RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/18
7 May 1999
(99-1910)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25-26 MARCH 1999
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its eighteenth meeting on 25-26 March 1999 under the
Chairmanship of Ambassador Nestor Osorio Londoño of Colombia.  The agenda of the meeting as
contained in WTO/AIR/1044 was adopted.
Part I:  The Review Process
Matters Relevant to the Implementation of Commitments under the Reform Programme:  Article 18.6
(a) New Zealand:  Venezuela – Milk powder tariffs applied in excess of bound levels
2. New Zealand sought a response from Venezuel a to a question posed at the November 1998
meeting of the Committee concerning tariffs on whole milk powder.  It appeared that, as a result of
the application of the price band system, tariffs were being applied at levels which exceeded the
bound in-quota tariff rate.  Venezuela responded that it would take a few more days before a definite
answer would be available.
3. New Zealand noted that the issue had first been raised with Venezuela eight or nine months
ago.  At that time, Venezuela had acknowledged that there was a breach of its WTO commitments
which it would rectify.  Despite repeated assurances, both bilaterally and in the Committee, the
problem had not been resolved.  New Zealand urged Venezuela to resolve the issue promptly.
(b) United States:  Poland – Grain export subsidies
4. The United States noted that Poland's Agricultural Marketing Agency (AMA) had apparently
made substantial export sales of wheat and rye in a manner which appeared to meet the definition of
an export subsidy pursuant to Article 9.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The United States
asked Poland (i) to clarify how it justified the recent grain export sales given that its WTO
commitments prohibited any export subsidies on grains, and (ii) to specify the results of its recent
export grain tenders, including information on how the export tender prices received compared to
domestic prices for comparable quality grain.
5. Poland noted that the AMA had only recently introduced tenders for wheat and, as the process
had not been completed, information on the results was not yet available.  Poland underlined the
commercial and market-based nature of the activities of AMA.  The tenders were open to all traders,
domestic as well as foreign, and all conditions related to the exportation of the products at issue, such
as export prices and markets, were determined by those traders, not by the AMA.  Therefore, Polanddid not share the US view that the activities in question were related to Article 9.1(b) of the
Agreement on Agriculture.G/AG/R/18
Page 2
6. The United States insisted that the practice at issue fairly obviously involved an export
subsidy:  a government agency bought grain from  domestic producers at a high price in order to
support the domestic price, and then sold the grain at a substantially lower price on the world market.
(c) United States:  Romania – Tobacco tax
7. The United States noted that in 1998, Romania had raised its excise tax on cigarettes but
established a credit for cigarettes containing 50 per cent or more local tobacco.  As a result, cigarettes
mainly or wholly produced with local tobacco had a lower tax burden than those mainly or wholly
produced with foreign tobacco.  The United States asked (i) for the reason behind the credit
established for local cigarettes, (ii) how this credit met the requirements of Article III of GATT 1994,
and (iii) whether this credit would be abolished.
8. Romania noted that it had received on 11 March 1999 a series of questions regarding the
excise tax on cigarettes.  These questions were currently being analyzed in the capital.  Once theanswers were available they would be transmitted to the United States.
9. The United States urged Romania to bring the tax into conformity with GATT 1994 by
eliminating the credit.
(d) United States:  Korea – Tariff bindings for agricultural products
10. The United States noted that for 1999, a number of Korea's applied tariffs exceeded the rates
bound in Korea's Schedule.  The products included peanuts (HS 1202.20), popcorn (HS 1005.90) and
potato flour and meal (HS 1105.10).  The United Stat es asked Korea what measures it was taking to
bring these tariffs into accordance with its WTO obligations.
11. Korea responded that it had faithfully implemented its commitments on tariff bindings by
reducing the bound tariff rates every year exactly as scheduled.  For peanuts the tariff rate would be
reduced from 40.0 per cent in 1995 to 24.0 per cent in 2004;  for popcorn the corresponding figures
were 3.0  and 1.8 per cent, and for potato flour and meal 9.0 and 5.4 per cent.  Korea maintained that
this reduction plan had been agreed with interested countries during the verification process.
12. The United States noted that the issue pertained to the staging of tariff cuts.  It appeared to the
United States that Korea had made its tariff cuts in 9 rather than in 10 equal instalments as required
under the Agreement on Agriculture.
Review of Notifications
13. 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
European Communities  (G/AG/N/EEC/14 and EEC/15),  Korea  (G/AG/N/KOR/21)
and South Africa  (G/AG/N/ZAF/19);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Australia  (G/AG/N/AUS/23),  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/23),  Guatemala
(G/AG/N/GTM/5 and Corr.1),  Icel and  (G/AG/N/IS L/12),  Indonesia
(G/AG/N/IDN/12),  Korea  (G/AG/N/KOR/22),  Norway  (G/AG/N/NOR/17/Corr.1),
Romania (G/AG/N/ROM/10),  South Africa  (G/AG/N/ZAF/20) and United States
(G/AG/N/USA/23);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/22),  Iceland  (G/AG/N/ISL/ 13),  Japan  (G/AG/N/JPN/32),  KoreaG/AG/R/18
Page 3
(G/AG/N/KOR/23),  Norway  (G/AG/N/NOR/21),  Panama  G/AG/N/PAN/1/Corr.1),
Poland  (G/AG/N/POL/23 a nd POL/25),  Romania  (G /AG/N/ROM/11) and United
States  (G/AG/N/USA/24);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/20),  Cyprus  (G/AG/N/CYP/7),  Honduras  (G/AG/N/HND/4 and
HND/6),  Hong Kong, China  (G/AG/N/HKG/6),  Japan  (G/AG/N/JPN/34),  Korea
(G/AG/N/KOR/18),  New Zealand  (G/AG/N/NZL/18),  Poland  (G/AG/N/POL/24),
Singapore  (G/AG/N/SGP/ 4),  South Africa  (G/AG/N/ZAF/21),  Tunisia
(G/AG/N/TUN/12) and Zimbabwe (G/AG/N/ZWE/1);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  from United States  (G/AG/N/USA/25);
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Argentina
(G/AG/N/ARG/5, ARG/6 and ARG/7),  Brazil  (G/AG/N/BRA/14 and
BRA/14/Corr.1),  Canada  (G/AG/N/CAN/26),  Chile  (G/AG/N/CHL/9),  Colombia
(G/AG/N/COL/11, COL/ 12 and COL/13),  Czech Republic  (G/AG/N/CZE/18),
Dominica  (G/AG/N/DMA/1),  Honduras  (G/AG/N/HND/5),  Hong Kong, China
(G/AG/N/HKG/7),  Hungary  (G/AG/N/HUN/16),  Indonesia  (G/AG/N/IDN/13),
Israel  (G/AG/N/ISR/9),  Romania  (G/AG/N/ROM/12 and ROM/13),  Singapore
(G/AG/N/SGP/5), Slovenia (G/AG/N/SVN/10), South Africa
G/AG/N/ZAF/15/Rev .1), Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/ 13) and United States
(G/AG/N/USA/22).
14. 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 the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): from
Hungary (G/AG/N/HUN/18), Latvia (G/AG/N/LVA/1), and Venezuela
(G/AG/N/VEN/11);
(ii) on imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/23/Corr.1), Hungary  G/AG/N/HUN/17), Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/11),
and Slovenia (G/AG/N/SVN/11);
(iii) on special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/10);
(iv) on domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from Brazil
(G/AG/N/BRA/13), European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/16), and Israel
(G/AG/N/ISR/12);
(v) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Qatar
(G/AG/N/QAT/2).
15. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18.7
of the Agreement.
Other matters relating to the Review Process
(a) Deferred replies to questions raised under the review process
16. The deferred replies to questions raised at previous meetings are summarized in Part II of the
Annex to this report.G/AG/R/18
Page 4
(b) Overdue notifications
17. The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the current status of compliance with the
Committee's notification requirements, as reflected in the Room Document made available by the
Secretariat, dated 25 March 1999.
18. The representative of the United States noted th at he looked forward to the EC export subsidy
notification and wondered when the European Communities expected to submit this notification.
(c) Notification issues
19. The papers by Australia on export subsidy notifications (G/AG/W/37) and by Canada on
issues regarding market access notifications (G/AG/W/43) and domestic support (G/AG/W/44) were
discussed by the Committee in informal session.  It was agreed that for the purposes of further
informal consideration of these papers, as well as of the papers which had been discussed informallyat the November 1998 meeting of the Committee (G/AG/W/34 and G/AG/W/35 refer), the Secretariat
should prepare a note on the suggestions made relative to the Committee's notification requirements.
Part II:  Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee
Review of the WTO List of Net Food-Importing Developing Countries
20. 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/W/5/Rev.2 dated 27
March 1997.
Follow-up to paragraph 18(i) of the Committee's Re port for the Singapore Ministerial Conference on
the Decision with regard to Food Aid matters
21. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had agreed at its June 1997 meeting, that the
follow-up to the Singapore Ministerial recommendations with regard to food aid matters
(paragraph 18(i) of G/L/125, refers) would be reviewed at the regular meetings of the Committee.
22. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the negotiations on the new Food Aid
Convention had been concluded earlier in the week and made available copies of a letter from the
Executive Director of the International Grains Coun cil, Mr. Germain Denis, to the Director General of
the WTO regarding the outcome of the negotiations (issued as G/AG/GEN/35).1
23. The European Communities, Australia and the United States welcomed the progress made
and urged all food aid donors to join the new Food Aid Convention.
Secretariat Background Note G/AG/W/42
24. The Chairman noted that the Secretariat background note G/AG/W/42, dated
10 February 1999, had been prepared in response to a request made at the November 1998 meeting of
the Committee that the Secretariat provide an overview of the state of play in the implementation of
the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Net Fo od-Importing Developing Countries (G/AG/R/17,
paragraph 33, refers).
25. The delegation of Egypt thanked the Secretariat for the paper it had prepared.  As for food
aid, Egypt expressed deep concern that food aid had declined for cereals and non-cereals and
                                                     
1 Copies of the text of the new Food Aid Convention are available on request from the Agriculture and
Commodities Division (CWR Office No.1034).G/AG/R/18
Page 5
emphasized the need for the Committee to further co nsider the issue.  As for the reasons for the
decline in food aid levels, Egypt did not agree that reduced demand for food aid was an important
factor behind the decline.  The representative of Egypt noted that in his own country, food aid had
declined by 77 per cent between 1994 and 1997.  This was particularly worrying as Egypt imported
up to 50 per cent of its total food consumption.  Furthermore, he noted that the price of commodities
had increased since the end of the Uruguay Round until June 1997, when they started to decline as aresult of the Asian financial crisis.
26. Egypt further expressed its dismay over the fact that the notifications on technical and
financial assistance offered by Members between 1995 and 1997 showed that several Members had
reduced their assistance during that period.  Norway and South Africa were laudable exceptions.
Egypt also considered that there was scope for discussing how the notifications in this area could be
improved.  It was suggested that the background note could be supplemented with information on
agricultural infrastructure and productivity in the least-developed and net food-importing developingcountries and on the trade performance of these countries.
27. In respect of export credits, Egypt noted with concern the lack of progress in the negotiations
in the OECD.  As regards access to international financial institutions, Egypt believed that the related
recommendation adopted at the Singapore Ministeria l Conference had not worked.  The problem with
access to IMF facilities had been the Fund's conditionality requirements as well as the link to balance-of-payment difficulties.  While the assistance by the World Bank had increased, Egypt expressed the
hope that the World Bank would supply additional relevant information in this regard.
28. The representative of Mauritius noted that one of the key findings in the World Bank studies
referred to in paragraph 33 of G/AG/W/42 had been that distortionary impacts which had typically
been ignored in the past could be extremely important in least-developed and net food-importingdeveloping countries.  These issues needed to be addressed.  Referring to the contribution made by
UNCTAD at the November 1998 meeting of the Committee (G/AG/GEN/31 refers), Mauritius
stressed that both commercial food imports and food aid were indispensable elements needed to meet
the shortfall between domestic agricultural production and the food requirements of many least-
developed and net food-importing developing countries.  Yet, currently there had been a decline infood aid and a corresponding increase of food imports which was resulting in a change in the trade
balance of the affected countries.  The ability of these countries to finance normal commercial
imports, and not only of food, was deteriorating.  In respect of the resources of international financial
institutions, Mauritius stressed, like Egypt, that these financial institutions had conditions and criteria
which, more often than not, imposed a further burden on least-developed countries and, in particular,the net food-importing developing countries, many of which were financially heavily indebted
anyway.  Mauritius stressed that the Committee could not continue classifying the food-security issue
as a non-trade concern.  Food security was, for many Members, becoming more and more a trade
concern.
29. Offering some preliminary comments on the S ecretariat's paper, Morocco joined Egypt and
Mauritius in noting that food aid to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries was
worryingly low and that this would have to be addressed by the Committee.  Also, Morocco noted thatthe drastic increase in prices of basic products did not allow least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries to ensure the necessary level of food security.  Morocco regretted the decrease in
technical and financial assistance to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries and
stated that the Committee would have to revert to these issues as well.
30. On behalf of ASEAN, the Philippines shared the concerns expressed by Egypt in respect of
the decline in food aid during past years.  In this  respect, the Philippines welcomed the successful
conclusion of the new Food Aid Convention.  The Philippines urged Members, including prospective
Members, to join the new Food Aid Convention, as this presented a concrete way of helping the least-
developed and net food-importing developing countries.G/AG/R/18
Page 6
31. In response to the request for supplementary information, the Secretariat noted that it did not
have sufficient information in respect of agricultural infrastructure and productivity of the least-
developed and net food-importing developing countries and that other international organizations
were better placed to provide this information.  However, it undertook to look into the request
regarding trade performance although this would take some time as the Secretariat was still working
on several other papers.
32. The representative of the FAO updated the Committee on developments in the global supply
and demand balance, in particular on the food security situation and trends in cereal import bills of the
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries.  The full statement of the FAO is
contained in G/AG/GEN/36.
Process of Analysis and Information Exchange (AIE process)
Chairman's Report
33. The Committee took note of the following report by the Chairman on the recent meeting of
the AIE process:
"(i) In line with paragraph 36 of G/AG/R/10 the following is my summary report as
Chairman of the meeting of the AIE process held on 24-25 March 1999.
(ii) The discussion of the issue of non-trade concerns continued at this meeting with
papers by India "Food Security - An Importa nt Non-Trade Concern"  (AIE/44) and Norway
"Environmental Effects of Trade Liberalization in the Agricultural Sector" (AIE/48).  The
paper by India, which was the subject of preliminary discussion at the last meeting, was afollow up to their earlier paper (AIE/30) on general non-trade concerns and focused on the
issue of government support for agricultural production as part of its food security objectives.
(iii) Members acknowledged that food security was important to all countries, especially
for developing countries, and further trade liberalization was only one of several factorsnecessary to ensure reliable access to food supplies.  It was pointed out that the Agreement on
Agriculture already offers flexibility for Members to pursue food security policies.  However,
it was also noted that financial constraints reduce the ability of some developing countries to
use direct payments.  While the most effective way of improving food security was
considered to be through general economic development some Members felt that governmentintervention may be necessary to maintain production as food security insurance against such
problems as severe exchange rate fluctuations and balance-of-payments difficulties.
(iv) The discussion on the Norwegian paper focused on the extent to which production
supports are necessary to achieve certain non-trade concerns related to agriculture and the
environmental impact of these supports.
(v) While, according to the paper there was no significant relationship between levels of
support and environmental degradation, this conclusion was not shared by some Members
who considered that there were shortcomings with the data and the methodology used.  It was
also noted that indicators of the negative environmental effects of agriculture needed to be
considered against the background of the specific conditions of the areas or countries inquestion.  Opinions were expressed that the existing provisions of the Agreement on
Agriculture are already sufficient to allow supports for the environment and that measures
targeted at specific objectives rather than through general support schemes are more likely to
achieve specific environmental objectives.G/AG/R/18
Page 7
(vi) There were two papers on Article 13, the peace clause.  One from the United States
"Article 13 - Due Restraint Provisions" (A IE/37) and the other from the European
Communities "The Agreement on Agriculture and the Need for Legal Security" (AIE/53).
The paper by the United States pointed out that Article 13 is due to expire at the end of 2003
and that the Subsidies Agreement will then apply.  The EC paper suggested that legal security
gives Members time to adapt their policies and is  needed to assure them that in complying
with the Agreement on Agriculture they are protected from litigation.
(vii) It was pointed out that consensus within the WTO will be needed for any extension of
the provisions of Article 13 beyond 2003 and this could be seen as an incentive to conclude
negotiations before that date.  It was also noted that the peace clause had been an important
element in agreeing to the Uruguay Round reform programme and should form part of the
basis for further reform.  The role of the peace clause in enabling Members to shift theirsupports to the Green Box was stressed.  Some Members noted that the peace clause applies
more to the question of investigations by national authorities on subsidies rather than to
Dispute Settlement proceedings.
(viii) The United States argued in their pa per "Administration of Tariff-Rate Quotas"
(AIE/46) that additional disciplines are needed to ensure that market access opportunities are
not restricted by administrative methods.  In th e discussion, the view was supported that while
Article XIII of GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures include some
provisions on the administration of tariff quotas, these are not considered to be sufficient.
More detailed guidelines were needed both by  exporting countries to ensure that the market
access opportunities were not further restricted and by importing countries to ensure that their
administration systems satisfied the legal requirements of the WTO.   It was also pointed out
that the use of a simple indicator, like tariff quota fill, may be useful but underfill alone was
not sufficient grounds to conclude that a particular administration method is restricting trade
further than the tariff quota itself.  According to this view an analysis of the administration
method would need to examine other factors incl uding the market structure of the country and
the characteristics of the product concerned.
(ix) The paper by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic
and Slovenia "The Future Treatment of Do mestic Support Commitments in the Case of
Transition and Post-Transition Economies" (AIE/45) considered the special needs of these
countries. These Members stressed that the situation of the transition and post-transition
countries underlines the vital importance of special flexibility in the area of domestic support
in helping these countries move towards market-oriented economies.
(x) In the discussion the problems associated with market support-type measures were
pointed out as it was felt these may perpetuate th e types of inefficiencies the shift to a market
economy should remove.  It would be better to use the flexibility of Annex 2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture which permits supports for measures like investment and land
restructuring with no reduction commitments.  Other issues like high inflation may be better
addressed through macro-economic policies which would benefit the country as a whole
rather than trying to shield one sector from its effects.
(xi) The paper by New Zealand "Domestic Support:  Article 6.5 of the Agreement on
Agriculture - Blue Box" (AIE/ 49) continued the discussion on domestic support.  This paper
suggested that some Members may be maintaining trade-distorting levels of support by
shifting payments away from those that are subject to reduction commitments and intoprogrammes which qualify for the Article 6.5 exemption for payments under production-
limiting programmes.G/AG/R/18
Page 8
(xii) It was suggested that these types of payments were much less trade distorting than
market support measures.  Some Members considered them necessary to achieve certain
objectives, some of which are in the area of multifunctionality.  It was noted that payments
under Article 6.5 were more transparent and that there is nothing in the Agreement on
Agriculture to suggest the expiry of Article 6.5.  The view was also expressed, however, that
the fact that these types of payments were included in the base period AggregateMeasurement of Support calculation recogniz ed their trade-distorting nature and that
reduction commitments should be considered.
(xiii) Uruguay introduced a WTO/UNCTAD joint study "Tariff Peaks and Tariff
Escalation" (AIE/43).  The paper indicated that many countries have a number of tariff peaks
for certain agricultural products and that tariff escalation also persists in many cases.  It was
noted that these issues are of considerable importance to developing countries that see in tariffescalation a serious obstacle to expanding and diversifying their exports and to developing
their food processing industries.  The view was also expressed that the tariff rates agreed
during the Uruguay Round reflected many factors relating to different domestic situations and
particular products.
(xiv) The paper by the United States "Food Security - The Impact of Export Taxes"
(AIE/47) suggested that disciplines are needed to address the issue of export restrictions
because of the impact that they can have on food security in importing countries and the
importance of reliable access to food supplies.  While the suggestion of negotiations on this
issue was noted it was pointed out that export taxes which are part of price controls in theexporting country should be considered separately.  On the one hand, some developing
countries may need export controls in order to encourage the development of local processing
industries while, on the other hand, some countries use them to stabilize internal prices and
this may exaggerate changes in world market prices.  It was noted that export restrictions may
need to be considered along with issues like  tariff peaks and tariff escalation as all these
issues are relevant to the question of food security.
(xv) New Zealand's paper "Export Credits" (AIE/50) dealt with the use of export credits
and the need for agreed disciplines on their use.  Members were assured that the paper did not
address the issue of humanitarian aid.  While it was generally accepted that disciplines wereneeded there were different views on the timing  and location of the negotiations.  Although
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture requires Members to work towards disciplines
on export credits it was noted that no final agreement has been reached in the discussions
taking place in the OECD.  The view was expressed that these negotiations should be
concluded before the negotiations on agriculture commence.  It was also felt that Members as
a whole should be better informed of the issues under discussion.  In this context it was
important to establish the factors that could constitute subsidies in this area.  The Secretariatwas requested to prepare a factual paper on export credits and related facilities.
(xvi) The paper by El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and
Pakistan "Issues Related to Market Access" (AIE/54) was given a preliminary introduction to
the AIE process.  The paper raises some of the problems associated with the Uruguay Roundresults on market access for agricultural products, in particular products of interest to
developing countries, and suggests a number of solutions.  Also introduced to the AIE process
was the paper by Mauritius "Multifunctional Role of Agriculture in Small Island Developing
States" (AIE/51) which outlined the concerns facing small developing economies in general
and small islands in particular.  It suggests that flexibility is needed to enable these countries
to address these concerns.  Both of these papers will be the subject of further discussion,
along with the other papers submitted to the AIE process which were not discussed at this
meeting.G/AG/R/18
Page 9
(xvii) The Secretariat briefly introduced the revised background papers "Agriculture Trade
Performance by Developing Countries" (AIE/S 10/Rev.1) and "NFIDC  Decision - Actions
Taken Within the Framework of the Decision as  Notified by Members" (AIE/S8/Rev.1).  In
addition a paper on implementation of the NFID C Decision (G/AG/W/42) had been circulated
to Members and revisions of the Secretariat papers AIE/S2 on domestic support and AIE/S3
on export subsidies along with a new paper on tariff treatment of products of interest todeveloping countries are in the course of preparation."
De-restriction of Secretariat AIE/S Background Papers
34. The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had, over the last fifteen months, been
repeatedly asked by international organizations and researchers to make available the Secretariat
background papers in the context of the AIE process (AIE/S-series).  However, on the basis of therules established under the AIE process, the response to date had necessarily been negative.  On
8 February 1999 the Secretariat had sent out a fax pr ompted by two particularly urgent requests from
the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank.  The Inter-American Development Bank
had asked to have access to TRQ papers in the context of its contributions to the FTAA negotiations.
In the case of the World Bank, the request was related to the fact that the WTO and World Bank weregoing to produce a joint paper on the market access results of the Uruguay Round, including in
agriculture, for the annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics.  In line with the
guidance received in response to the February fax, these papers had been made available to the two
inter-governmental organizations.  At the curren t meeting the issue was reverted to in order for
Members to consider a more general decision in this respect.
35. The Secretariat recalled that the AIE/S papers were factual.  They contained neither policy
judgements nor judgements with respect to the quality of implementation.  Second, the papers were
based on material that was publicly available (incl uding Members' Schedules, notifications and trade
statistics).  In principle, anyone could perform the same work;  in fact, the Secretariat was aware of
on-going work by other international organizations as well as researchers.  This did not only meanunnecessary duplication of work, but was also worrying because the risk of mistakes, if the same
work was done by others, was rather high. While not claiming that the Secretariat was perfect, the
advantage that it had over others was its direct knowledge of the subject and the immediate feed-back
that it received from Members in respect of the AIE/S papers.  There was a need for a publicly
available authoritative source in order to avoid a waste of resources and the risk of misinformation.
36. The Secretariat further stressed that much of  the material was relevant in the context of
technical assistance which was not only provided by the Secretariat but also by other international
organizations.  The AIE/S papers were also valuable for research.  Yet it was not practical to give a
paper to a researcher – for use as a basis of an analysis which would eventually be published – with
the proviso that the material could only be used for personal information.
37. Drawing the Committee's attention to the fact that in the area of Services, the Services
Council had agreed to de-restrict almost all the AIE papers prepared by the Secretariat, and based onthe arguments outlined above, the Secretariat asked Members to agree that the existing AIE/S papers
be de-restricted.
38. The representative of Mexico stated that he was not in a position to accept the proposal.
Mexico believed that the AIE process was not designed with the intention of letting papers produced
in that process become public.G/AG/R/18
Page 10
39. All Members which took the floor in the subsequent discussion supported the proposal by the
Secretariat, i.e., the de-restriction of the existing AIE/S papers.2  Several Members noted the valuable
opportunity this presented for increasing the transparency of the WTO.  A number of Members
stressed the usefulness of these papers from a technical assistance point of view.
40. In light of the clear and positive reaction expressed by Members, the Chairman proposed that
the Committee approve the motion while putting on record that Mexico had not agreed.  This wouldmake it possible to give access to the Secretariat papers to international organizations and researchers,
and would particularly facilitate work designed to help developing countries to prepare for the future
negotiations.
41. The representative of Mexico did not accept this proposal.
International Intergovernmental Organizations:  Request for Observer Status
42. The Chairman recalled that, as had been agreed at previous meetings of the Committee, he
had been informally consulting with Members conc erning the request for observer status for the ACP
Secretariat, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural
Cooperation IICA.  He informed the Committee that th ere was still no consensus in this matter.  The
Chairman drew the attention of the Committee to document G/AG/W/29/Rev.3 which, in addition,
listed new requests for observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity, the South Centreand the South Pacific Forum, as well as two organizations which had earlier made generalized
requests for observer status in various WTO bodies and which had now made specific requests for
observer status in the Committee on Agriculture.  The Chairman indicated that he would continue
informal consultations concerning this issue.
Other Business
(a) Japan – Tariffication of rice
43. Japan recalled that in December 1998, Japan had decided to cease applying special treatment
in respect of rice and to tariffy rice as of 1 April 1999 in line with paragraph 2, Part A of Annex 5 tothe Agreement on Agriculture.  This entailed (i) the abolition of the current quantitative import
restriction system, replacing it with a tariff rate quota system,  and (ii) the establishment of an out-of-
quota tariff rate for imports outside the minimum access quantity.  Japan had notified its intention to
cease to apply special treatment on 21 December 1998 in document G/MA/TAR/RS/57.  The purpose
of the notification had been to allow Members to have sufficient time (three months period) toexamine the draft of the modifications and rectifications to Japan's Schedule, as required by the
26 March 1980 decision entitled: "Procedure for Modifications and Rectification of Schedules of
Tariff Concessions".
3  During this period, upon request, Japan had provided Members who had
expressed an interest with detailed explanations of the reasons for this decision, on compliance with
the methodology stipulated in the Agreement on Agriculture and of other related legal questions in
Geneva or in capitals.  Japan noted that some Members had made reservations or objections prior to
21 March 1999.  Japan did not consider, however, that the fact that the procedures for themodification of the Schedules had not been finalized prevented Japan from taking the necessary
measures in its domestic legislation in order to cease applying the special treatment on rice.  The bill
for the implementation of the tariffication of rice was currently under consideration in the Diet and
would be put into effect as of 1 April 1999.  Japan noted that an early certification of the Japanese
                                                     
2 The following Members took the floor:  Canada, Japan, Hungary, Norway, Dominican Republic,
Switzerland, EC, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, United Stat es, Uruguay, Thailand, Philippines, Bolivia, Australia,
South Africa and Panama.
3 BISD27S/25 (L/4962), refers.G/AG/R/18
Page 11
Schedule was desirable.  For this reason, Japan had been holding several clarification meetings with
Members which had presented reservations or objections.  It was Japan's hope that the objections or
reservations would be withdrawn at the earliest time possible and that the modifications to its
Schedule be certified shortly.
44. While Australia, Uruguay, Argentina and United States welcomed Japan's intention to cease
to apply special treatment for rice, they expressed concern about the methodology that Japan hademployed and was proposing to have certified in its WTO Schedule.  Technical consultations were
ongoing in an attempt to address these concerns.
45. Thailand noted that although it was not one of the countries which had made a reservation on
the proposed modification of Japan's Schedule, it wished to make some comments as it was one of the
largest rice exporters to the world market, as well as to Japan.  Rice was closely linked to the
livelihoods of 50 per cent of its population.  While welcoming Japan's intention to tariffy its rice
regime, Thailand stressed that the new tariff-based regime as well as future consultations withMembers had to be transparent and in conformity with WTO rules and disciplines.  Thailand urged
Japan to import rice at an amount not less than the in-quota commitment undertaken after shifting to
rice tariffication.  Thailand also proposed that Japan apply an ad valorem tariff for imported rice
rather than a specific tariff rate.
(b) Chile: EC Canned fruit regime
46. Chile informed the Committee about its latest meeting with the European Communities in
respect of subsidies applied to the EC canned fruit industry, which took place on 2 March 1999.
While Chile appreciated the responses provided by the European Communities, the problem had not
been solved.  This had been only a first step taken in trying to find concrete solutions to a situation
that had been unfavourable to Chile for a long time.  Chile assured the EC delegation that their
responses would be analyzed.  Chile would endeav our to find ways of clarifying how to address
situations where the processes did not seem to work in an appropriate way in order to guarantee that,
notwithstanding respect for commitments and compliance by Members, the interests and rights of
other Members were not affected negatively.  Chile emphasized that although the interpretation ofCommunity regulations on the marketing of these fruits was the responsibility of each of its member
States, this fact could not exempt the commitments entered into by the EC vis-à-vis other Members.
47. Australia, South Africa and Uruguay endorsed Chile's statement.  The United States noted
that while there was now more detail on the EC canned fruit regime, their concerns remained and they
looked forward to further consultations on the matter.
(c) Uruguay:  AIE papers in electronic format
48. The delegate of Uruguay drew the Committee's attention to the fact that it was unable to
obtain AIE documents from the Secretariat in electroni c form.  This was of concern to Uruguay as it
was endeavouring to manage all communications via e-mail in an effort to cut budgetary costs.
Uruguay could not find any justification for this – in its view it was a logistical matter of supplying
AIE documents to delegations.  If there was no objection in the Committee, Uruguay requested that
the Secretariat be authorized to give this documentation in electronic form to delegations.
49. Several Members supported Uruguay's request.  The Secretariat noted that to supply AIE
papers on diskette was feasible but entailed some work.  As a first step this could be done on a request
basis.G/AG/R/18
Page 12
Election of Chairperson
50. In accordance with Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/142),
Ambassador Nestor Osorio Londoño was elected by acclamation as Chairman of the Committee to
hold office until the end of the first meeting in 2000.
Date of Next Meeting
51. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on Thursday and
Friday, 24-25 June 1999.  The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be
issued on Friday, 11 June 1999.G/AG/R/18
Page 13
ANNEX – Part I
Page
Part I Summary of specific points raised on  notifications and responses thereto
(17-18 November 1998 meeting)14
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1 ):
European Communities (EEC/14#); South Africa (ZAF/19*).14
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2 ):
Australia (AUS/23 and Co rr.1), Canada (CAN/23#), Guatemala (GTM/5 and
Corr.1#), Iceland (ISL/ 12*), Indonesia (IDN/12), Ko rea (KOR/22), Romania
(ROM/10), South Africa (ZAF/ 20*); United States (USA/23).15
(iii) relating to the use of the special sa feguard (Table MA:3 to MA:5):  Japan
(JPN/32#), Korea (KOR/23), Pola nd (POL/23#, POL/25), United States
(USA/24).21
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  Australia
(AUS/20*), Cyprus (CYP /7#), Japan (JPN/34), Korea (KOR/18*), New
Zealand (NZL/18), Poland (POL/24), South Africa (ZAF/21*), Tunisia
(TUN/12), Zimbabwe (ZWE/1).23
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from
reduction (Table DS:2):  United States (USA/25)32
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitment s (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  Argentina
(ARG/5 and ARG/6), Ca nada (CAN/26), Czech Repub lic (CZE/18), Israel
(ISR/9), Romania (ROM/13), Sout h Africa (ZAF/15/ Rev.1*), Tunisia
(TUN/13), United St ates (USA/22).33
Part II Deferred replies to questions on notifi cations raised at previous meetings 36
(i)
(ii)relating to the administration of tariff and other quota commitments
(Table MA:1):  United States (USA/19);
relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  Guyana (GUY/1).36
36
Attachments
1. G/AG/N/ZAF/19   -Sche dule of duties for the dairy and wine and spirits
TRQs37
2. G/AG/N/GTM/ 5   - Import data for products subject to tariff rate quota
commitments, calendar year 199640
3. G/AG/N/US A/23  -Tariff quota access for tobacco (1998/99) 41
4. G/AG/N/KOR/23  -Calcu lation of volume-based trigger levels 42
5. G/AG/N/ARG/6    -Argentina’ s commitments under the Food Aid
Convention43G/AG/R/18
Page 14
ANNEX – Part I
Review of Notifications by the Co mmittee on Agriculture on  25-26 March 1999
Summary of Specific Points Ra ised and Responses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/14   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Whether changes made to the import
arrangements are aimed at improving the level of tariff
quota fill; clarification regard ing previous not ifications of
such arrangements, since these cannot be identified ineither EEC/1 or EEC/3.Grape juice and must :  Changes result from GATT
Article XXIV:6 negotiations.  The related TRQs were
opened in September 1996 - Rum and taffia :  Changes
reflect the outcome of sectoral tariff negotiations agreedupon in the Singapore Ministerial Conference in December1996.  This TRQ was opened on 1 July 1997 and will run
until 1 January 2003, by which time the applied duty will
be reduced to zero.
There has been no previous notification regarding the
above TRQs.  Administration arrangements were notmodified since the implementation of each TRQ.
South Africa   G/AG/N/ZAF/19*   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Reason for introducing import arrangements
replacing previously applied duty rates which were lowerthan the in-quota tariff rates;  whether the applied rates ofduties have been increased to their bound levels for out-ofquota imports; magnitude of such increase.A review of South Africa's tariff dispensation for dairy and
wine and spirits has led to an increase in the applied MFNrate of duty to above the in-quota tariff rates for someproducts, necessitating the introduction of tariff quotas.
The applied tariffs following this review remain below
bound rates.
New Zealand:  In-quota ta riff rates currently applied. Attachment no. 1  indicates the base, final bound, currently
applied, and in-quota tariff rates for the relevant products.
Canada:  Whey  and wine and spirits  - Detailed description
of the provisions for new entrants; portion of the tariffquotas set aside for new entrants.Five per cent of each TRQ is reserved for imports from
new entrants on an annual basis.G/AG/R/18
Page 15
Table MA:2 Notifications
Australia  G/AG/N/AUS/23 and Corr.1  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan: Cheese  - Reason why the quantity of in-quota
imports represent approximately 80 per cent of the totaltariff quota volume in 1996 and 1997;Imports of cheese reached 9,405.3 tonnes in 1998,
representing an increase of more than 3 per cent on theimports recorded in 1997, resulting in a TRQ fill rate ofalmost 82 per cent.  A revised notification with the correct
level of imports notified by Australia was issued by the
Secretariat on 17 March.
Administration details; This TRQ is administered by the Australian Customs
Service on behalf of the Government on the basis of a 23-
month rolling average of import performance (ending onthe 31 May immediately preceding the allocation year).Unused shares are not reallocated during the course of a
year and are not carried over to the following year, except
where there are exceptional circumstances preventing thelanding of a consignment in the period immediately beforethe new tariff quota period begins.  No penalties apply toindividuals or companies that do not utilize their quota.
However, since allocations are based on historical trade
performance, individuals or companies that do not utilizetheir TRQs will either lose their allocation or have it
reduced.
Allowance for new importers. New importers are able to purchase TRQs directly from
existing quota holders on a commercial basis, i.e. withoutgovernment involvement.
Canada  G/AG/N/CAN/23#   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand: Barley and barley products,
wheat  - Given persisting low fill rates in 1997/98, whether
Canada has considered implementing a lower in-quota
tariff rate or simply an applied tariff rate for these products.Canada considers that low in-quota rates are already
provided.  In 1999, these were:  (a) wheat: 2.74 C$/tonne;
(b) barley:  1.32 to 1.43 C$/tonne, depending on the
specific product line; (c) barley products:  0.40 to
1.20 Ccts/kg, or between 4 and 11 per cent ad valorem ,
depending on the product considered.  Currently, there areno plans to review or change these tariff rates.
Reasons for underfill. Underfill rates were market driven and mainly due to
Canada's competitiveness in the production and processing
sectors.  The barley products TRQ has consistently
registered low utilization rates because of the relativelymodest import demand for the types of products covered.These three TRQs are administered on a first-come, first-
served basis at the border and no prior allocations, permits
or fees are required.
New Zealand: Cream, dry whey  - Reasons for underfill. Underfill resu lted from continuously weak domestic
demand. Imports showed a small, and apparently
temporary, increase in 1996/97 due to market conditions.
All requests for permits were granted. It should also benoted that most imports of whey ingredients and wheyproducts enter under other tariff classifications which arenot subject to TRQ limits.G/AG/R/18
Page 16
Guatemala  G/AG/N/GTM/5# and Corr.1   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Reasons for notifying (a) and (b) volumes
for certain products; tariffs applied.Volume (a): refers to a scheduled market access
commitment in respect of which a TRQ has been
implemented. Volume (b): autonomous expansion of
Volume (a), which benefits from identical market access
conditions (i.e. same in-quota tariff rates).  AutonomousTRQs are designed to ensure an adequate domestic supply
of goods based on yearly estimations of domestic
consumption and production.
Significance in terms of expansion of tariff quota volumes. The autonomous quantities do not represent an expansion
of the scheduled TRQ volumes and tariffs.  Guatemala's
Schedule LXXXVIII is the only reference in that respect.
New Zealand: Meat and edible offal, common wheat,
wheat or meslin flour - Reasons for underfill;In view of the limited propens ity to import wheat or meslin
flour, allowance was made for all non-utilized volumes to
be converted into their wheat equivalent (using a 0.72
conversion factor), and adding the resulting quantities tothe wheat TRQ 45 days before the end of the period.  Allthe wheat TRQ was imported, including with respect of thevolumes resulting from the c onversion process applied to
wheat or meslin flour.
Validity periods of import licences: incidence on TRQ fillrates.There is no relation between the validity period of import
licences and TRQ fill rates. Validity periods are determined
according to product characteristics and do not influence
import demand from the private sector.
Canada: Import data for all of the products for whichGuatemala has TRQ commitments.Attachment no. 2  refers.
Iceland   G/AG/N/ISL/12*  Tariff Quota F ill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Butter  -  Reasons for the low levels of
imports under the minimum access commitments.The price level for locally-produced butter being very low,
importers showed a lack of interest and the Ministry ofAgriculture has not received any request for the butterTRQ.
Australia: Beef and sheepmeat - Whether underfill of
these TRQs is due to SPS requirements.Confirmed.  Iceland is a small and isolated island where the
domestic breeds of cattle and sheep are extremely sensitiveto a variety of diseases.
Canada:  Preparations (animal feeding)  - Reasons for
underfill.Imports are unlimited.  Tariff applied on mixed feeds:
7.80 Ikr./kg. or 11 US cents, but not exceeding 55 per centof the c.i.f. price, which corresponds to one fourth of theWTO binding.
Canada:  Vegetables prepared or preserved, other
(ex 2004 .9000)  - Reasons for underfill.Imports are unlimited.  A duty is only applied to one item
under ex 2004.9006 (52 Ikr/kg. or 75 US cents whichcorresponds to one third of the bound rate).
Canada:  Wheat and meslin flour  - Reasons for underfill. Imports are not restricted.  Wheat and meslin flour for
human consumption are duty free.  A 55 per cent dutyapplies to imports of unmixed animal feeds.  This duty,however, is reimbursed to the importers who only pay
0.80 Ikr./kg.  (1.5 US cents).  The real or effective applied
rate is therefore only 4 per cent.G/AG/R/18
Page 17
Indonesia   G/AG/N/IDN/12  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Milk and cream of fat and its products  -
Outstanding notifications of imports under this tariff quotafor 1995, 1996 and 1997.This information will be notified as soon as received from
the concerned authorities.  For the 1995, 1996 and 1997,addenda to IDN/8, IDN/9 and IDN/12 will be submitted.
Australia: Rice - Current administrative arrangements; role
of Badan Urusan Laogistik (BULOG).Any enterprise, including BULOG, can import rice under
free market conditions.  On 16 November 1998, Indonesia
notified the WTO through G/STR/N/4/IDN of the
Presidential Decree 19/1998 (21 January 1998) and theDecree of the Minister of Industry and TradeNo. 439/MPP/Kep/9/1998 (22 September 1998) abolishing
the exclusive or special privileges in the meaning of
Article XVII of the GATT 1994 previously enjoyed byBULOG.  BULOG therefore is no longer the sole importerand/or exporter of rice, sugar, wheat and wheat flour,soyabean and garlic.
Republic of Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/22  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Meat of swine, meat of fowls, orange juice
- Confirmation that these tariff quotas were abolished on30 June 1997; tariffs applying since 1 July 1998.Confirmed.  As notified in KOR/12, no TRQs were
implemented since 1 July 1997.  The MFN rates indicatedin Korea's Schedule have been applied since then.Effective 1 July 1998, the applied tariff rates are: meat of
swine: 32.3 per cent; meat of fowls :  29 per cent; orange
juice: 57.6 per cent.
Australia/European Communities/United States:
Birds eggs  (HS 0408.99) -  Reason for the lack of in-quota
imports in 1997.This TRQ, which is managed on a first-come, first-served
basis, was not filled because birds' eggs not in shell/not
dried are difficult to handle and costly to transport andstore.
Australia:  Reasons for underfill in 1997:
Manioc pellets, and oil cake ;Both products are imported for animal feeding purposes.
Manioc pellets are highly substitutable with other feed
grains.  Oilcake of sesame s eeds is highly substitutable with
soyabean oilcake, cotton seed oil cake, colza seed oilcake,etc., which were fully liberalized and only subject to asingle (low) tariff rate.
Artificial honey, other potatoes, chestnuts; Underfill was caused by nega tive price gaps  between
domestic and international prices.  However, as the
domestic price of other potatoes rose in 1998, the TRQ was
fully utilized.  Domestic price falls persisted in the case of
artificial honey and chestnuts.
Fruit trees, mulberry trees, seed potatoes. Underfill was caused by a lack of import demand despite
the application of low or duty-free in-quota tariff rates.
Australia/New Zealand: Explanations regarding the dropsregistered by the fill rates in 1997 for:Most imports were affected by either changes in relative
prices or high substitution ef fects between products under
TRQs arrangements.
Other milk and cream; The TRQs for most dairy products such as skimmed milk
powder, whole milk powder and butter were fully utilizedwhile the TRQ for other milk and cream was not utilized atall.  This was due to switching import demand towards
milk-containing food preparations (HS 1901) which is
subject to a single tariff rate.
Sweet potatoes. This was due to substitution effects towards sweet potato
starch (HS 1108.19) which reached more than
9,000 tonnes, twice as high as the committed TRQ.G/AG/R/18
Page 18
Republic of Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/22  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  In view of consistently low fill rates being
registered, whether Korea has considered applying a lowerin-quota tariff rate or simply an applied tariff rate.-
United States:  Beef  -  Steps taken in 1998 and 1999 to
broaden the pool of eligible importers following the
financial crisis; details concerning the allocation of the
1999 TRQ (32,000 tonnes); actions taken by LPMO in1997 and 1998 to stabilize domestic prices; reasons forseparating domestic and foreign beef at retail levelallegedly to prevent deceptive labelling practices.As reflected in Korea's notifications, the market-access
commitments relating to beef trade have been faithfully
implemented and the related TRQs have been consistently
fully- or over-utilized every year, until the country was hitby the financial crisis.  The current distribution system didnot therefore affect beef trade.  The situation is rather the
result of macroeconomic events which affected the country
during 1998.
A sharp reduction in national income and domestic demand
discouraged beef imports which have been recovering only
at the beginning of 1999.  The dramatic devaluation of the
local currency made beef imports more expensive andfurther reduced import demand.  The devaluation alsoprovoked a sharp increase in the price of imported feedgrains forcing livestock farmers to abandon farming.  An
excessive supply of cattle was thus channelled to
slaughterhouses, further accelerating the downfall ofdomestic prices.
Further comments:  Korea
 noted that the effects of the 1998
financial crisis are not directly relevant to the review of the
present notification which covers the 1997 implementationyear  In addition, whatever unfilled TRQ quantities in1997, these were carried over for the 1998 period.  More
importantly, the issue raised by  the United States is already
under examination within the framework of another, andmore appropriate, WTO forum, especially established for
this purpose.
Romania   G/AG/N/ROM/10  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia :  Phasing mechanism used to expand tariff quotas
to their end volumes in 2004;Schedule LXIX provides that the final bound import
quantities will be implemented only during the final yearof the period 1995-2004, meaning that no commitmentregarding yearly increases of TRQ levels was made.
However, depending on the TRQ utilization rates (derived
from import statistics) of preceding years, Romaniaincreases quantities annually for those products in respectof which an initial quota was committed (i.e. all products
except potatoes for seeding, vermouth and undenaturated
ethyl alcohol (HS 2207)).  If, in any given year, import
statistics show that TRQ utilization levels are below
previous year levels, then the same TRQ quantity isopened for the following year.
Potatoes for seeding, vermouth and undenatured ethyl
alcohol (HS 2207)  -  Whether the TRQs were opened in
1997; if so, whether the notification of administrationarrangements will be submitted.Schedule LXIX provides for the implementation of the
final import quantities for the final year of the period1995-2004.  However, since 1997, Romania autonomously
opened TRQs for these products.  A possible expansion of
such TRQs may be examined in light of the statisticaltrends described above. The current administrationarrangements are as notified in ROM/4.  During the period
May-December 1997, the applied import duties were
below the bound in-quota duty levels.G/AG/R/18
Page 19
Romania   G/AG/N/ROM/10  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand :
Cheese  - Reasons for the non-increase of the TRQ quantity
in 1997; large fall in fill rates in 1997.The in-quota import performances for the two preceding
years were inferior to the in-quota level:  1995: 505 tonnes
out of 800 tonnes of TRQ access; 1996: 1,046 tonnes out
of 1,600 tonnes of TRQ access.  For this reason, Romaniamaintained the same quota levels in 1997 as in 1996.
Australia/New Zealand:   Beer, meat and edible offals of
bovine and pork , Undenatured ethyl alcohol (HS 2208)  -
Low TRQ fill rates.TRQ underfill in 1996 was due to a lack of import interest.
No request for quota allocation was refused.  During the
period May-December 1997, Romania applied reducedimport duties to agricultural products on an MFN basis atlevels lower than the in-quota rates, which explains theunder- utilization of TRQs in 1997.
South Africa   G/AG/N/ZAF/20*  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Reasons for TRQ underfill (incl. dairy
products  and dried vegetables ).South Africa is of the opinion that its administration
procedures, as notified to the WTO, do not restrict marketaccess opportunities.  For most products subject to TRQarrangements, the in-quota imports equate to, or approach,
the bound  TRQ quantities.  The low fill rates registered
for some products must have resulted from supply anddemand factors.
United States   G/AG/N/USA/23  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan:  Beef  - Reason for 20,000 tons increase of tariff quota
volume over the previous year.As notified in USA/2, this increase reflects the inclusion
of a previously established allocation for Argentina,
committed in the Uruguay Round, that had not beenincluded in the total TRQ quantity.  This allocation wasapproved by USDA in June 1997.
Australia/European Communities:  Animal feed containing
milk  -  Reason for underfill in 1997.Market access opportunities were opened.  Since no
import restricting measures are in place and since theproduct is imported on a firs t-come, first-served basis,
under-utilization is tied to supply and demand factors.
European Communities/Australia:  Dried cream  -  Reason
for underfill in 1997.See above reply
European Communities:  Dairy mixtures;  evaporated and
condensed milk;  low fat cheese  - Reason for underfill in
1997.See above reply
Australia/European Communities/Japan:  Ice cream  -
Reason for underfill in 1997.See above reply.
Australia/European Communities:  Olives  - Reason for
underfill in 1997 (pl ace packed stuffed olives, green olives,
other, green whole olives).See above reply.
Australia/Japan:  Cotton  - Reasons for low fill rates in 1997. See above reply.  Short staple cotton and cotton waste
have a zero in-quota duty.
Australia:  Low fat chocolate crumb  -  Reason for underfill
in 1997.Under-utilization is tied to supply and demand factors.
This product is not being used by domestic manufacturersas in the past, resulting in low in-quota imports.G/AG/R/18
Page 20
United States   G/AG/N/USA/23  Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan:  Tobacco  - Details on market access commitments
and out-of-quota tariff rates resulting from Article XXVIIInegotiations.Attachment no. 3  gives the tariff quota access
commitments for tobacco in the 1998/99 year.  The out-of-quota rate is 350 per cent.
New Zealand:  Noted the increase of fill rates for livestockproducts compared to USA/16 – Reasons for such increase;
reasons why complete uptake of tariff quota access not
achieved.In-quota imports for most livestock (i.e. dairy) products
increased in 1998 due to high domestic dairy prices.
Australia:  Given persisting low fill rates for several tariffquota products, whether the implementation of lower in-quota tariff rates or applied tariffs has been considered.In-quota rates on the items mentioned by Australia are
already low, and there is little indication that a lower rate
would change the level of imports since under-utilization
of TRQs is tied to supply and demand factors.  Loweringin-quota duties in case of underfill could merit furtherdiscussion in the next round of negotiations.G/AG/R/18
Page 21
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/32#  (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Reason why SSG was activated when the
TRQ has been underfilled during the entire implementationperiod.The SSG was automatically activated because the volume
of imports reached the trigger level, regardless of TRQunderfill.  The trigger level was established on the average
import volume of the past three years (1995-97) in
conformity with Article 5.1.
Canada/New Zealand:  Breakdown of the import volume
that triggered the SSG into tariff quota imports and other
imports;  whether imports of inulin during current period
(39 tonnes) are part of the TRQ.No difference is made between in-quota and out-quota
imports for the purposes of es tablishing the trigger level.
Imports of inulin during the current period were part of the
TRQ.
New Zealand:  Additional level of duty applied to importedproducts.The additional tariff of 42 Yen per kg., corresponding to
one third of the out-of-quota tariff (126 Yen per kg.) was
imposed during the period 1 November 1998-31March 1999.
Republic of Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/23  (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/European Communities:  Sweet potato and wheat
starch  - Calculation details for the trigger level for each
product (volume-based SSG); volume of imports beforeSSG was applied.Attachment no. 4  refers.
Canada/United States:  Wheat starch  - Justification for
applying price-based and volume-based SSGs concurrently
during 1997;  conformity with Article 5.1.The SSGs were invoked during the overlapping period in
1997 but not concurrently, in the meaning of Article 5.1.
In cases where both volume-based and price-based SSGscould have been triggered, they were invoked selectivelyin order to avoid concurrent invocation.
Canada:  Outstanding MA:3 notifications. Korea invoked the volume-based SSG in respect of two
products only, which were mainly imported from non-WTO countries in 1997.  These notifications remained
outstanding due to Korea's limited experience in operating
the new internal system.  Korea undertook to notify SSGactions at the earliest possible date.
Poland   G/AG/N/POL/23 #  (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Justification of trigger level of 105 per cent
(instead of 125 per cent) given that market accessopportunities appear to amount to 7.2 per cent.The base trigger level applied was 125 per cent.  However,
Article 5.4  allows changes in consumption to be takeninto account in the determination of the final trigger level.
Canada/New Zealand:  Breakdown of the import volumethat triggered the SSG into (a) in-quota imports and (b) other
imports; whether any other imports counted in the volume of
current imports used to trigger the SSG.In-quota imports of pork amounted to 39,060 tonnes in
1998.  Import licences were allocated and the TRQ was
fully utilized.   The decision to trigger the SSG was taken
after total imports exceeded the TRQ quantity. Preferentialimports are not taken into account in the calculation of thetrigger volume.
New Zealand: Additional level of tariff applied to importedproducts.No additional duties were imposed on pork imports within
TRQ access.  A 20 per cent duty was charged on out-ofquota imports, consiste ntly with Art. 5.4.G/AG/R/18
Page 22
Poland   G/AG/N/POL/25  (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Level of imports for each product subject to
additional duty under the notified SSG actions.This information is not available as customs office
procedures are not computerized and do not permit thecollection of SSG-related import statistics.
United States   G/AG/N/USA/24  (Table MA:5) -  Preliminary review
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Appreciated the inclusion of volumes of
trade involved in this notification. Reason why small importquantities, in particular of dairy  products, continue to be
affected; need for SSG action given the minimal impact of
such small quantities on the US market.Customs procedures are such that the SSG is applied
automatically if SSG conditions are filled, which mayaffect small import quantities.
Mauritius:  Details on price-based SSG taken in respect ofsugar .Undertook to provide an answer.G/AG/R/18
Page 23
Table DS:1 Notifications
Australia   G/AG/N/AUS/20*   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Main reasons behind the 33 per cent
increase in Green Box support in the 1997/98 periodcompared with 1996/97 period.This increase is attributable to three main elements:
(a) Sub-national expenditure on general services (56 per
cent of the increase), with the most significant
increases occurring in infrastructure, inspection,
marketing and promotion, and extension andadvisory, services.  The actual increases inexpenditure are not as large as reflected in the
notification, as improvements in the data collection
from the State Governments resulted in moreprogrammes being included in the 1997/98notification than in the previous year.  Expenditure by
State Governments on infrastructure projects,
principally irrigation-related, is one-off expenditureand a decrease is expected in following years.
(b) Commonwealth expenditure through the National
Heritage Trust; and State expenditure on
environmental programmes by the State
Governments. These programmes specifically addressenvironmental issues and expenditure (20 per cent ofthe total increase) has increased in response to greaterenvironmental awareness.
(c) Commonwealth expenditure on payments for relief
from natural disasters (13 per cent of the totalincrease).  Severe drought conditions prevailed in
many parts of  Australia during 1997/98. Since then
these conditions have improved and a lower level ofexpenditure is expected in subsequent years.
Cyprus   G/AG/N/CYP/7#   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Structural Adjustment Assistance through Resource Retirement Programmes:  "Package of measures to
limit/stabilize dairy and beef production "
Australia/Japan: Whether such support includes Blue Box
programmes; if so, whether a separate ST/DS:3 could be
provided; monetary value of related expenditures; reason of
increased spending compared with previous year.This measure, approved by the Council of Ministers, is
basically a structural adjustment programme in line with
Annex 2, para 10(a) for "remove livestock" component and
10(b) "slaughtering of animals".  The goal of reducing thenumber of animals has been achieved but some of themeasures will continue to be implemented in order to
maintain the number of animals at reduced levels and
honour the commitments undertaken by the Governmenttowards the farmers.
The recurrent assistance to local edam cheese
manufacturers has already been included in the 1997 AMS.
The increase of the monetary value of expenditures is due
to the launching of a multi-annual structural adjustmentprogramme in mid-1996.  Early 1997, BSE-related
concerns prompted beef consumption to fall which
warranted special attention.G/AG/R/18
Page 24
Cyprus   G/AG/N/CYP/7#   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States:  In-depth explanation on how the slaughter
and disposal of milking cows operate (based on review of
CYP/2);  conformity with Annex 2 criteria, or alternatively,
with Article 6.5.A premium is pad per head of male or female animal
slaughtered at the age of 12 and 14 months respectively.
Alternatively, the animals must be slaughtered at a carcass
weight below 240 and 195 kg.  The subsidy is pad onlyonce in the lifetime of any animal.  The annual operatingbudget is C£900,000 but in 1998, payments did not exceed
C£430,000.  For animals exported in the period 1995-98 by
Cyprus Milk Industry Organi zation within the framework
of the structural adjustment programme, farmers wereguaranteed a price in order to have sufficient incentives to
slaughter/export their produce.  The one-time aid to
facilitate the slaughter of milking cows, and comply withthe maximum numbers allocated to each farm,  wasterminated in 1997.  Recurrent aid is granted to local
cheese manufacturers so that they observe certain
wholesale prices and maximum annual quantity(1,700 tonnes).
Regional Assistance Programmes:  Wine Grape Area Subsidy
Australia/United States:  Compliance with each of the
criteria listed under Annex 2, para. 13.  Based on replies
provided in G/AG/R/15, payment rates are related to thetype or volume of production after the base year (e.g.payment rates are set each year).  In addition, there does
not appear to be a linkage between the payments and
reducing production.This subsidy was introduced many years ago.  When
Cyprus prepared its Schedule, it was considered appropriate
to classify this subsidy under para 13 (a) and (c) ofAnnex 2.  It is listed in Cyprus' Schedule under supportmeasures exempt from reduction commitments.  Wine
grapes are grown in disadvantageous regions subject to a
high depopulation trend.  The subsidy does not provide anincentive to increase production because only existingvineyards are eligible; the amount of the subsidy is not
revised every year; and there is no linkage between the
subsidy and the volume of production.  Moreover, themaintenance of vineyards is considered essential topreserve the environment in these rural areas.
Other:  Citrus Area Subsidy
Canada:  Conformity with Annex 2, paras. 5 and 6 (b) to (e)criteria.Although this measure was terminated in 1997, Cyprus is
ready to consider it as a non-exempt measure should it bereintroduced.
New Zealand:  Confirmation that 1997 was the last yearthis subsidy was provided.Confirmed.  This does not preclude the re-introduction of
such a measure in the future, always within the frameworkof the country's WTO commitments.
Supporting Tables DS:4 to DS:7
Australia/New Zealand:  Barley  – Reasons behind the
decrease in volume of production eligible for market pricesupport; basis of the external reference price.Extreme drought conditions prevailed during the 1996/97
season and barley production fell to 36,000 tonnes.  Theexternal reference price used in ST/DS:5 is the same as inCyprus' Schedule of commitments.
New Zealand:  Groundnuts  and potatoes  -  Confirmation
that non-exempt direct payments were discontinued in1997.Two ad hoc types of assistance were granted to groundnuts
in 1996  (a) a price support measure to compensate falling
producer incomes resulting from trade liberalisation and (b)compensation payments to producers whose farm outputwas damaged due to long periods of storage in storehouses.
Financial assistance to potato growers was notified under
Article 18:3 of the Agreement, as a payment from relieffrom damages caused by low temperatures to early springcrop potatoes in certain areas.G/AG/R/18
Page 25
Cyprus   G/AG/N/CYP/7#   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand/United States: Pork, poultry, eggs  -
Functioning of price fixing mechanism prior to its
abolishment in 1997; calculation of support for the period
January-July 1997.This omission will be rectified in a forthcoming corrigenda
to this notification.  Thus, the value of the current total
AMS for 1997 is: C£25.5 million.  Price fixing was
abolished on 11 July 1997 for poultry meat and eggs; on
12 September 1997 for pork.
Japan:  Tobacco, edam cheese, tomatoes, pears, peaches
- Whether Cyprus has started implementing new product-specific subsidies on these items; reasons.Cyprus currently implements a support programme oriented
towards income-support for agricultural producers.  Theneed to implement such a programme arose from (a) tradeliberalisation and the termination of border protection for
agricultural products which led to price reductions and the
non-disposal of part of the domestic production in somecases (pears and peaches); (b)  the gradual restructuring andharmonization of domestic agricultural policies with those
of the European Communities si nce Cyprus is now in the
pre-accession phase (e.g. tobacco).
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/34  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
United States:  Infrastructura l Services - Description of
operations; specific reference to Annex 2 criteria;
breakdown of expenditures by service; nature of "marketfacilities" being provided.(a) Extension and Infrastructural Services for the
Technological Improvement of Agricultural
Production:  Construction and rehabilitation of small-
scale drainage facilities and rural roads;
(b) Infrastructural Services for Agricultural Sector and
Rural Areas:  includes two sub-programmes: 1.
Construction and rehabilitation of irrigation and
drainage facilities (including dams and otheragricultural infrastructures), and 2. Construction and
rehabilitation of rural sewerage facilities and rural
roads, etc.
(c) Infrastructural Services for Market Facilities: includes
two sub-programmes: 1. Services for facilities in
wholesale markets such as sales space, warehouses,
auction machines and parking lots, and 2.  Publicfacilities, parking lots and waste disposal facilities inthe food retail market.
These programmes do not have the effect of providing
price support to producers.  Government support is targetedto the provision of generally available public activities.Japan therefore believes  that such measures meet theGreen Box criteria.
Canada:  Agricultural Insurance Scheme - Notification of
this programme under two headings, in ST/DS:1 as well as
in ST/DS:9;  whether these are two distinct programmes
and relationship, if any; operation;  calculation details ofsupport included in ST/DS:1.This insurance scheme compensates the losses incurred by
farmers as a result of disasters.  The government provides a
subsidy as part of the premium paid by farmers.  The
programme has two components: a subsidy paid as part of apremium for compensation in cases where a farmerexperiences losses exceeding 30 per cent of the average
harvest (classified under the Green Box category); and asubsidy paid as part of the premium for compensation incases where a farmer experiences losses below 30 per cent
of the average harvest (classified under the Amber Boxcategory, and fulfilling the de minimis  criteria).G/AG/R/18
Page 26
Japan   G/AG/N/JPN/34  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
AMS
Canada:  Request for a separate identification of prefectural
and sub-national support measures when these are includedin the calculation of the AMS.Market price support constitutes more than 90 per cent of
the AMS and is administered uniformally at the national
level.  As reflected by the data obtained by the national
government, all support measures in local governmentssuch as prefectures are green except the Vegetable PriceStabilization Project.  This project is not included in the
calculation of the AMS because it fulfils the de minimis
conditions.
Canada:  Whether some measures notified to the SCM
Committee should have also been notified to the
Committee on Agriculture.  These include:
- Measures for rice, wheat, barley The government buys and sells these products in order to
stabilize the supply, demand, and prices of the main food
items.  In the case of rice, buying occurs for stockpiling
purposes.  The value of the net government expenditurewhich is calculated as the difference between the totalexpenditure (consisting of purchase payments, personnel
and administrative expenses, subsidies, etc.), and the total
revenue generated, mostly from the sale of thesecommodities, was notified to the SCM Committee.  Thevalue of direct payments to producers (93.9 million Yen
which are included in total government expenditure) was
notified to the Committee on Agriculture.
-  Measures for sugar These measures, notified to the SCM Committee, amounted
to 49 billion Yen and are conceptually included in the AMS
figure. Support measures totalling 15.011 billion Yen were
included in the SCM notification and representgovernmental support to the Agriculture and LivestockPromotion Corporation (ALPC).  The ALPC is involved in
the buying and selling of sugar produced from beet or sugar
cane in particular areas.  The government provides supportfor the difference between buying and selling values.  Onthe other hand, as indicated in the footnote, the reported
AMS concerns the total support at the farmers’ level,
calculated using a formula which converts the external andinternal price difference in sugar into the price difference inraw materials (i.e. beet and sugar cane).   Therefore,
although it is not possible to directly compare the values in
the SCM and AMS respective notifications, the former isconceptually included in the latter.
-  Farming Modernization Fund Interest Subsidy and
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries Finance Corporation
SubsidyThis subsidy is included in  the present notification as
agricultural loans in the Green Box category.
Canada:  Meat of swine  – Noted that no deficiency
payments were provided in 1996; description of the
programme.This programme was introduced as a compensation
measure for domestic producers facing the gradual
reduction of tariffs resulting from the Uruguay Round.  Asexplained during the 12
th Meeting of this Committee in
September 1997, the programme is operated in such a way
that when the market price of pigmeat falls below the
stabilization fund trigger price and the producers’ fund runsshort, governmental funding is provided to the producers’fund for the payment of compensation to contractedfarmers.  The government provided 10.5 billion Yen in
1995.  Since then, no payments were provided by the
government.G/AG/R/18
Page 27
Republic of Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/18*  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand:  1997 value of production for all
AMS products in respect of which de minimis  clause was
invoked in 1997.
Further comments:  Canada  recalled that the reporting
procedures allowed for provisional as well as final
notifications to be submitted within given deadlines. In
response to New Zealand, Korea undertook to follow-up on
the availability of 1997 production data.Given the submission deadlines provided for in G/AG/2,
and in view of the non-availability of timely official
statistics, Korea has consistent ly used the production values
of the preceding years as proxies when presenting itsdomestic support notifications to the Committee onAgriculture.  For the sake of consistency, Korea willcontinue to use the same reporting method.
New Zealand  G/AG/N/NZL/18  Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Community Irrigation Scheme – Whether
individual producers benefit from this programme.The notified expenditures are for the provision of off-farm
capital works on the one remaining irrigation scheme stillowned by the Crown.
Korea/United States:  Rural Sector Assistance Programme -
Reason why expenditures exceed the estimated cost of feedand production losses; consistency with Annex 2, para 8 c)
which requires that payments shall not compensate for
more than the cost of replacing such losses; programmedetails; reason why this programme was not included in the1995 and 1996 notifications.This programme is a short-te rm benefit involving payment
for essential living expenses to  farmers suffering from the
effects of natural disasters.  The payment of $NZ184 per
week for a married couple with no dependent children or
$NZ195 for a couple with dependent children, isapproximately 75 per cent of the normal unemploymentbenefit.  Payment is conditional on producers being
affected by a government recognized adverse climatic
event.  Government recognition and policy response isbased on advice by support coordinators and governmentfield officers on their assessment of numbers of families in
extreme financial circumstances due to adverse climatic
events.  The duration of farmers’ eligibility for benefitpayments is determined by the government.
The total expenditure, amounting to $NZ384,000 actually
represents only 0.15 per cent of the estimated cost of feed
and production losses.  The payment is not linked to currentproduction nor is it conditional on the future production ofcertain types or quantities of products.
As stated in footnote 3, this programme was not included in
previous notifications because those preparing thenotification had not been aware of the scheme.  TheMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry is not responsible foradministering the programme.G/AG/R/18
Page 28
Poland    G/AG/N/POL/24   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Supporting Table DS:1
Canada/Japan/Korea:  Noted that the monetary value of
measures has doubled compared to the previous year.  New
programmes under (b) and (c) are notified.  Background
information and rationale for such increase;  whether newprogrammes have been introduced since 1996; if so,whether DS:2 notifications will be submitted.The nature and number of Green Box programmes
remained unchanged hence there is no need for DS:2
notifications.  However, some changes in the classification
of Green Box measures were introduced in 1997 in order toimprove the overall level of transparency and bring thedescription of measures into line with the distinct Annex 2categories.  The main changes were:
1. The programmes formerly classified in 1996 under
"Biological  progress in field production"  and"Biological progress in animal production"  now fall
under the "Research" category, which explains why
expenditures under this latter category have increased.
2. "Overcoming animal infection and illness" is now
reported as "Animal health control and protection".
Expenditures increased in 1997 especially on
"Territorial network of veterinary health services”.
3. "Chemicalization of agriculture and plant protection"
is  reclassified as "Inspection services".  Expenditure
in 1997 was higher but no new programmes were
included in that category.
Australia:  Protection and Relief from Natural Disasters -
Conformity with Annex 2, para 8 criteria; meaning of
"protection against".Government funds were used to partly compensate farmers
from the effects of the flood, officially recognized by the
competent authorities as a natural disaster.  Expenditures
were incurred in respect of: subsidies on seeds for cropssown during the fall season; subsidies on calcium-basedfertilizers;  reconstruction of livestock herds in affected
areas; renovation of real-estate used by institutions
financed from the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture andFood Economy.  All measures comply with Annex 2,para 8.  "Protection against"  means "protection againstpoverty resulting from the flood".
Korea: State/municipal governments - Description;
conformity with relevant Annex 2 criteria.These measures are designed to cover the costs of state and
municipal administration units responsible for the
implementation and control of related agricultural policy in
Poland.  Those expenditures are  in full conformity withAnnex 2 criteria.
Australia/Canada/United States:  Modernisation of Rural
Infrastructure and Environment Protection - Operations;
conformity with Annex 2, para 11 in specific terms.Funds were allocated to:  construction of roads, water
supply, infrastructure, treatment plants, modernization of
farm size and structure to prevent fragmentation of land,etc. in rural areas, as well as incentives to farmers,encouraging them to engage, for example, in agra-tourism.This programme complies with Annex 2, para 11 criteria.
Supporting Tables DS:4 to DS:9
Japan/New Zealand:  Common wheat  - Reason for the
increase of eligible production and market price supportover last year.Contrary to the two previous years during which shortages
occurred, the 1997 harvest was substantially bigger leading
to surplus production, a situation which prompted market
price support measures.G/AG/R/18
Page 29
Poland    G/AG/N/POL/24   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand/United States:  Pork - Whether
market price support was discontinued in 1997; whether the
50,000 tons purchased by the Agricultural Market Agency
(AMA) during 1997 were made at administered prices; ifso, such support should be reflected in ST/DS:5.
Note:  It is the view of the United States
 that, generally-
speaking, if the AMA announces an applied administered
price (such as a procurement price) for a commodity, thoseproducts should be reflected in ST/DS:5.  Also, unless aspecific quantity is announced as eligible for this pricesupport, total production should be used in this calculation.There was no market price support for pork in 1997.  The
AMA did not buy pork in 1997.  Consequently, anotification is not necessary.
Poland does not agree that all agricultural products for
which an intervention price was set but which were notsubject to intervention should be notified in ST/DS:5.
Australia/Canada:  Potato starch, hops and honey  -
Source of external reference prices; nature of administered
price and eligible quantities; noting that market price
support for honey should read 7.11 million PLN, whether acorrigendum will be submitted.The external reference prices for potato starch, hops and
honey were based on Polish export prices in the base period
1986-88.  The volume of intervention in 1997 for starch
and hops was based on the estimated 1996 market surplusand forecasted 1997 production.  Market price interventionwas derived from an analysis of the estimated productionprofitability for those commodities in Poland and
forecasted world prices.  In the case of honey, the price
support is calculated on the basis of estimated profitabilityof the sector.  The sole objective is to support the decliningbee production.
Poland thanked the delegations for pointing out some errors
and undertook to submit a revised version of thisnotification as soon as possible.
1997Applied administered
price (PLN/tonne)Eligible production
(Million tonnes)
Rye 370.0  87.47
Milk 570.4 139.0Canada/New Zealand:  Rye and milk  – Recording of the
calculation of market price support in ST/DS:5; reason whyde minimis  exemption was not claimed in 1996; value of
production figures for rye and milk in 1996.
(a) Value of rye production (1996): 2.0483 billion PLN
(5,653 thousand tonnes)
(b) Value of milk production (1996): 5.9994 billion PLN
(11.355 million litres).
The de minimis  exemption was not claimed in 1996.
Without this exemption, the 1996 total AMS remained wellbelow the bound level of Poland’s commitments.
United States: Sugar  - VAT exemption for sugar sold to
honey producers:  Noted that tax exemptions are notincluded in the AMS calculation.Undertook to provide an answer.
New Zealand:  Non-product specific  (ST/DS:9):
Subsidies to improved seeds – Confirmation that such
subsidies were discontinued in 1997.Because of the 1997 flood, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food Economy decided to allocate funds within its budgetto subsidize the purchase of seeds by the flood victims.G/AG/R/18
Page 30
South Africa    G/AG/N/ZAF/21*   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Farm Labourer Housing (Green Box)-
Whether the programme has been discontinued in 1997.Confirmed.
Canada/New Zealand:  Confirmation that external reference
prices were adjusted for inflation (external reference prices(G/AG/W/30/Rev.1) multiplied by 1997 exchange rate
Rand/US$ divided by base period exchange rate
Rand/US$); request that Current total AMS reported inZAF/5, ZAF/13 and ZAF/21 be based on the same fixedexternal reference prices.South Africa confirms that it used a fixed US Dollar
reference price to calculate its market price support inRand.  This is conformity with a condition explicitly
provided for in a footnote to South Africa’s Uruguay
Round Schedule XVIII, Part IV, Section I, pp. 851.  Thereis therefore no need to recalculate previously notifieddomestic support as is suggested.
New Zealand: Maize  – Confirmation that market price
support was discontinued.Confirmed.
New Zealand: Wheat  – Confirmation that (a) market price
support should read 1,172.41 million Rand instead of
1,160.22 million Rand (b) consequently, Current TotalAMS should be 2,210.49 million Rand.Specific levies or fees paid by producers amounting to
12.20 million Rand were deducted from the calculated
support of 1,172.41 million Rand, which brings the finalfigure to 1,160.22 million Rand.
Tunisia    G/AG/N/TUN/12   Domestic Support (Table DS:1) -  Preliminary review
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Reason why external reference prices were
adjusted for inflation since, according to availableinformation, the inflation rate during the period underreview was only 3.6 per cent (International Financial
Statistics Yearbook 1998, IMF);  noted that if there had
been no such adjustment, Tunisia would have exceeded itstotal commitment levels.For the sake of transparency, the level of domestic support
has been notified as calculated by Tunisia.  Tunisia believesthat the reported figures truly reflect the actual level ofdomestic support to agricultural producers.  The calculation
method is based on average prices in the period 1986-88,
and adjustments take into account the rate of inflation aswell as exchange rate fluctuations.
Undertook to provide a detailed answer upon receipt of
written questions to be conveyed to the concerned capital-
based authorities.G/AG/R/18
Page 31
Zimbabwe    G/AG/N/ZWE/1   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/United States:  Ge neral measures: Irrigation and
Extension : conformity of "payments for electricity bills"
with criteria of Annex 2, para 2(g) which allows for the
reticulation of generally-available public utilities but does
not allow for the inclusion of subsidies to inputs or
operating costs, or preferential user charges.
Note:  Members noted that the inclusion of direct payments
in the Green Box category is inconsistent with the general
criteria of para 2 which states that general services shall
not involve direct payments to producers or processors.  Ifthese services are being provided as part of a model farmor experimental station for research/educational purposes,
then they can probably fit under general services.
Zimbabwe should re-evaluate this measure in the context ofAnnex 2, para 2 criteria and possibly consider whether itmight be more relevant to the Special and DifferentialTreatment provisions  of Article 6.2.
Australia:  Criteria used for the eligibility of payments
under the calf-heifer scheme.
New Zealand:  Farms bought for redistribution by
Government – Description of measures.These questions will be conveyed to the competent capital-based authorities.G/AG/R/18
Page 32
Table DS:2 Notifications
United States   G/AG/N/USA/25   New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
European Communities:  Whet her there has been formal
recognition by the competent authorities of a natural
disaster or damage to specific crops or specific regions.
Canada/New Zealand:  Reason why a five-year average
yield has been chosen as the historical yield for this
programme (as opposed to Annex 2 criteria of a three-yearperiod or a three-year average based on the preceding fiveyears, excluding the highest and the lowest entry).
Canada/European Communities:  Confirmation thatpayments received for the losses incurred remain below the100 per cent threshold defined in the Agreement onAgriculture; provisions in place which ensure that suchcriteria is met.
Canada:  Confirmation that support notified excludesspending on crop insurance.
Switzerland:  In view of the differing amounts being quotedby distinct sources, confirmation is sought that the cost ofthe measure is not to exceed the notified am ount (i.e.
US$1,500 million).
Switzerland:  Other similar income-support measures haverecently been announced, which would affect the dairy andmeat sectors;  whether the related notifications areforthcoming;  within which deadlines.These questions will be referred to the capital-based
competent authorities.G/AG/R/18
Page 33
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
Argentina G/AG/N/ARG/5   Export Subsidies (Table ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Explanation regarding the decline of oilseed
exports in 1996/97 compared with the previous period.This decline was due to adverse climatic conditions which
mainly affected soya bean production.  Production levelsdeclined by approximately 1.4 million tonnes.
Argentina G/AG/N/ARG/6   Export Subsidies (Table ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  In view of footnote 2, whether the volume of
wheat reflects actual food aid shipments.Attachment no. 5 gives a detailed explanation of the
nature of Argentina’s commitments under the Food Aid
Convention (FAC).
Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/26   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Portions of total exports of butter, skimmed milk
powder, cheese and other milk products exported under theSpecial Milk Classes 5(d) and 5(e).In the 1997/98 dairy year, 10,818 tonnes of butter;
26,422 tonnes of cheese;  29,857 tonnes of skimmed milk
powder; 55,985 tonnes of other milk products were
exported through classes 5(d) and 5(e) of Canada’s SpecialMilk Classes Scheme.
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/18   Export Subsidies (Table ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Confirmation that exports of  those products that
are in excess of the notified export subsidy volumes werenot subsidized.Confirmed.
Israel   G/AG/N/ISR/9   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Whether export subsidies for vegetables,
fruit, citrus fruit, goose liver and cotton were (a) terminatedin 1997/98 or (b) not used during that marketing year.No export subsidies were provided to goose liver and
cotton during the 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 marketingyears.  No export subsidies were granted during the 1998
marketing year to vegetables, fruit and citrus fruit.  The
export subsidy system was not terminated.  However, thecurrent policy is to reduce the provision of such subsidiesto a minimum.
Romania   G/AG/N/ROM/13   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Korea:  Reason for the increases in (a) the subsidized
export volumes of butter and butter oil, and (b) exportsubsidies on bovine meat, pigmeat, sheepmeat and meatproducts, and poultry meat.This question is irrelevant in view of the introductory
statement made on the first page of the present notification.The figures reported in Table ES:2 refer to "total exports"and not "total subsidized exports".G/AG/R/18
Page 34
South Africa  G/AG/N/ZAF/15/Rev. 1   Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Meat  and other sugars  -  Reasons why the
subsidized exports reported in ZAF/15 were revised to zeroamounts in ZAF/15/Rev.1.This present final notification rectifies mistakes which were
made in the provisional one (i.e. ZAF/15).
New Zealand:  Sugar  - Whether the producer-financed
export subsidy is currently operating; whether the
announced review of legislation has been completed;
implications for the sugar export subsidy programme.The review of the sugar industry referred to at the
June 1998 Meeting of the Committee on Agriculture has
not been finalized.  South Africa will keep the Committee
informed.
Tunisia  G/AG/N/TUN/13   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 and ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Noted that canned sardines is not covered
by the Agreement on Agriculture.Took note of the statement.  The required answers will be
provided upon receipt of written questions.
United States  G/AG/N/USA/22   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Note:  Operation of  the US reporting system:  Export subs idy quantity commitments are reported on the basis of awards
and not shipments.  The United States believes that this method fully complies with the Agreement on Agriculture and that
it is the most timely and consistent way to keep both the industry and the WTO Membership informed.  The award totals inthe notification indicate quantities of products that may receive an export subsidy at some point in the future.  In a general
sense, awards represent the US commitment to subsidize exports.  These are announced at the beginning of each GATT
year.  Whether the export actually occurs is left to the market.  The ES:1 notifica tion indicates the amount of US product
awarded from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998.  Since no time limit is placed on the actual shipment, awards from oneaccounting year may be shipped in another accounting year.  Thus ES:1 figures do not match ES:2 figures since the latterreflect actual export shipments without regard to award date.
Australia:  Data on the actual level of subsidized exportvalues and volumes in Fiscal Year 1997, in particular forbutter and butter oil, skimmed milk powder, cheese andother milk products;Subsidized export values are shown in column 3 of
Table ES:1 in terms of outlays.  For volumes, Table ES:2shows the US export shipments.  Subsidized export
shipments were (tonnes):  butter and butteroil: 15,727;
cheese:  4,700 ; other milk products:  6,434; skimmed milkpowder:  115,079.  These figures do not match the awardfigures used for column 4 in Table ES:1.  In the US
reporting system, awards made in one reporting period are
not necessarily shipped in the same period.
Australia:  Confirmation that any exports above
commitment levels were made without the benefit of export
subsidies (except for skimmed milk powder).Confirmed.  Table ES:2 shows that US exports were higher
than commitments for 11 of the 13 eligible products.  Of
these 11, no subsidies were provided for eight products.For the three remaining products, two (i.e. barley andcheese) exports above commitment levels were notaccomplished with the benefit of export subsidies.
Australia:  Reason why the total volume of exports of othermilk products is smaller than the total volume of subsidized
exports; relation with different reporting bases.This discrepancy reflects the reporting of total export
shipments in Table ES:2 and the reporting of announcedawards in Table ES:1.
Canada/Korea/New Zealand:  Confirmation that an unusedamount of the 1996 export subsidy commitments wascarried over;  quantity of "awarded" volume that was
actually exported in 1997;  whether the subsidized export
volume of 96,303 tonnes represents only export subsidiesresulting from awards issued for the first time in the 1997
export subsidy year; whether any other subsidized exports
of skimmed milk powder for which awards were originally
issued in previous years occur during this period;Unused subsidies from previous years were carried over.
The quantity of "awarded" volume of skimmed milkpowder that was actually exported in 1997 is not availablegiven the way the accounting system currently operates.
The subsidized export volume of 96,303 tonnes represents
export subsidies that resulted from awards issued for thefirst time in the 1997/98 subsidy year.  Export can occur inone year from awards made in a previous year.G/AG/R/18
Page 35
United States  G/AG/N/USA/22   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Clarification of footnote (6) "previously
unused quantities"; whether this refers to previously unused
"awarded" quantities, unused "committed" quantities that
had not been awarded in previous years, or something else;in case reference is made to previously unused "awarded"quantities, consistency of this flexibility given that
commitments and notification details are reported on the
basis of "awarded" product.The notification reflects unused committed quantities that
had not been previously awarded.
Argentina/Australia/Japan:  Circumstances which led to
increased export subsidies on skimmed milk powder, and
the invoking of the flexibility provision;  future intentionsregarding recourse to Article 9.2(b).The United States in previous meetings opposed the use of
flexibility provisions of Art. 9.2.  However, recourse by
other Members to such provisions placed the country under
tremendous pressure to respond at a time when severeeconomic difficulties have affected many domestic farm
sectors and world prices were depressed by the continued
use of dairy export subsidies by trading partners.
Great restraint was shown in the use of export subsidies.
As reflected in Table ES:1, seven out of the 13 eligibleproduct categories did not receive export subsidies.  The
remaining figures represent one-time subsidy actions which
are well below the annual commitment levels.  The reformsin domestic farm programmes have led to a greater relianceon market forces and reduced the overall need for export
subsidies.  Future use of  the flexibility provisions will
depend on market circumstances.
New Zealand:  Rationale behind the increased use of exportsubsidies "awarded" to six products.The level of subsidized exports in the reporting periods is
based to a great extent on the interaction between domestic
and international prices.  When the spread between USprices and international prices narrows, the need tosubsidize exports declines.
Japan:  Food aid  - Whether food is procured from abroad,
from the domestic markets, or from both sources;breakdown by procurement source;  whether procurementand storage expenses of domestically-produced foodstuffs
are borne by the Government; category of domestic support
under which such government assistance is classified.Food aid is procured from domestic sources.  Procurement
and storage expenses are paid by the government.  Foreignfood aid is not covered by domestic support provisions andis not included in the US notification on domestic support.
Domestic food aid is notified under the Green Box
category (Annex 2, para 4).G/AG/R/18
Page 36
ANNEX – Part II
Deferred replies to questions on notifications raised at previous meetings
Table MA:1 Notifications
United States   G/AG/N/USA/19    Tariff Rate Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Members at the
November 1998 meeting (G/AG/R/17, pp. 15 refers)Response by Notifying Member
Background:  During the 17-18 November 1998 meeting of
the Committee, Colombia had reiterated its concerns
regarding the decrease of its allocation, both in percentage
and in absolute terms, compared to that of Mexico.Mauritius had also requested confirmation that the
allocation of 25,000 tonnes made to Mexico was not
included into MFN quantities, but above them.As part of its Uruguay Round commitments, the United
States established a minimum level of 1.117 million tonnes
for the raw cane sugar TRQ.  In accordance withArticle XIII of GATT 1994, allocations are based on theproportions supplied due account being taken of any special
factors which may have affected trade during the
representative period 1975-81.  Under the NAFTA, para 14of Annex 703.2, Section A, the United States agreed toprovide Mexico access for raw or refined sugar of7,258 tonnes.  Mexico’s access was increased to
25,000 tonnes in FY 1997 because Mexico was determined
to be a net surplus producer.  The USTR allocated25,000 to Mexico at the beginning of this quota year tosatisfy these NAFTA obligations.  The individual country
percentage allocations have remained the same for
Colombia and Mauritius since their establishment.Colombia’s allocation is still 2.42 per cent (or25,273 tonnes).  Mauritius’ allo cation is still 1.21 per cent
(or 12,636 tonnes).  The allocation for the nine minimum
quota countries in the amount of 7,258 tonnes each and
Mexico’s NAFTA allocation of 25,000 do not count incalculating a country’s percentage share.
Table DS:1 Notifications
Guyana   G/AG/N/GUY/1   Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Members at the
November 1998 meetingResponse by Notifying Member
Australia:  Whether industrial producers r eceive payments
under the Agriculture Loan Programme.No.  This programme is concerned with policy reform and
is not a support mechanism for individual farmers.
New Zealand:  In cases where Green Box measures havebeen co-financed by other Funds, whether figures reflecttotal expenditure on the project or simply the expenditureby the Government of Guyana.All reported figures represent total expenditures
(Government of Guyana and contributions fromIDB/IFAD.)G/AG/R/18
Page 37Attachment no. 1
G/AG/N/ZAF/19 – Schedule of duties for the dairy and wine and spirits TRQs
Tariff line Description of product Applied tariff
MFN
1Bound rate
MFN
%Base rate
MFN
%In-quota tariff
rate (20%
bound rate)
%
04.03 Buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yoghurt, hephir, or other fermented
or acidified milk, and cream whether or not concentrated or containing
added sugar or sweetening matter of flavoured added fruit, nut or cocoa:
0403.10 - yoghurt free 96 215 19.2
0403.90 - other 450c/kg 96 215 19.2
04.04 Whey, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other
sweetening matter:  products consisti ng of natural milk constituents,
whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, not
elsewhere specified or included:
0404.10 - Whey and modified whey, whether or not concentrated or containing
added sugar or other sweetening matter450c/kg 96 215 19.2
0404.90 - Other 450c/kg 96 215 19.2
22.04 Wine of fresh grapes, including fortified wines;  grape must (excluding
those of heading no. 20.90):
2204.10 - Sparkling wine 25% 73 133 14.6
2204.2 - Other wine;  grape must with fermentation prevented or arrested by the
addition of alcohol:
2204.21 = In containers holding 2L or less:
- Grape must with fermentation prevented or arrested by the
addition of alcohol
2204.21.10 - Unfortified wine 25% 73 133 14.6
- Fortified wine 25% 73 133 14.6
2204.21.20 = Other:
- Grape must with fermentation prevented or arrested by the
addition of Alcohol25% 98 196 19.6
2204.21.90 - Unfortified wine 25% 98 196 19.6
- Fortified wine 25% 98 196 19.6
2204.3 - Other grape must 25% 98 196 19.6G/AG/R/18
Page 38Tariff line Description of product Applied tariff
MFN
1Bound rate
MFN
%Base rate
MFN
%In-quota tariff
rate (20%
bound rate)
%
22.05 Vermouth and other wine of fresh grapes flavoured with plants or
aromatic substances:
2205.10 - In containers holding 2L or less 25% 73 133 14.6
2205.90 - Other 25% 98 196 19.6
22.06 Other fermented beverages (for exampl e, cider, perry, mead);  mixtures of
fermented beverages and mixtures of fermented and non-alcoholicbeverages, not elsewhere specified or included:
2206.00.05 - Sparking beverages 25% 73 133 14.6
2206.00.15 - Sorghum beer 25% 73 133 14.62206.00.80 - Other unfortified beverages 25% 73 133 14.62206.00.90 - Other 25% 73 133 14.6
22.07 Undenaturated ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 per
cent volume or higher;  ethyl, alcohol and other spirits, denatured or any
strength:
2207.10 - Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 per
cent vol. or higher317.64c/L of
absolute alcohol597 1494 119.4
2207.20 - Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength 317.64c/L of
absolute alcohol597 1494 119.4
22.08 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of less than
80 per cent volume;  spirits, liqueurs and other spirituous beverages:
2208.20 - Spirits obtained by distilling grape marc
= In containers holding 2L or less 154c/L 67 122 13.4= Other 136c/L 121 303 24.2
2208.30 - Whiskies
= In containers holding 2L or less 154c/L 67 122 13.4= Other 136c/L 121 303 24.2
2208.40 - Rum and Tafia
= In containers holding 2L or less 154c/L 67 122 13.4
= Other 136c/L 121 303 24.2
2208.50 - Gin and Geneva
= In containers holding 2L or less 154c/L 67 122 13.4= Other 136c/L 121 303 24.2
2208.60 - Vodka
= In containers holding 2L or less 154c/L 67 122 13.4G/AG/R/18
Page 39Tariff line Description of product Applied tariff
MFN
1Bound rate
MFN
%Base rate
MFN
%In-quota tariff
rate (20%
bound rate)
%
= Other 136c/L 121 303 24.2
2208.70 - Liqueurs and cordials:
2208.70.10 = In containers holding 2L or less 154c/L 67 122 13.4
= Other 136c/L 121 303 24.2
2208.70.90 - Other
= In containers holding 2L or less 154c/L 67 122 13.4= Other 136c/L 121 303 24.2
1
Expressed either as per cent ad valorem  or in national currency.G/AG/R/18
Page 40
Attachment no. 2
G/AG/N/GTM/5  -  Import data for products subject to tariff rate quota commitments,
calendar year 1996
Product description (in Spanish only) HS NumberBound TRQ
quantity
(tonnes)Imports
(tonnes)
Carne de animales de la especie bovina, fresca orefrigerada y congelada0201 y 0202 1,028 644
Carne de animales de la especie porcina, fresca,
refrigerada o congelada0203 323 285
Leche y nata (crema), sin concentrar, sin adición de azúcar
ni otro edulcorante0401 11,262 2,890
Hortalizas, (incluso silvestres) de vaina secas desvainadas,
aunque estén mondadas o partidas0713 2,790 2,386
Uvas, frescas o secas, incluidas las pasas 0806 16 4,937
Sorgo de grano (granífero) 1007 2,919 81
Habas (frijoles, porotos, fréjoles) de soja (soya), incluso
quebrantadas1201 1,650 322
Harina de semillas o de frutos oleaginosos 1208 29,464 977
Aceite de soja (soya) y sus fracciones 1507 1,000 5,747
Aceite de palma y sus fracciones 1511 92 5,166
Aceite de girasol y de algodón 15121 y
15122160 31,446
Aceite de maíz y sus fracciones 15152 11 1,282
Azúcar de caña o de remolacha y sacarosa químicamente
pura1701 9,258 16
Tortas y demás residuos sólidos de la extracción del aceite
de soja (soya) incluso molidos o en pellets2304 33,820 96,763
Tabaco en rama o sin elaborar, cigarros (puros), los demás
tabacos y sucedáneos de tabaco, elaborados2401, 2402 y
240362 896
Note: These products are those for which the Governme nt of Guatemala has decided not to activate bound
tariff quotas for the time being;  better access conditions than those established in Schedule LXXXVIII are
applied to imports of those products.
Source: Bank of Guatemala.G/AG/R/18
Page 41
Attachment no. 3
G/AG/N/US A/23  -  Tariff quota access for tobacco (1998/99)
Country Quantity (mt)
Argentina 11,000
Brazil 80,200
Chile 2,750
European Community 10,000
Guatemala 9,625
Malawi 12,000
Philippines 3,000Thailand 7,000
Zimbabwe 12,000
Other countries or areas 3,000
Out-of-quota tariff rates on tobacco are 350 per cent.G/AG/R/18
Page 42
Attachment no. 4
G/AG/N/KOR/23  -  Calc ulation of volume-based trigger levels
Wheat starch
Average quantity of imports (1994-96) 65 tonnes
Domestic consumption (1994-96) 15,838 tonnes
Market access opportunity 0.4 per cent
Base trigger level 125 per cent
Absolute change in domestic consumption (1994-95):
15,677 - 17,102 = - 1,425 tonnes
Trigger level: (65 tonnes X 125%) - 1,425  = 1,343
tonnes105 per cent, in accordance with Article 5.5
65 X 105% = 69 tonnes
Sweet potato starch
Average quantity of imports (1993-95) 6,565 tonnes
Domestic consumption (1993-95) 19,873 tonnes
Market access opportunity 33.0 per cent
Base trigger level 105 per cent
Absolute change in domestic consumption (1994-95):
25,563 - 18,390 = 7,173 tonnes
Trigger level: (6,565 X 105%) - 7,173  = 14,067 tonnesG/AG/R/18
Page 43
Attachment no. 5
G/AG/N/AR G/6   -  Argentina’s commitments under the Food Aid Convention
Argentina undertook a commitment under the Food Aid Convention to grant a contribution of
35,000 tonnes of wheat a year for as long as the Convention remained in force, i.e. from 30 June 1995to 30 June 1998, plus a one-year extension lasting until the middle of this year.
1. Taking into account the obligations outstanding from the previous Convention of 1991, food
aid consisted of the following:
(a) A total of US$2 million in aid was granted to Haiti, in an operation which has now
been completed.  The final amount contributed was 13,500 tonnes of grain, plus themonetized equivalent of 8,648 tonnes, wh ich covered the cost of the operation.
(b) The remainder of the contribution for the year 1994 (another US$2 million) was
granted to Nicaragua.  This consists of an 8,288 tonne purchase of maize (corn) in
Buenos Aires (which will be shipped to Nicaragua in the next few weeks) and anapproximately equivalent amount of grain which was monetized to pay operational
costs.
2. Food aid for the year 1995 (the first under the current Convention) consisted of:
(a) 25 per cent (about US$1 million) was allocated to Sierra Leone.  The purchase of
grain has been completed (1,555 tonnes of maize (corn) flour, which is equivalent to
2,636 tonnes of wheat according to the conversion table) and it has been transported
to the port of Dakar (Senegal).  Here it remains while awaiting an improvement in the
domestic political situation of the country of destination which would enable it to bedistributed.
(b) The remaining 75 per cent of the money making up the aid commitment for the
year 1995 (about US$3 million) has been transferred to Rome and made over to the
World Food Programme (WFP), pending the political decision on its destination.
3. The commitment for 1996 (the last year of application of the Convention, except for the
extension), amounts to approximately US$4 million, and this money has also been deposited in Rome,
pending the political decision on who the beneficiaries will be.
4. As regards the aid for 1997 and 1998 (the extension year of the Convention, from
30 June 1998 to 30 June 1999), the money has not yet been made available and it has yet to bedecided who the beneficiaries will be.
__________