volume of imports affected.The SSG can be invoked against each individual freight.
To avoid the publication of information concerning
individual traders' imports, Japan has not published the
import price, amount of extra duty imposed, nor the volumeof imports affected by the SSG.
Volume of imports
(tons)Value of  imports
(Million Yen)
1986 24,745 1,443
1987 19,753 904Australia:  Data on import volumes in the reference period
for the calculation of the trigger price.
1988 22,475 1,100G/AG/R/22
Page 16
Poland   G/AG/N/POL/28      Volume-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Hop cones; lupulin
Australia:
   Volume of imports affected by the SSG; This data will be available soon.
Tariff rate applied prior to the SSG; In 1997, the applied out-of-quota duty rates were similar to
the in-quota rates and in fu ll compliance with the Polish
Schedule.
Rate of additional duty levied as a result of SSG. The Polish Customs Service is in charge of the calculation
and application of the additional levy at the border and is
not obliged to report separately on the value of the levy
applied to each individual shipment.  Poland is thereforenot in possession of such data.
New Zealand:  Base period for calculating the trigger level; The dates used for the calculation of the trigger level on
page 2 should read: 1996, 1997 and 1998.  The quantitydata are correct.
New Zealand: Noted that Table MA:2 notifications showno in-quota imports for 1997-99 while POL/28 shows217.7 tons for 1997 – Explanation; confirmation thatimports which were subject to the additional duty in 1999were not part of the TRQ.In 1997, the applied out-of-quota duty rates were similar to
the in-quota rates and in fu ll compliance with the Polish
Schedule.  For that reason, importers were not interested inobtaining TRQ licenses.  Poland confirms that importssubject to the SSG were not part of the TRQ.
Poland   G/AG/N/POL/33    Annual Summary of Special Safeguard Actions (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia: Products subject to price-based SSG  -
Extent to which the import price was below trigger price; Th e Polish Customs Service is in charge of the calculation
and application of the additional levy at the border and is
not obliged to report separately on the value of the levy
applied to each individual shipment.  Poland is thereforenot in possession of such data.
Period during which the additional duty was levied; This data will be available soon.
Volume of imports affected by the SSG for:
- Meat of swine
- Wheat and meslin flour
- Corn starch
- Other sugarsThis data will be available soon.G/AG/R/22
Page 17
Table DS:1 Notifications
Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/30      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Mauritius:  "Sugar Research and Development" (SRD) –
Meaning of "fostering an internationally competitive and
sustainable sugar industry"; relationship of the programme
with that described on page 6, "research aimed atdeveloping agricultural industries" in Queensland.The Commonwealth Government contributes to a range of
R&D programmes, like the SRD, for the sugar industry.
Such programmes are applied at production level, for
instance, for the development of new varieties or researchon pest and disease control.  Additional details on thisprogramme will be provided at a later stage.
Mauritius: "CP2002 Sugar Programme" – Whether this
measure lapses in 2002.Australia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.
Costa Rica         G/AG/N/CRI/6      Domestic Support    (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Canada: Whether the following programmes are new;
related Table DS:2 notifications; conformity with Annex 2criteria.None of these programmes is new.  Costa Rica's framework
of assistance to the agricultural sector has not changed
since the 1990's.  All these programmes were examined by
the Working Group on Costa Rica's accession to theGATT.  All support policies notified by Costa Rica underthe Green Box category meet the criteria of Annex 2,
para. 1, and do not have the effect of providing price
support to agricultural producers.
Insurance services; -
Investment programmes; The programme consists in the provision of consultancy
services and support to small and medium producersworking in productive agricultural zones for the installationof agro-industrial equipment.
Crop insurance service; The notified yearly expenditure s refer to the total value of
insured crops. They do not represent the compensation
payments actually paid to farmers. The amounts that are
related to beans and maize are not significant (only 1.31%of the total compensatory payments in 1998).
Food security and social compensation – Direct aid to
small maize and bean farmers.This expenditure refers to direct aid to producers who own
less than 10 hectares of land.  It includes the administration
costs incurred in managing the food reserves; nationalemergency relief arising from climatic conditions; andinput subsidies (seeds, fertilizers, tools, etc.).
AMS
New Zealand:  Confirmation that no product-specificmeasures are applied.Confirmed. Since 1995, only Green Box and S&D
measures were provided to agricultural producers.  Costa
Rica reserves its rights with respect to the use of Amber
Box measures if convenient, in conformity with itsscheduled commitments.G/AG/R/22
Page 18
Cyprus     G/AG/N/CYP/9      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Structural Adjustment (Resource Retirement):  Package of  measures to limit/stabilize dairy and beef production
New Zealand:  In New Zealand's view, there is a Blue Box
feature in this support measure - Whether a separate
ST/DS:3 could be provided in order to take this view intoaccount;This is a comprehensive scheme which aims at
restructuring the dairy and beef sector through thepermanent reduction of the number of milking cows andthe stabilization of production.  The wording used to
describe the measure, i.e. "limit/stabilize production" is
therefore used in its literary, not legal, meaning.  For andetailed description of the programme, please refer to theanswers provided during the Committee meeting held inMarch 1999.
United States:
Raised concerns regarding the continued notification ofthis package as being consistent with both Blue andGreen Box criteria;In the notification under review, this package of measures
is notified under the Green Box only. The number ofmilking cows has been permanently reduced from 30,000head in 1995 to less than 24,000 head in 1998.
Conformity with Annex 2, para. 10; As can be seen from the above replies, this programme is a
structural adjustment measure through resource retirement.The permanent withdrawal of resources from productioncomplies with Annex 2, para 10 criteria.
Whether payments are linked to export performance(replies provided at March meeting refer);Payments are not related to the volume of production nor to
prices, domestic or international.  Thus, payments are notlinked to export performance.
    Clarification of assistance to cheese producers. As previously explained, the assistance to local Edam
cheese manufacturers is included in the AMS (ST/DS:4 andST/DS:6 refer).  Cyprus will continue to include the relatedpayments in the calculation of the AMS.
Regional Assistance:  "Wine Grape Area Subsidy"
Australia/New Zealand:  Compliance with criteria inAnnex 2, paras. 1 and 13.
Additional comments:  According to New Zealand
, this is a
Blue Box programme and should be notified as such.This programme has been included in the supporting
documentation of Cyprus since the Uruguay Round
(AGST/CYP, page 17).  This documentation has beenexamined in 1993 and its conformity with Annex 2,para. 13 criteria has not been questioned.  Please refer toprevious answers for a detailed description of the
programme.  Its objective is not to increase production
levels (since only existing vineyards are eligible) or providemarket price support.  In this respect, it should be notedthat, far from increasing, the cultivated area as well as the
volume of production has decreased considerably during
the last 20 years.  As can be seen from Attachment No. 1 ,
despite the application of the subsidy, approximately 42 percent of the vineyards were abandoned.  Rather, the measureaims to:
(a) safeguard the environment in the southern, hilly areas.
The measure is not related to the type of production butto a clearly designated geographical area which is
considered to be disadvantaged and where,
incidentally, only wine grapes can be grown
("monoculture").
(b) prevent the high depopulation trend in a region where
the average age of the population is above 60 years,
which constitutes a clear structural disadvantage.
Consequently, Cyprus considers that the measure meets
para. 13(a) and (c) criteria and is appropriately classified.G/AG/R/22
Page 19
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/16/Rev.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1 - "Marketing and promotion services"
United States:
Confirmation that none of the 6.4 million ECU allocated
to the operational funds for producer organizations wereused to finance producer-organization financedwithdrawal operations;Confirmed.
Whether producer organization expenditures are fixed by
the member States.These expenditures are fixed by each producer organization
within the limits established by the European Commission
and/or the member States (Council Regulation 2200/96,
Article 15, §3:2; Commission Regulation 659/97,
Article 6).
Indonesia   G/AG/N/IDN/18      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Canada/New Zealand: Confirmation that no support other
than that set out in ST/DS:1 was provided, including withregard to support identified in AGST tables or product-specific support;Indonesia is still in the process of identifying measures
which might fall under other supporting tables and willnotify them as soon as the information becomes available.
Canada/Japan:  Public stockholding for food security
purposes – "Buffer stock" –
Description of operations; conformity with relevantAnnex 2 criteria, especially with regard to stock targets,purchase and sales prices;This programme is implemented in accordance with the
national objectives to strengthen food security as stipulatedin Indonesian legislation, i.e. the State Policy Guidelinesand the Food Law No. 7/1996.  The rice stock target is pre-
determined by the Government to be at the minimum level
of 1 million tonnes.  In the last five years, the stock wasmostly imported and purchased at market prices.  The salesprices were normally well above the current domestic
prices for the quality in question.  If this was not the case,
the Government provided a subsidy through the statebudget.  For example, the 1998-2000 Special MarketOperation for rice destined to food insecure people affectedby the financial crisis was s ubsidized by the Government.
Whether "Iron Stock" refers to "Rice Stock"; Confirmed.
Reasons for increase in expenditures during the past five
years.In US dollar terms, the ex penditures did not increase
drastically.  Due to the economic and monetary crisis which
erupted in 1997, the Indonesian Rupiah depreciated, which
explains why the figures quoted in national currencyincreased.  The US dollar values against the Rupiah in1995, 1998 and 1999 were 2,253;  9,875;  and 7,786,
respectively.  Moreover, the book value of the rice stock as
well as the commercial interest rate of loans increased,resulting in a greater interest rate subsidy.
Canada:  Domestic food aid – "Special Market Operation"
– Whether this programme is new; if so, related Table DS:2showing conformity with Annex 2, para. 4.This is an emergency and a new programme implemented
to address the needs of the food insecure populationsaffected by the economic crisis.  Indonesia believes that itcomplies with Annex 2, para. 4 criteria and will submit therelated notification as soon as it is finalized.G/AG/R/22
Page 20
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/47      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Canada: Support measures in local government – Whether
such support is accounted for; relevant Annex 2 criteria;
amounts of expenditures;These expenditures, which are included in the notification,
are:
• Agricultural Improvement Fund, as part of Annex 2,
para. 2(d).  Extension and advisory services under general
services – 1,300 million Yen;
• Disaster Relief Loan, as part of payments for relief from
natural disasters – 300 million Yen;
• Agricultural Modernization Fund, as part of structural
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids –
17 billion Yen.
Philippines:  Operations; conformity with relevant Annex 2
criteria, with respect to the following programmes:
"Facilitation of management of agricultural
organizations"- Types of agricultural organizations
involved;The programme aims to subsidize such agricultural
institutions as the Agri cultural Committees, the
Agricultural Mutual Relief Association, and theAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Credit Fund, for their
expenditures on extension and education services and on
operational costs.  This measure meets Annex 2, para. 2criteria because:  (a) it is provided through a publicly-funded government programme not involving transfers
from consumers;  (b) since the programme aims to assist
the costs on services and operation of agriculturalinstitutions, it does not have the effect of providing pricesupport to producers; and (c) it does not involve directpayments to producers or processors because its objective
is to facilitate services and operations of agricultural
institutions.
"Payments for conversion from rice production"; This is an environmental programme which encouragesfarmers to preserve the paddy fields by growing crops other
than rice and use appropriate management methods.  The
measure meets Annex 2, para. 12 criteria: (a) support isprovided through a publicly-funded governmentprogramme not involving transfers from consumers;
(b) since the programme aims to preserve the environment
of paddy fields, it does not have the effect of providingprice support to producers; (c) eligibility for paymentsdepends on the fulfilment of specific conditions relating to
the preservation of the environment which are set out by
the government; and (d) the amount of payment is limitedto the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying
with the government programme.
Philippines: "Extension services" -  Reason for increase in
expenditures.The payments made for the education of farmers accounted
for most of the increase in expenditures.G/AG/R/22
Page 21
Malta   G/AG/N/MLT/1 Rev.1 and MLT/4      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada: "Marketing and Promotion" – Conformity of all
listed programmes with Annex 2 criteria.The item "Contributions towards marketing expenses" is a
nominal reimbursement of overhead running expenses to
producers organizations at the Central Fresh Vegetables
and Fruits market.
Australia/Canada/New Zealand/United States: "Guidance
and Guarantee:  Beef" – Conformity with Annex 2,
para. 6(b);This decoupled income support scheme has been in
operation since the 1970s and aims to safeguard the health
of the national dairy herd through continuous monitoring.(In Malta, beef  is a by-product of the dairy sector.)  Thescheme is named in the Financial Estimates of Malta , a
yearly publication.  Malta considers that the amounts
involved are very modest. The number of animals that canbe kept by any farmer is subject to a permanently fixedquota.  The beneficiaries do not receive payments on a
regular annual basis, but whenever an animal is repl aced.
Hence the programme does not interfere in any way withproduction or markets.  This measure also ensures foodsafety objectives:  standards for the slaughter of animals are
set by the Veterinary Board of Malta. Farmers are subjected
to daily inspections and rigorous hygiene and slaughterprocedures.  The programme also protects the fragileenvironment of the Maltese Islands, in particular the vital
underground water beds, streams and water tables, by
controlling the correct disposal of animal remains.
Canada:  "Refund for social security contributions" -
Conformity with Annex 2, para. 11.This programme  refers to reimbursements to bona fide
full-time farmers (and fishermen) who are members of a
producers cooperative on 50% of their annual socialsecurity contributions.  This measure is intended to bringthem to the same level of contribution as employees.
Canada/United States: "Assistance to farmers (and
fishermen)" – Conformity with Annex 2, para. 11.This programme is implemented by virtue of theAgriculture and Fishing Industries Financial Assistance Actof 1955.  It is designed to support farmers and fishermenthrough the reimbursement of payments for investments in
water catchments and farm access roads. This includes the
purchase of machinery and equipment.
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/25      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina:  "Grain price s upport" – Justification for
including this programme under the Green Box since it
clearly provides market price support;As previously stated, this is accounted for in calculations of
product-specific market price support and total current AMS
(ST/DS:5) – (G/AG/R/19, p. 32).
Argentina: "Promotion and storage" - Justification for
including this programme under the Green Box.As previously answered, the programme item "payments made
to obtain administered prices" is included in the AMS market
price support calculations as required by Annex 3, para. 8
(G/AG/R/19, p. 33, refers).
Additional comment:  Argentina  expressed surprise that only 1% of the to tal domestic support expenditures notified is
actually devoted to protect the environment (i.e. 187. 8 million NOK), an objective which is dear to Norway.G/AG/R/22
Page 22
Peru   G/AG/N/PER/3      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: Confirmation that Green Box measures are
expressed in US dollar terms;Confirmed.
New Zealand: "Promotion of production" – Description of
the measure; conformity with Annex 2 fundamental and
specific criteria.This is a development programme directed at the poorest
segments of the rural sector with a view to improving the
social and economic environment. In 1998, expenditures
covered the maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure,
soil conservation, and rehabilitation of agricultural land.The aid is financed through a publicly-funded programme,does not involve transfers from consumers, and does not
have the effect of providing price support to agricultural
producers.
Philippines   G/AG/N/PHL/14 and PHL/15      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States: Clarification of the basis for determining
eligible production, i.e. actual procurement vs. total
production.Government intervention in rice only takes place whenmarket prices fall below the government support price.  TheGovernment withdraws rice from the market when pricesare above the support price.  In view of the limited funds,
the government has a target volume to be procured every
year and only the said volume is to be procured at thegovernment support price.  This should dispel theperception that the total volume of production is entitled to
the government support price.  Further, the stocks in the
hands of government are being sold to the market duringlean supply periods and emergency situations.
Philippines   G/AG/N/PHL/19      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan:  Market price support for corn (ST/DS:5) – Reason
for the increase in expenditures between 1996 and 1998;This increase was due to the increased domestic
procurement activities of the National Food Agency (NFA).In 1996, the NFA procured only 11,685 tonnes of corn
while it procured more than 209,000 tonnes in 1998.  The
year 1998 was marked by the El Niño  phenomenon which
caused shortages of corn during the first semester of 1998.The Asian financial crisis also hit the country in 1998.
These conditions prompted the government to authorize the
duty-free importation of corn during the first semester ofthe year to help ensure sufficient corn supply.  Totalimports of corn and corn substitutes in 1998 reached 1.69
million tons, more than the impor ts of these products in the
previous two years.
United States:  Submission of Table DS:1 (Current AMS). The Philippines have no AMS reduction commitments.G/AG/R/22
Page 23
Slovak Republic   G/AG/N/SVK/18/Rev.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand/United States:  “Bee breeding”  (ST/DS:1) –
Reasons for moving this measure from Amber to Green
category of support; basis for exemption; conformity with
fundamental Annex 2 requirement; coupling of payments tothe maintenance of bee colony units;  relationship withprogramme notified in SVK/20.Given the reasons presented below (SVK/20), the
programme was removed from the AMS.
United States: ST/DS:3 – Status of previous Blue Box
measures; intentions to use su ch programmes in the future.The Slovak Republic does not intend to apply measures
under this category of support in the future.
Tunisia   G/AG/N/TUN/16      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
AMS
Australia/Canada/New Zealand: Adjustment of external
reference prices (ERP) in order to take inflation andexchange rate movements into account (ST/DS:5);
Conformity of the method used with Annex 3; reasonswhy adjustment factors vary depending on the productconsidered;The method chosen by Tunisia reflects the effective level
of domestic support. The adjustment factors by product willbe communicated at a later stage.
Data and sources on rates of inflation and exchangerates; reasons why Tunisia considers inflation isexcessive;The exchange rate used in the determination of ERPs in
national currency for the base period is indicated in thesupporting material submitted by Tunisia during theUruguay Round.  According to the statistical data published
by the Central Bank of Tunisia, this average rate was 0.88
US$ against the Dinar during the reference period (0.77US$ in 1986) and 1.14 US$ in 1998.  The Institut National
des Statistiques  (INS) estimates the rate of inflation at 50%
between 1986 and 1998, which is why Tunisia considers it
to be excessive.
Whether Tunisia will notify, for transparency purposes,
the unadjusted Current Total AMS for the period
1995-98.The information will be communicated at a later stage.
Additional comments:  Tunisia  expressed the view that this issue should be addressed in a multilateral context as
previously suggested by certain delegations. Beyond the consideration of the method used to derive the AMS, Tunisia
believes that without proper adjustments, the concept of domestic support loses its ec onomic significance.  Australia
reiterated concerns regarding the unilateral adjustment of ERPs and noted that Article 18.4 only envisaged the effects of
inflation, not exchange rates, on Members' ability to  comply with their domes tic support commitments.
New Zealand: Determination of eligible production to
receive market price support; explanation of yearlyvariations.The quantities effectively receiving market price support
are defined as being the "eligible production", as indicatedin Tunisia's Schedule of commitments.G/AG/R/22
Page 24
Table DS:2 Notifications
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/23      Ne w or modified exempt measure (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
“Support for dairy cows”
Australia: Whether direct payments are involved; if not,
Australia suggests that the programme would be moreappropriately classified as R&D under General Services;This programme involves direct payments and falls under
Annex 2, paras. 5 and 11.  It aims to improve the geneticpotential of dairy cows through restructuring of herds,increasing their resistance to cattle diseases and
unfavourable climatic conditions.  The programme was
terminated in the first half of 1999.
United States:  In view of the apparent connection of the
programme to milk production, clarification of conformity
with specific Annex 2, para. 11 criteria.The programme aims at the genetic improvement of the
genetic potential of dairy cows and is not related to the
production of milk.
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/17  New or modified exempt measure (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States:  Historical base area (HBA) used to calculate
compensatory payments – Effects of Portugal’s (a) recent
increase in irrigated area by 60,000 ha. and (b) doubling of
its maximum guaranteed area for durum to 118,000 ha. onthe HBA;  consistent with Article 6.5.
United States:  Effects of recent increases in referenceyields in Spain and Italy on support levels;  consistent withArticle 6.5 criteria.Replies given in G/AG/R/19 refer.  The total base area of
arable crops in the EC did not change since 1992, exceptfor adjustments due to the re-unification of Germany andthe enlargement of the EC.  Some slight revisions were
made within the total base area.  The revised figures will be
the new basis for future payments and are thereforeconsistent with Article 6.5.
United States:  Minimum payment levels under Agenda2000 and their compatibility with EC’s Blair Housecommitments regarding the reduction of farmers’ paymentsin MY 2000/01 and MY 2001/02.This question is rather theo retical: an increase in oilseed
production is not expected if the aid is to decline.  There isno need for additional control measures.  The correction
scheme set up to enforce the Blair House Commitments is
still in place in the MY 2000/01 and MY 2001/02.However, the reduction resulting from the overshoot of themaximum guaranteed area cannot lead to an amount lower
than a certain minimum payment.  The minimum payments
for oilseeds for MY 2000/01 and MY 2001/02 areestablished at the level of the payments for cereals, which ifapplied automatically, implies the disappearance of cropspecific (oilseed) payments.
Slovak Republic   G/AG/N/SVK/20  New or modified exempt measure (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada/United States: Basis for exemption;
whether the notified expenditures represent total costs or
estimated annual costs;Some programmes are covered by Annex 2, para. 2,
General Services, and comply with the fundamental criteria
for exemption since aid is granted through a government-funded programme, does not have the effect of providingprice support to farmers, and has no trade distortiveimpacts.  The costs mentioned represent annual costs.
"Promotion of agricultural and food product sales"; This programme falls under the sub-category Marketing
and Promotion Services. It grants support to newly-established production sales associations.
G/AG/R/22
Page 25
Slovak Republic   G/AG/N/SVK/20  New or modified exempt measure (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"Partial damage reimbursement"; Heavy floods in 1998 caused considerable losses in
production of more than 50% of the average production
volumes in some regions. The programme falls under
Annex 2, para. 8.
“Bee breeding”; Payments are limited to cover parts of the costs
(medicaments, etc.) and there is no linkage to the volume ofproduction. Payments are granted to owners only during themaintenance of bee colonies. The measure seeks to
alleviate the adverse environmental impacts due to the
decrease in the number of bee colonies and thus, in thelevels of pollination.  Taking into account the specificitiesof the programme, this form of assistance was included inthe "other" category.
“Conservation of riding horse breeding”. This programme is designed to maintain riding horse
breeding in the Slovak Republic, e.g. testing of horses and
their efficiency and representation at selected races. There
is no linkage to the volume of production.
United States   G/AG/N/USA/28  New or  modified exempt me asure (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/EC/Japan/New Zealand :   “Livestock Indemnity
Programme (LIP)” –
Conformity with Annex 2, para. 8(a) regarding eligibility
for payments; system used to establish formalrecognition by government authorities;The programme was introduced in FY 1997 after extreme
blizzard conditions hit the north/central plain states and
caused extensive losses of livestock herds.  It has been usedin FY 1997, 1998 and 1999 on a very minor scale andauthorized by the FY 2000 budget to assist producers hithard by Hurricane Floyd (which destroyed millions of head
of livestock in North Carolina alone) and other disasters
that occurred in 1999. The LIP is only available toproducers that reside in a county that has received aPresidential Disaster Declaration or a Secretarial
Declaration according to the criteria in the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42USC 5121 as amended (please refer to the Web Sitewww.fema.gov/library/stafact.htm). Payments are made
with respect to losses of lives tock and only compensate for
30% of the market price for the class of animal for thecoverage period.  There is no requirement or specificationof the type or quantity of future production.  All Annex 2,para. 8, criteria are thus met.
trigger level and base period used to determineeligibility;To receive LIP payments, a pr oducer's loss of livestock
must be in excess of the normal mortality rate for the
coverage period for the animal category, based on average
producer experience over recent years under normal
production conditions.  However, at this time, the UnitedStates cannot confirm that the losses ex ceed the 30%
trigger.  Payments are only made on losses in excess of
normal losses.  Payment limitations are in effect forindividuals, as well as eligibility criteria based on annualgross revenue.  Losses due to drought are not eligible forbenefits under the LIP.
whether beneficiaries may also receive payments underother income insurance programmes, such as the“Adjusted Gross Revenue Pilot Programme”.While producers may still be eligible to receive insurance
indemnities from other private sources, payments under theLIP will be reduced if compensation for the livestock losswas received from other sources.
G/AG/R/22
Page 26
United States   G/AG/N/USA/28  New or  modified exempt me asure (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/EC: “Environment Quality Incentives Programme
(EQIP)” –
   Detailed information on the fulfilment of the conditions
related to production methods or inputs;All activities must be carried out according to a
conservation plan.  These plans are generally part of a State
conservation programme which is developed through local
work groups and conservation districts.  Recommendationsof various local conservation groups are integrated intoregional and national strategic plans, which provide a basisfor funding decisions under EQIP.
Monitoring system in place; Monitoring and compliance are ensured by various state
conservation bodies, in conformity with the conservationplan.  Eligibility requirements are thus based on a clearly-
defined government environmental or conservation
programme and payments depend on the fulfilment ofspecific conditions under the programme.
Conformity with Annex 2, para. 12;  whether payments
are limited to the extra costs or income loss.EQIP is a cost-share programme whereby USDA may pay
up to 75% of the costs of certain approved conservationpractices. USDA may also make payments to offset thecosts and risks associated with the adoption of newmanagement practices such as no-till farming, which could
involve, for example, buying new equipment or offsetting
reduced income from lower yields.  This meets the criteriathat the amount of payment shall be limited to the extracosts or income loss resultin g from compliance with the
programme.  Moreover, total payments are limited to
US$10,000 per person per year and US$50,000 for theduration of the contract.
Switzerland:  “Wetland Reserve Programme” -  Data on
total costs in FY 1997;  surface area benefiting from thisprogramme.In FY 1997, expenditures were about US$33 million. The
surface in question is a wetland which is retired fromproduction.
Additional comments:  The European Communities  enquired whether the U.S. 1998 and 1999 Emergency Packages would
be notified soon and stressed the importance of  the time sc hedule foreseen for Table DS :2 notifications (“as far in
advance as practicable or in any event within 30 days after adoption” – G/AG/2 refers).  The United States reported thatnotifications have been made once the exact programme parameters were in place and could be evaluated in the context
of Annex 2 criteria.  The United States continued to iden tify and review any new programmes that resulted from the FY
1999 and FY 2000 agricultural appropria tions legislation.  Notifications will be  submitted to the Committee as soon as
possible.G/AG/R/22
Page 27
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/33    Export Subsidies (Table ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Switzerland: Details regarding the indirect subsidization of
products leaving the domestic market between 1 August
1998 until 31 July 1999; total amount of subsidies per
group of commodity.This question refers to the activities which were found to
provide export subsidies by the Panel and Appellate Body
in Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk
and the Exportation of Dairy Products through theprovision of dairy components to manufacturers of dairyproducts that were exported.  The large majority of the total
volume of exports of dairy products notified in CAN/33
were made with dairy components provided in this way.However, Canada does not have detailed information onthe amount of the subsidy.
Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/11-13 and COL/19 and Corr.1   Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
• Subsidized outlays and/or volumes above scheduled commitments
Argentina/Australia/Canada/EC: Fruit, molasses, sugar
confectionery not containing cocoa : Explanation; whether
the flexibility provisi ons have been used.
Additional comment:  Argentina  requested clarification on
the nature of "indirect taxes" paid by the exporter.
Colombia clarified that these are: the tariff duty, the VAT,
and an "industry" tax.Colombia notified total outlays under the Tax
Reimbursement Certificate (CERT), an instrument which
allows for the refunding of the equivalent of all or some of
the indirect taxes paid by the exporter (G/AG/R/19, p. 39refers).  The average effective CERT for agriculturalproducts was 2.8% of the f.o.b. value of exports. In turn,
studies indicate that, for agricultural activities, indirect
taxes represent on average 4.4% of the national valueadded, a figure that is higher than the equivalent CERTrefund granted to agricultural products since 1996. Because
of this differential, Colomb ia considers that the CERT
programme does not carry with it a subsidy component.
• Subsidization of non-scheduled products “because no exports were registered during the base period”
Argentina/Australia/EC: Raw silk  - Explanation.
Additional comment: According to Argentina , if these
subsidies did not exist in th e base period, they are illegal.
Colombia reiterated that the CERT is not a subsidy
programme (see above replies).These products are not shown in Colombia's Schedule
because there were no exports during the base period.
These products have, however, been covered by CERTwith a view to promote non- traditional agricultural exports.
• Subsidization of non-scheduled products in excess of base period subsidization - (AGST, ST/DS:11)
Argentina/Australia: Other live plants; Foliage; Peppers;
Cardamoms; Ginger, saffron, turmeric, thyme, etc.;
Starches, inulin ; Vegetable oils; Cereal products;
Bakers wares with cocoa; Vegetable, fruit, nuts, and
other edible plants; Mushrooms and truffles; Othervegetables prepared or preserved; Sauces andpreparations; Food preparations n.e.s.; Waters, incl.
mineral waters and aerated waters; Cigarettes,
Sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives of
hydrocarbons; Gelatin  - Explanation.Colombia considers that CERT is not a subsidy
programme.G/AG/R/22
Page 28
Colombia   G/AG/N/COL/11-13 and COL/19 and Corr.1   Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada/New Zealand: Progress made in
designing and implementing a subsidy information controlmechanism as previously announced to the Committee.The monitoring system was designed in October 1998 and
records outlays and volumes of agricultural products
benefiting from the CERT during 1995, 1996 and 1997.
The system reports the total disbursed CERT outlays anddoes not give product-specific disaggregated information.Numerous technical difficulties have prevented the further
development of this system. Since, as stated above,
Colombia considers that the CERT does not contain anelement of subsidization, and in view of the serious fiscaldeficit faced by Colombia, the development and application
of a detailed subsidy information control system is not
justified any longer.
Australia/New Zealand: Progress made towards an
agreement with the United States on the interpretation of
Colombia’s export subsidy rectification of 29 July 1998,G/MA/TAR/RS/51.The reservations filed by the United States in the timeframe
provided for this purpose have been the subject of
consultations between the two delegations. Colombia isnow in the final phase of the process. A formal exchange ofcommunications between both delegations is expected inthe coming weeks.
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/20/Rev.1   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Flexibility provisions  : Sugar; other milk products; poultry meat; wine;
Australia: Reason for using the flexibility  provisions; Members of the WTO are entitled to do so.  The use of roll-
over is consistent with Article 9.2(b).
Australia/Canada: Whether the commitment level in respect
of the last year of the implementation period will beadhered to; concrete steps taken to abide by the rules afterthe expiry of the flexibility provisions;This is part of the EC commitments as specified in
Schedule CXL. The European Communities will stand bytheir commitments as in the past.
Canada: Whether the amounts indicated in Note 11 takeinto account the revisions reported in EEC/5/Rev.1;No.  The correct amounts are (a) Other milk products:
28,000 tonnes;  (b) Wine :  397,000 hl.
Additional comments:  Australia  and Argentina  expressed their continued concern regarding the cumulation and roll-over
of unutilized subsidies.  Australia maintained that this was in consistent with the intent of Article 9.2(b) given that the
disciplines were designed to result in substantial and progressive reductions in export subsidies.  Beyond the legal
concern the issue raises, Argentina  underlined its economic consequences: the cumulation of subsidies aggravates thesituation in international markets by further depressing the prices of commodities on which developing countries dependand displacing exports by non-subsidizing countries.  In Argentina's view, the use of roll-over by the EC is also
inconsistent with EC's development assistance policy.  In effect, the European taxpayer makes two contributions:  one to
depress international commodity prices, which hurts developing countries;  the other to assist developing countries withsoft loans to overcome the cris is.  The European Communities pointed out that  the EC was the single largest importer of
agricultural products from developing countries, even from those developing regions with which no historical relations
exist.  The entire trade picture should be taken into account when addressing the trade and development issue.
New Zealand:  Eggs ;  sugar  – Increase in subsidy outlays
and quantities between 1996/97 and 1997/98;The European Communities respects its commitments.
New Zealand/United States: Wheat and wheat flour;
coarse grains; butter and butter oil; beef meat  –
Reasons why subsidized exports are in excess of totalexports in 1997/98;Data on total exports are from EC export statistics (i.e. they
represent actual exports) for the period July 1996-June1997, and are expressed in product weight.  The figures on
subsidized exports are in equivalent weight and are based
on export certificates issued during the marketing year inquestion, irrespective of the actual date of export.Moreover, not all certificates will be effectively used.
Given certain economic circumstances, it may be
advantageous for traders to apply for new certificatesinstead of using the certificates previously granted.G/AG/R/22
Page 29
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/20/Rev.1   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States:  Quantities of subsidized cheese, skimmed
milk powder and butter  that were exported under inward
processing arrangements to produce processed cheese;
respective export subsidy amounts.This information is included in the figures given under the
relevant product groups, as provided for in G/AG/2.
Norway    G/AG/N/NOR/23 and Corr.1   Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia: Reason for using the flexibility provisions; This is in co nformity with Article 9.2(b) and in conformity
with Norway's commitments.
Australia: Whether the commitment level in respect of thelast year of the implementation period will be adhered to.Norway will fulfil its obligations accordingly.G/AG/R/22
Page 30
ANNEX – Part II
Deferred Replies to Questions on Notifi cations Raised at Previous Meetings
Table DS:1 Notifications
Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/9      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members at the
Committee meeting in November 1999Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Japan:  "Special Fund for Tobacco" – Reasons for listing
this programme under various Green Box categories of
support;  submission of related Table DS:2 notifications.In notification ARG/4 (agricultural year 1995/96), it was
considered that the total support provided through theSpecial Fund for Tobacco fell under the heading "Structural
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids",
and it was therefore notified as such.  Nevertheless, in
making the notification for the year 1996/97 and in the lightof the clarifications requested, a notification was drawn upgiving a more extensive breakdown of the projects financedduring that period.  Hence, the present notification sets out
the 40 programmes in greater detail (a number similar to
that for 1995/96 and with the same structure), by classifyingthe projects. Argentina considers it important to provide abreakdown of the programmes related to the "Special Fund
for Tobacco" in order to ensure transparency in the
information furnished to all WTO Members.
Australia/Japan:  "Special Fund for Tobacco" Annex 2,
para. 2(a) – Confirmation that payments are not paiddirectly to individual producers.The projects are for the institutional improvement of centres
for research and experimentation in alternative crops to
tobacco.  These centres grow crops in experimental plots(land owned by the centres) and producers are sometimeschosen to participate in the production activities of the
centre concerned, following the instructions given by the
centre's specialists.   In the specific case of the 118 Chacoproducers, the items financed are:  purchase of seeds, toolsand professional fees paid to third parties (e.g. engineers).
The items financed are used by the beneficiaries for
research activities and are allocated to those pursuingexperimental activities.  Besides, they receive no directpayments, but inputs for use in the sphere of research.G/AG/R/22
Page 31
Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/9      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members at the
Committee meeting in November 1999Response by Notifying Member
Australia: "Agricultural social programme to smallholders"
–  Consistency with Annex 2, para. 6(e).The programme promotes the formulation of production
projects for a maximum of $1,200 per family, involving
groups of smallholders (a minimum of six families) who,once the project is approved, receive the requisite financialassistance in order to carry out the pertinent activities.  Theeligibility criteria for benefiting under the programme are :
• The producer and his family must work directly on the
farms.
• There must be no permanent hired labour.
• There are no other sources of income, excepting income
from temporary work or from the making of handicraftproducts, not exceeding the rural agricultural worker'swage.
• The monthly income level must not exceed twice the
rural agricultural worker's wage.
• The total working capital of the production unit must not
exceed $20,000.
The programme does not exclude, a priori , any producer,
provided he is a smallholder, nor are smallholders required
to meet a specified production level or cattle head count.The selection criteria are those set out above.
Australia/Japan/United States: "Special Fund for Tobacco"
– and "Introduction of tobacco-growing technology" –
Annex 2, para. 11, including para. 11(e) – Confirmation
that payments are limited to the extent necessary to
compensate for structural adjustment costs.The projects notified here are part of measures to provide
structural readjustment assistance through which farms thatare structurally disadvantaged, whether financially or
physically, receive help to improve their production
conditions. Producers r eceiving f unds to finance their
liabilities or for investments related to their economicactivity repay such funds to the provinces under the terms
and conditions stipulated by the Provincial Operational
Units. Under no circumstance are conditions imposed onthe producer either with regard to type or volume ofproduction necessary in order to qualify for assistance from
the programme and the selection criterion by which a
producer is deemed eligible for assistance under this Fundin the form of money or inputs is based on a productionunit's structural disadvantage. The following structural
disadvantages could be mentioned:  the lack of bulk curing
stoves for drying, the use of methyl bromide in tobaccoproduction (need for new production technology transfer),problems of insufficient capital and training for coping with
new production alternatives to tobacco.  A base period of
three years is used for the distribution of such assistance.
Australia:  Compliance of payments for the technical
assistance and input to producers to develop pink garlic
cultivation with the policy-specific criteria of Annex 2,
para. 11(e) that payments should not mandate or in any
way designate the agricultural products to be produced.As stated previously (ARG/4), in those projects where the
product is named, the aim is  to identify the production
diversification programmes that need some kind ofdesignation so as to identify what is being financed.  One ofthe purposes of the Special Fund for Tobacco is to assist
producers related to tobacco cultivation to convert their
production, which means supporting those endeavouring toswitch to other agricultural products.G/AG/R/22
Page 32
Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/9      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members at the
Committee meeting in November 1999Response by Notifying Member
Australia: "Pre-financing of shearing for producers with
less than 1,000 sheep" – Consistency with Annex 2,
para. 13;  explanation of degressive nature of payments;Producers in the Patagonian region on farms with less than
1,000 sheep are smallholders, as production on such a scale
is not commercially viable in the region given thedisadvantageous conditions prevailing there.  Those
conditions were described in response to questions asked
concerning ARG/4:  Payments in the form of prefinancing
loans are not made at a degressive rate as such loans arereimbursed in a single payment when the output is sold.
criteria used to define disadvantaged regions; In order to provide assistance to wool producers in the
Patagonian region, several factors were considered todetermine objectively that wool production in that region isundergoing one of its worst crises: particularly adverse
climatic conditions (snowstorms and drought) causing a
high death rate among animals, leading to a significantreduction of the livestock population and hence the outputof wool.
whether Patagonia belongs to this latter category. -  A layer of ash from the Hadson Volcano makes it
impossible to exploit the land.  Production is graduallybeing restored during the present season. The result hasbeen a considerable contraction in herd size for woolproduction.
-  High levels of desertification of pasture lands owing to
overgrazing.
-  Absence of any significant viable alternatives to sheep
farming.
-  Sparse population owing to the lack of productive
activities, a situation that can only be expected to worsenwith the contraction of wool production.  The Patagonian
region is one of very low population density, 2.1 inhabitants
per square kilometre, while the average for Argentina is 9.2inhabitants per square kilometre.
-  Sharp fall in family inco mes as the result of the low
international price of wool, which has combined with the
aforementioned factors to cause the closure ofestablishments that have become unprofitable or, in the bestof cases, under-exploitation for lack of funding.
As is clear from the foregoing, sheep-rearing is the chief
and often the only possible economic activity in most of thePatagonian region, except for a few irrigated valleys in theprovinces of Río Negro and Neuquén.  Wool production
therefore has to be given special and differential regional
treatment.  The aim is to develop the small and medium-sized producer enterprises in the region so as to encouragethe harmonious and sustained development of the
Patagonia, thereby avoiding the mistake of depopulating a
region which, despite its adverse conditions, can bedeveloped.  The importance of the primary sector in theregional economy is such that it constitutes 37 per cent of
the region's total GDP, while at the national level it
represented only 7 per cent in 1995.
G/AG/R/22
Page 33
Argentina   G/AG/N/ARG/9      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members at the
Committee meeting in November 1999Response by Notifying Member
Australia: "Credits to sheep producers owning between
1,000 and 6,000 head" – Compliance with policy-specific
criteria of Annex 2, para. 13, regarding linkage of support
to the type/volume of production.Credits to producers with between 1,000 and 6,000 sheep
are not granted in relation to production level.  What was
done was to delimit a possible range for beneficiaries.Loans are granted neither to very small producers, whoneed another type of assistance, nor to very large ones, who
are considered to be less affected by the crisis and able to
raise loans through regular lines of credit from banks.  Onceproducers fall within this range, they have access to thecredit regardless of their past or future production levels.
New Zealand:  AMS - Confirmation that support is
reported without inflation adjustment.Argentina confirms that it has made no inflation adjustment
and that the bound commitment levels are those reported inthe technical rectification of July 1998.
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/16/Rev.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members at  the
Committee meeting in November 1999Response by Notifying Member
Out of 604 million ECU, 6.4 million ECU were allocated to
the operational funds for producer organizations. Higheramounts are expected since the programme only started in
1997.  Withdrawal payments are not included in this figure.
They will be further disaggregated in future notifications.
As regards the withdrawal of certain fruit and vegetables,
there are two types of compensations, a standard
Community compensation and a supplement fixed by the
Member State ("top-up").  The latter was not granted inMY 1996/97.  The budget outlays for withdrawal total279.4 Mio ECU  and were granted in respect of lemons,
apples, peaches, pears, nectarines, cauliflower and egg-
plant. All products are alread y notified in ST/DS:8 with the
exception of cauliflower and egg-plant, which should havebeen listed in ST/DS:6.  However the aid granted is less
than 5% of the production value of the product concerned
and therefore benefits from the de minimis  exclusion.
Withdrawal
compensation5% of production
value
Cauliflower 19.7 29.4United States: "Marketing and promotion services" –
Whether expenditures cover all operational funds described
in Regulation 2200/96 granted to producer organizationswhich are recognized under Regulations 412/97 or 1035/72.
Aubergines 0.3 17.5G/AG/R/22
Page 34
Table DS:2 Notifications
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/17   New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Members at the
Committee meeting in November 1999Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand:  Regional assistance –  Definition of
a disadvantaged region.It is given in Articles 17 to 20 of EC Council
Regulation 1257/99 ( Attachment No.  2  refers).
New Zealand:  Whether the slaughter premium for beef
which is to be implemented in 2000 will be notified under
AMS support.This price reduction will be partly compensated by existing
premiums and the introduction of a new premium, the
slaughter premium. Farmers keeping adult bovine animals
and calves on a holding may apply for the premium.  Aceiling will be established for both categories based on thenumber of animals slaughtered in 1995. When, in a given
member State, the total number of animals for which an
application has been made exceeds the ceiling the aid shallbe reduced in proportion.  In order to avoid doubleapplications, the premium will be granted subject to the
slaughtering of the animal.  The premium is granted for a
fixed number of heads and is therefore in conformity withthe Blue Box criteria.G/AG/R/22
Page 35
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
Cyprus   G/AG/N/CYP/8      Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Members at the September
1999 meeting of the CommitteeResponse by Notifying Member
New Zealand: Fruit  – Variation in subsidy outlays and
quantities between 1996 and 1998; reasons behind theincrease in outlays between 1997 and 1998.This is due to fluctuations in production caused by
unfavourable weather conditions, unstable economicconditions in various markets (e.g. Russia) and marketingproblems.  In 1996, the subsidized volumes consisted of:
watermelons (849 tonnes);  dried grapes (647 tonnes);  and
table grapes (116 tonnes).  In 1997, export subsidies wereonly granted to 249 tonnes of dried grapes.  In 1998, out ofa total subsidized quantity of 13,700 tonnes of fruit, 13,593
tonnes represented citrus; 69 tonnes dried grapes and 38
tonnes table grapes.
Australia/Canada/New Zealand/United States: Pigmeat  –
Factor used to convert the volume of exports from
number of head to tonnes (as in Schedule);Export subsidies were granted in 1997 for a total number of
16,311 pigs which is equivalent to 1,785 tonnes of pigmeat.Conversion factors are:  (a) 60% for pig l.w., sows l.w. and
young animals for fattening average l.w. 18 kg. (b) 100%
for carcass.
Confirmation that exports in excess of annualcommitments did not receive any form of export subsidyduring 1997-1998.For quantities above commitment  levels, Cyprus made use
of Article 9.2(b) for the years 1996-98.
Canada/New Zealand:  Wine alcohol and other grape
products:
Export subsidy volume in tonnes (1997 and 1998),
consistently with the unit of  measure used in Schedule.In 1997, export subsidies were granted to 4,340,000 litres
of anhydrous alcohol equivalent to 34,000 tonnes of winealcohol and other grape products.  A total of 3,734,000litres of anhydrous alcohol, or 26,290 tonnes, weresubsidized in 1998.
Confirmation that exports in excess of annualcommitments did not receive any form of export subsidyduring 1997-1998.Cyprus made use of the provisions of Article 9.4 allowing
developing country Members, during the implementationperiod, to use the provisions of Article 9.1(d) and (e) to
reduce certain marketing costs (including for upgrading
product quality) and international transport and freightcosts. Such costs are high due to the remoteness of Cyprusfrom its main export markets which have been traditionallythe European markets.
Variations in outlays and quantities between 1996 and1998.This variation is due to unstable market conditions and
problems faced in marketing products in European markets.
G/AG/R/22
Page 36
Attachment No. 1
G/AG/N/CYP/ 9:  Production of wine grapes, 1980-1998
Local production Year Area
(ha.)Volume
(tonne)Value
('000 £C)Apparent
consumption
(tonnes)Yield
(tonne/ha.)Producer
price
(£C/tonne)
1980 31,572 178,816 10,472.0 178,816.0 5.664 58.56
1981 31,171 184,912 11,793.6 184,912.0 5.932 63.78
1982 30,502 174,752 11,971.2 174,752.0 5.729 68.50
1983 30,502 178,000 12,139.6 178,000.0 5.836 68.20
1984 30,234 171,000 11,850.3 171,000.0 5.656 69.30
1985 28,094 181,000 12,308.0 181,000.0 6.443 68.00
1986 27,425 126,000 8,757.0 126,000.0 4.594 69.50
1987 26,756 143,000 10,296.0 143,000.0 5.345 72.00
1988 25,500 167,000 12,191.0 167,000.0 6.549 73.00
1989 24,300 182,000 13,468.0 182,000.0 7.490 74.00
1990 22,800 124,000 10,292.0 124,000.0 5.439 83.00
1991 21,400 67,000 6,700.0 67,000.0 3.131 100.00
1992 20,000 93,000 9,579.0 93,000.0 4.650 103.00
1993 19,000 107,500 11,072.5 107,500.0 5.658 103.00
1994 17,400 73,500 8,379.0 73,500.0 4.224 114.00
1995 17,400 92,500 11,100.0 92,500.0 5.316 120.00
1996 18,300 90,500 12,670.0 90,500.0 4.945 140.00
1997 18,150 78,000 10,686.0 78,000.0 4.298 137.00
1998 18,060 95,000 13,585.0 95,000.0 5.260 143.00
AVG
89-9819,681 100,300 10,753.2 100,300.0 5.096 107.21
Source:  Agricultural Statistics 1980-1998, Nicosia, Department of Statistics and Research, Ministry of Finance.G/AG/R/22
Page 37
Attachment No. 2
G/AG/N/EEC/17:  Definition of a disadvantaged region
Regulation 1257/99
Article 17
Less-favoured areas shall include:
- mountain areas (Article 18);- other less-favoured areas (Article 19);  and
- areas affected by specific handicaps (Article 20).
Article 18
1. Mountain areas shall be those characterized by a considerable limitation of the possibilities for using
the land and an appreciable increase in the cost of working it due:
- to the existence, because of altitude, of very difficult climatic conditions, the effect of which is
substantially to shorten the growing season;
- at a lower altitude, to the presence over the greater part of the area in question of slopes too
steep for the use of machinery or requiring the use of very expensive special equipment;  or
- to a combination of these two factors, where the handicap resulting from each taken separately
is less acute but the combination of the two gives rise to an equivalent handicap.
2. Areas north of the 62
nd Parallel and certain adjacent areas shall be treated in the same way as mountain
areas.
Article 19
Less-favoured areas which are in danger of abandonment of land-use and where the conservation of the
countryside is necessary, shall comprise farming areas which are homogeneous from the point of view of natural
production conditions and exhibit all of the following characteristics:
- the presence of land of poor productivity, difficult cultivation and with a limited potential
which cannot be increased except at excessive cost , and which is mainly suitable for extensive
livestock farming;
- production which results from low productivity of the natural environment which is
appreciably lower than the average, with regard to the main indices of economic performancein agriculture;
- a low or dwindling population predominantly dependent on agricultural activity, the
accelerated decline of which would jeopardize the viability of the area concerned and itscontinued habitation.
Article 20
Less-favoured areas may include other areas affected by specific handicaps, in which farming should
be continued, where necessary and subject to certain conditions, in order to conserve or improve theenvironment, maintain the countryside and preserve the tourist potential of the area or in order to protect the
coastline.
__________