RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/23
27 July 2000
(00-3096)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ME ETING HELD ON 28 JUNE 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its twenty-third regular meeting on 28 June 2000.  In
accordance with Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/142), Ambassador Jorge Voto-
Bernales, of Peru, and Mr. Yoichi Suzuki, of Japan, were elected by acclamation as Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the Committee to hold office until the end of the March meetings in
2001.  As agreed by the General Council at its meeting on 7-8 February 2000, the Committee meeting
in Special Sessions is to be presided by the Chairman and the regular meetings of the Committee by
the Vice-Chairman ( WT/GC/M/53, paragraph 39, refers) .
2. The agenda of the meeting as contained in WTO/AIR/1335, as modified by the deletion of the
question raised by the United States  regarding G/AG/N/POL/32, was adopted.
Part I:  The Review Process
Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the Reform Programme:  Article 18.6
(a) Canada:  Brazil – Export subsidies  provided by PROEX
3. Canada expressed concern that Brazil, through its export credit programme PROEX, could be
contravening the provisions on anti-circumvention of export subsidy commitments.  Canada asked
Brazil to provide data on the value and volume of exports of various agricultural products that had
benefited from PROEX.  Furthermore, it seemed that a number of agricultural products eligible for
PROEX were not part of Brazil's Uruguay Round scheduled export subsidy reduction commitments.
Canada wanted to know how Brazil ensured that any subsidized export credits received by such
products would be in conformity with Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
4. The representative of Brazil responded that Canada's questions had been forwarded to the
competent Brazilian authorities and that an answer would be forwarded to Canada as soon as possible.
(b) Canada:  Mexico – Export subsidies  provided for durum wheat
5. Canada referred to an announcement that Me xico would provide export assistance for the
export of 300,000 tonnes of durum wheat in 2000.  Canada enquired about the status of the
programme and asked Mexico whether it planned to notify the programme as an export subsidy andwhether this was the first time since Mexico's last notification in 1995 that export subsidies had been
provided for wheat, maize, beans, sorghum and sugar.
6. The representative of Mexico responded that Canada's questions had been sent to the relevant
authorities in Mexico City for consideration and that the replies would be forwarded to Canada upon
receipt.G/AG/R/23
Page 2
(c) Canada:  Panama – Market access
7. Canada expressed serious concern regarding a number of trade-restricting actions taken by
Panama since last autumn.  In particular, Canada  was worried about the increasing number of delays
and rejections of licences for various products under the import licensing system operated by the
Executive Directorate of Quarantine.  Canada also reverted to an issue raised at the November 1999
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture relating to tariff increases for evaporated milk, pork andpotatoes and the lack of a minimum level of access through tariff rate quotas for the latter two
products.  Canada inquired as to what Panama planned to do in order to respect its WTO
commitments relating to import licences and tariff regimes.
8. Panama responded that, although request forms had changed and a new authorization
certificate had been drawn up, the same procedures as before were being used in granting import
licences in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary matters.  Sanitary and phytosanitary licences were
granted once the necessary requirements had been met before importation and there was a list ofproducts which did not have to meet these requirements before being granted import licences.
However, requests for import licences could be rejected in the case of products originating from a
factory which had not received prior authorization.  In the case of evaporated milk, the sanitary
condition of evaporated milk from Canada was not being questioned, the problem related to changes
in the documentation and was being examined through judicial procedures.
9. Concerning the process for acquiring sanitary and phytosanitary licences, the representative of
Panama noted that it was a public process which consisted of filing a completed request form that was
analysed by the competent agronomists or veterinarians of the Dirección Ejecutiva de Cuarentena
Agropecuaria (DECA). Once the licence had been granted, stamped and signed, it was returned,
through Unit 41 of DECA, to the applicant.  The sanitary and phytosanitary import and/or transitlicence cost 500 Balboas and was valid for 60 calendar days.
10. With regard to market access, Panama noted that the tariff quotas for pork and potatoes were
in the process of being determined for the year 2000.  On 18 October 1999, the tariff quotas for parts
of the pork meat and potatoes tariff lines had been set at the level of Panama's WTO bound rates,
which was higher than the 15 per cent tariff that had applied to these products in 1998.  As importshad been above the bound tariff quota quantities, as for 1998, no quotas were opened in 1999 for
those products.  The delegate of Panama informed the Committee that for the second half of the
current year, the respective tariff quotas would be opened in conformity with Panama's WTO
commitments.  Nonetheless, up to May 2000, imports of both pork and fresh potatoes were higher
than the bound tariff quota quantities which showed that there were no restrictions on import for theseproducts. Concerning annual quota quantities relating to other tariff quotas, 70 per cent of the dairy
products quota, 100 per cent of the tomato products quota and 100 per cent of the rice quota,
respectively, had already been opened, in line with Panama's WTO commitments.
11. Canada sought confirmation that since, according to the representative of Panama, the only
licences required for importation into Panama related to SPS requirements, these would be in
conformity with Panama's obligations under the SPS Agreement.  Canada also looked forward to a
quick opening of the tariff quotas for potatoes and pork for the year 2000 as previously mentioned bythe representative of Panama.  New Zealand, supported by the European Communities, noted its
concern with changes to SPS certification as they related to trade in dairy products.  These changes
had made it more difficult for New Zealand to participate in Panama's market, particularly for
evaporated milk, and New Zealand hoped for consultations between Panama and its trading partners
in order to reform the import system. The representative of Panama reiterated that, in conformity withPanama's accession procedures, there had been no changes to the procedures since 1997 as only the
certificate and the request forms had been changed.G/AG/R/23
Page 3
(d) New Zealand:  Venezuela – Dairy import regime
12. The representative of New Zealand reported that New Zealand had raised the issue of newly
implemented tariff quota arrangements for dairy products with Venezuela several times before,
including detailed discussions on methods used to allocate import licences.  New Zealand, supported
by Uruguay, expressed its ongoing concern about delays in the allocation of licences, the lack of
transparency as well as the lack of detailed regulations covering Venezuela's import regime for dairyproducts.  
13. The delegate of Venezuela confirmed that seve ral meetings had already been held with New
Zealand regarding this issue and Venezuela would continue to be forthcoming with both New Zealand
and Uruguay, with a view to finding a satisfactory solution to the matter.  The administration of tariff
quotas for milk powder in Venezuela was transparent and in conformity with the relevant WTO
import licensing provisions.  The delegate of Venezuela stated that traditional importers were
allocated 90 per cent of the quota and the remaining 10 per cent was reserved for new importers.  Todate, approximately 60 per cent of the total quota had been filled.  Venezuela further noted that
traditional importers were also the main buyers of powder milk.  All the information relating to
licences was set out on the web site of the Ministry of Production and Commerce at
platino.gov.ve/MAC/INDICE-P.HTM . Furthermore, the requirements relating to obtaining import
licences had been published in the national press in accordance with Venezuela's determination toapply a transparent system in line with its obligations under the WTO.
(e) United States:  Egypt – Dairy tariffs in excess of bindings
14. The United States reverted to this issue, last raised at the September 1998 meeting of the
Committee on Agriculture, to inquire about the reason why tariff rates for a number of identified dairy
products were in excess of the bound levels.  The representative of the United States asked forclarification as to when Egypt would effectively reduce applied rates to levels  consistent with Egypt's
WTO bindings.
15. The delegate of Egypt stated that WTO agreements including Egypt's Schedule of
Concessions were an integral part of Egypt's domestic laws as ratified by the Parliament.  Egypt had
faithfully respected its Uruguay Round bound commitments in administering the tariff rates for allgoods imported from WTO Members.  Furthermore, any breach of the rule which was reported by a
concerned party was immediately rectified by the Egyptian authorities.
(f) United States:  Korea – Rice imports
16. The United States asked Korea to explain why Korean law did not allow imported rice to be
used for any purpose other than processing and how this could be reconciled with the nationaltreatment provisions of GATT 1994.  Furthermore, according to the United States, the information
provided in G/AG/N/KOR/27 showed that Korea di d not meet the requirements for continuing to
receive special treatment for rice.  The United States inquired about the measures Korea had taken to
ensure that imports took place during the importing period as specified in Annex 5.
17. The delegate of Korea responded that the Korean government purchased and sold a certain
amount of food grains, mainly rice, to stabilize the market.  Government-procured rice was purchased
from both domestic producers and foreign suppliers.  When selling the rice, the government wouldindicate whether it was to be used for government consumption, price stabilization or processing
purposes and buyers were committed to use it only for the indicated purpose.  He stated that Korea's
government-run rice management system operated  in compliance with the principle of national
treatment since specific purposes were designated for all of the rice purchased by the government
regardless of its origin.  Furthermore, Korea had faithfully implemented its obligations regarding riceG/AG/R/23
Page 4
imports as it had put in place all necessary measures to import the whole annual quantity.  Korea
would, however, endeavour to ensure that deliveries  took place within the relevant calendar year.
18. The representative of the United States, supported by Australia, expressed his appreciation of
Korea's stated efforts to import rice inside the calendar year.  However, given the impact on the type
of rice to be imported, the United States did not believe that the government purchasing monopoly on
rice imports into Korea was fully in compliance with national treatment rules .
(g) United States:  Panama – Use of import permits to regulate market
19. The United States expressed its concern regarding Panama's repeated use of import permits to
regulate trade in a number of agricultural products.  This practice raised problems linked to slow
processing or rejection of requests and to domestic buying requirements.  The United States asked
Panama to clarify how the import permits were issued and to comment on reports of domestic buying
requirements being linked to the issuance of the permits.   The current system had been causing
significant problems for US exporters of pork, beef, dairy, potatoes, onions and fresh vegetables ingetting the necessary permits to ship products to Panama.
20. Panama reiterated that although request forms had changed and a new authorization certificate
had been drawn up, the same procedures had been maintained concerning sanitary and phytosanitary
measures related to import licences since 1997 and were regularly published in national newspapers.
Concerning the process for acquiring sanitary and phytosanitary licences, the representative ofPanama noted that it was a public process which consisted of filing a filled request form to be
analysed by the competent agronomists or veterinarians of the Dirección Ejecutiva de Cuarentena
Agropecuaria (DECA).  Once the licence has been granted, stamped and signed it was sent back,
through Unit 41 of DECA, to the requester.  The sanitary and phytosanitary import and/or transit
licence cost 500 Balboas and was valid for 60 calendar days.  Regulations in Panama for issuingsanitary and phytosanitary licences required that these licences be granted in a brief period of time.
No shipments were allowed without the relevant lic ence and the importer could not assume that the
fact that his application had not been replied to implied that the licence had been granted.  The
representative of Panama further noted that sanitary and phytosanitary licences for import were not
subject to domestic purchasing provisions but rather to the health conditions in the country, region,area, plant or factory that the goods came from.
(h) United States:  Venezuela – Import restrictions
21. The United States expressed its concern over Venezuela's application of apparently WTO
inconsistent practices which disrupted and restricted trade on a number of imported products.  The
United States noted that rules and procedures governing the administration of tariff rate quotas andimporting requirements were frequently unclear and non-transparent, resulting in disruption to normal
trade with unfilled or under-filled market access commitments.  The United States asked Venezuela to
provide some clarifications on the way in which import access was implemented for wheat, corn and
sorghum, pork, poultry and other products
.
22. The delegate of Venezuela indicated that bilaterals had been held with various countries to
explain procedures linked to the administration of tariff quotas with the presence in Geneva of the
official in charge of the administration of the system.  The system for the administration of tariff
quotas in Venezuela was transparent and in line with Venezuela's commitments under the WTO.Regarding wheat, the applicable tariff for in-quota imports was currently at 30 per cent in accordance
with Venezuela's bound tariff rates, to be reduced to 20 per cent by 2004.  The criteria for granting
import licences for corn and sorghum were based on the submission of proof of imports in the
previous two years by those traditional importers requesting licences.  It was also noted that the feed
industry for animals purchased domestic harvests of sorghum depending on the levels of production.The information on domestic purchases requested from producers of balanced feed for animals wasG/AG/R/23
Page 5
solely used for planning purposes.  Since the entry into force of the regime, higher volumes than the
583,459 tonnes minimum access commitment of Venezuela for yellow corn had been imported.
23. On other products, the representative of Venezuela reiterated that no conditions of domestic
purchases were placed on the granting of licences.  An individual wishing to import sorghum as a
traditional importer needed only to submit import data for the previous two years.  Concerning the
information requested from milk and soya importers, it was for the purposes of an ongoing statisticalassessment of the respective chains of production.  As to the documents requested from cheese
importers, they were specified in the official bulletin published in line with Article 3 of Official
Gazette No. 36831, of 17 November 1999, which specified the import licence regime for dairy
products.  The applicable legal regimes for the importation of pigmeat and poultry meat were:  a
permit from the Ministry of Health and Social Development, a sanitary certificate from the country of
origin and a sanitary permit issued by the Ministry of Production and Trade.  There were no
conditions requiring domestic purchase.  Imports of poultry meat originating from the United Stateswere affected by a justified health restriction and Venezuela was awaiting the results of consultations
it had undertaken with the Office international des épizooties (OIE)  on the matter.  
24. The United States noted that, despite the explanations received from Venezuela in bilateral
meetings, importers and exporters felt that there were, in effect, domestic purchasing requirements in
place.  For example, the United States found it surprising that the 1 million tonne tariff rate quota forsorghum was not being filled at a time when domestic prices for sorghum were substantially above
world market prices.  Canada also noted that it was still awaiting Venezuelan responses to queries
raised at the June 1999 Committee meeting, regarding the import permit system which applied for
pork.
(i) Uruguay:  Panama – Market access difficulties for beef
25. The representative of Uruguay stated  that Uruguay had obtained in February 1998,
recognition by Panama of Uruguay's status as  being free from foot-and-mouth disease without
vaccination.  In 1999, health authorities of Panama had endorsed certain Uruguayan meat plants and
the first Uruguayan meat shipments had been received in Panama.  On 13 October 1999, Panama
raised the applicable tariff for meat from 15 to 32 per cent.  In the same month an agreement wasreached between the health authorities of both countries to allow imports of Uruguayan meat in
Panama provided that Uruguayan meat be subject to pre-shipment health controls.  These controls
were stricter than those that applied to local meat production in Panama.  However, no further import
permit applications were granted to Uruguay by the Ministry of Agricultural Development of Panama,
with most applications being simply ignored.  The representative of Uruguay reported that the manybilateral official contacts between Uruguay and Panama had been unfruitful.  He stated that Panama
had to comply with its WTO commitments and could not shift any responsibility of this matter to the
private sector.  Furthermore, imports from Urug uay in 1999 totalled 700 tonnes with a possible annual
projection of 3,000 tonnes.  These amounts could not have been able to distort a market which
slaughtered roughly 63,000 tonnes per year.
26. The representative of Uruguay noted that Pana ma, through its Protocol of Accession to the
WTO, had assumed certain obligations that were reflected in Section 2 of the first part of the Protocol.Panama had committed itself to the elimination of any mechanism or restriction related to import
permits which could constitute a hidden barrier to trade, and in particular, Panama had undertaken not
to apply any restrictive measures such as quotas for imports.  Since the change of Government in
1999, the Ministry for Agricultural Development had begun to apply the use of sanitary import
licences as a mechanism to control the supply of fo reign meat products.  This control had implied a
quota or import quota system on meat products or produc ts of animal origin, which in effect led to a
prohibition of Uruguayan meat in violation of GAT T 1994 rules and contrary to Panama's Protocol of
Accession.  In particular, the actions of the Ministry of Agricultural Development were contrary to
Articles 31 and 141 of Panama Law No. 23 of 15 July 1997.  Article 31 stated, inter alia,  that sanitaryG/AG/R/23
Page 6
and phytosanitary licences should be granted within brief periods of time.  Article 141 stated, inter
alia, that the processing of non-automatic import licences should not have any additional restrictive or
distortive effects on imports, and that procedures for non-automatic licences should be related in their
scope and duration to the measure for which they were intended.  Therefore, Uruguay requested an
explanation from Panama regarding the fact th at since 9 December 1999, Uruguayan meat had been
barred access to the Panamanian market through the withholding of import licences and, furthermore,Uruguay also wished to know what measures wo uld be adopted by the Government of Panama to
remedy the situation.  
27. The delegate of Panama responded that the method applied by the Republic of Panama in
granting sanitary or phytosanitary licences was the same since 1997, regardless of the country of
origin of the imported goods.  There were differences established in terms of requirements to be met
according to the health situation of each country, zone, region, plant or factory from which the goods
originated.  In order to analyse the sanitary condition of the products to be imported, spot checks werecarried out.  On 4 October 1999, a spot check wa s undertaken on a meat shipment from Uruguay of
830 crates out of which 27 crates showed the presence of the listeria monocytogenes bacteria, a
pathogen harmful to human health.  A second test applied on 8 October 1999, confirmed the presence
of the bacteria.  The remaining 803 crates were released for sale in the Republic of Panama.  Panama
applied these spot laboratory checks both for meats produced and marketed in Panama as well as formeat imported and exported.  This was not the case of a discrimination against meat from Uruguay.
In fact in November 1999, three licences were requested and granted for the import of beef from
Uruguay for a total of 75,000 kilograms.  The beef had been imported as it had complied with health
requirements.  He reiterated that there were no ban nor tariff quotas or other such quotas placed on
imports of bovine meat from Uruguay or any other country, provided that products complied with
health requirements and that Panama faithfully complied with its WTO commitments.  
28. The representative of Uruguay thanked Panama for its readiness to continue bilateral
consultations and noted that in all cases, listeria was a very temperature-sensitive bacteria which
disappeared altogether once the meat was cooked.
Review of Notifications
The Committee reviewed the following notifications as listed in the agenda:
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1): from El
Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/8), Poland (G/AG/N/POL/29 and PO L/34), the United States
(G/AG/N/USA/29/Rev.1) and Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/14);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/26), Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/20), Hungary
(G/AG/N/HUN/22), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/27), Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/14), New
Zealand (G/AG/N/NZ L/24), Poland (G/AG/ N/POL/30 and POL/32), Slovak Republic
(G/AG/N/SVK/21), Slovenia (G/AG/ N/SVN/13) and the United States
(G/AG/N/USA/30);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5): from the European
Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/24), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/49, JPN/50, JPN/52 and
JPN/53), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/28), Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/15), Namibia
(G/AG/N/NAM/10), New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/23) and Slovak Republic
(G/AG/N/SVK/22);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/30), Bolivia (G/AG/N/BOL/4), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/35), Chile
(G/AG/N/CHL/8/ Corr.2, CHL/10/Rev.1 and CHL/11), Dominican RepublicG/AG/R/23
Page 7
(G/AG/N/DOM/2/Corr.1), the European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/12/Rev.1 and
Corr.1 and EEC/17), Haiti (G/AG/N/HTI/3), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/24/Corr.1),
Macau, China (G/AG/N/MAC/6), Mongolia (G/AG/N/MNG/5), Morocco
(G/AG/N/MAR/16), Namibia (G/AG/N/NAM/11), New Zealand
(G/AG/N/NZL/18/Corr.1 and NZL/22), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/25), Peru
(G/AG/N/PER/3/Corr.1), Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/10), United Arab Emirates(G/AG/N/ARE/3) a nd Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/16/Corr.1);
(v) relating to export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Bolivia
(G/AG/N/BOL/3), Cyprus (G/AG/N/CYP/ 8/Rev.1), Estonia (G /AG/N/EST/1), the
European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/20/Rev.1 and EEC/23), Haiti
(G/AG/N/HTI/2), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/51 and JPN/54), Macau, China
(G/AG/N/MAC/7), Mongolia (G/AG/N/MNG/6), Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/17),
Namibia (G/AG/N/NAM/9), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/23 and Corr.1), SlovakRepublic (G/AG/N/SVK/ 23), United Arab Emirates (G /AG/N/ARE/2) and the United
States (G/AG/N/USA/32).
29. Specific points raised in relation to notifications listed in paragraph 28 above are summarized
in Part I of the Annex to this report.
30. 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 imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from the
European Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/27) and Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/21);
(ii) on special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/55);
(iii) on domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from the European
Communities (G/AG/N/EEC/26), Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/16) and Slovak Republic
(G/AG/N/SVK/24 and SVK/25).
31. 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
32. No further deferred replies to questions raised at previous meetings had been received todate
by the Secretariat.
(b) Overdue notifications
33. As had been agreed at the March 1997 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/R/10,
paragraph 10 refers), the Secretariat made available a Room Document dated 28 June 2000, showing
the current status of compliance with the notification obligations.
34. Australia, supported by Argentina, noted its concern regarding overdue notifications,
particularly as Members were heading for negotiations, since some of the overdue notifications would
have an impact on the quality of the background work to be undertaken by the Secretariat.  Australia
noted for instance that announcements by the United States of additional support provided in 1998
and 1999 were yet to be notified, making it difficult to see exactly how the various elements of theannounced supports would be classified in the Unit ed States domestic support notification.  OverdueG/AG/R/23
Page 8
notification impacted the operation of the Committee as regards the review process but they also had
an impact on the analysis that Members could undertake in preparing for the agricultural negotiations.
The representative of Australia noted that these comments were addressed in particular to developed
Members of the Committee who had been late in furnishing the appropriate notifications under the
Agreement on Agriculture.
35. The representative of the United States noted that important resources were devoted to
notifications and that the United States had started to prepare its 1998/99 domestic support
notification.  However, the question of how the supplemental payments would be notified was still
under consideration. Generally, the United States submitted its annual domestic notification to the
WTO in June in accordance with guidelines established for notifications.  However, the 1998/99
notification was more data intensive and given resource constraints and a strong commitment to make
certain technical improvements, such as better reporting at the sub-national level, additional time
might be needed.  However, the United States also wanted to point out that several of its tradingpartners still had not yet notified for 1997.
Part II:  Other Matters within the Purview of the Committee
Other Business
36. The European Communities noted that the United States had imposed a 3-year-1-day quota
from 1 June 1998, on imports of wheat gluten, which the European Communities was currentlychallenging.  The European Communities' present concern was that the United States had acted in an
unreasonable manner in its management of the quota for the last year of operation, which runs from
1 June 2000 to 1 June 2001.  On 26 May, three working days before the third-year's quota came into
force, the United States had published news of the replacement of the annual quota by four quarterly
quotas.  These quotas were managed on a first-come-first-served basis, which meant the product hadto be physically in the port for the application to have been accepted.  EU suppliers had shipped
products based on the assumption that an annual  quota of 27,543 tonnes would have been opened on
1 June.  Instead, a quota of only 6,886 tonnes had been opened and the allocations had been cut to
about 23 per cent of the proposed quantities.  De spite suggestions from the European Commission of
several ways in which this could have been achieved without causing undue disruption to traders andwithout prejudicing the actual management of the quotas, the United States had chosen the use of four
new and separate  mini-quotas.  This had meant that no trader could be sure to supply buyers with any
quantity of product entered under subsequent quotas.  This prevented forward contracting and
seriously disrupted long-term relations between sellers and buyers.  The European Communities
believed that the United States had chosen a system of quota management designed to inflictmaximum commercial damage on EU traders.  However, the delegate of the European Communities
noted that this was not the object of action under the Agreement on Safeguards.  He maintained that
the imposition of a quarterly quota was contrary to WTO policy and law.  Concerning policy, the
Committee had to condemn any abuse of quota management by way of imposition of a system
designed to disturb commercial relations rather than to facilitate them.  Concerning law, Article XIII
of GATT provided that product "en route" when a new quota was imposed should enter under the
prior system.  The EC product, up to about 90 per cent of the annual amount, was effectively "enroute".   
37. The representative of the United States responded that the question would be referred to the
authorities in Washington in order to provide an official response to the European Communities, even
though the United States felt that normally such an issue would have been covered by the Safeguards
Committee rather than by the Committee on Agriculture.
38. The representative of UNCTAD informed the Committee that an expert meeting on the
"Impact of the Reform Process in Agriculture on  Least-Developed Countries and Net Food-ImportingG/AG/R/23
Page 9
Developing Countries, and ways to address their concerns in multilateral trade negotiations" was to be
held from 24 to 26 July 2000.
Date of Next Meeting
39. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on
27 September 2000.  The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be
issued on Friday, 15 September 2000.G/AG/R/23
Page 10
ANNEX – Part I
Page
Part I Summary of specific points raised on  notifications and responses thereto
(28 June 2000 meeting)
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1:
El Salvador (SLV/8); Poland (POL/34); United States (USA/29/Rev.1);
Venezuela (VEN/14); 11
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):
Australia (AUS/26); Guatemala (GTM/20); Hungary (HUN/22); Korea
(KOR/27); Morocco (MAR/14); New Zealand (NZL/24); Poland (POL/30);
Slovak Republic (SVK/21); Slovenia (SVN/13); United States (USA/30); 15
(iii) relating to the use of the speci al safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):
European Communities (EEC/24); Japan (JPN/49, JPN/50 and JPN/53,
JPN/52); Korea (KOR/28); 21
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):
Australia (AUS/30); Canada (CAN/35); European Communities (EEC/12/Rev. 1
and Corr.1) ; Korea (KOR/24 and Corr.1); Mongolia (MNG/5); Morocco
(MAR/16); New Zealand (NZL/22); Norway (NOR/25); Turkey (TUR/10); 23
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):
European Communities (EEC/17); 36
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):
Cyprus (CYP/8/Rev.1); Estonia (EST/1); European Communities (EEC/20/Rev.
1 and EEC/23); Morocco (MAR/17); Norway (NOR/23 and Corr.1); Slovak
Republic (SVK/23); United States (USA/32); 37G/AG/R/23
Page 11
ANNEX – Part I
Review of Notifications by the Committee on Agriculture on 28 June 2000
Summary of Specific Points Ra ised and Responses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
El Salvador   G/AG/N/SLV/8   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Cheddar, in blocks or in bars
New Zealand: Reason for introducing tariff quotas for these
products.El Salvador made use of its rights and honoured its
obligations by opening a tariff quota for cheddar (HS0406.90.20).
Canada: Terms of access, including tariff rates, for all othercheese lines which were scheduled, but not included in thenotified tariff quota.The applied duty is:  40 per cent ad valorem .
Australia/New Zealand: Reasons for preferring public
auctioning over other allocation methods.This method of administration has been selected in order to
ensure transparency in the allocation process.
Australia: Existence of specific eligibility criteria to qualifyfor a licence.The interested applicants must participate in the public
auction carried out by BOLPROES in accordance with theterms which are established with respect to each product.
Argentina/Australia: Whether auctions have already takenplace; if so, whether import licences have been assigned;level of fee paid by importers.Four licences, totalling 67.2 tons, have already been
delivered to importers who presented an Award Certificatetogether with their application.
Argentina: Whether the import licence can be extended
following the issuance of an Award Certificate as suggestedunder point b) or not, as suggested under point c).Upon request, the import licence can be extended for
10 days at most by the Ministry of Economy.  The request
for extension must be accompanied by the correspondingAward Certificate.
Australia: Possibility to re-allocate licences to other
importers in the event that original licence-holders fail to
import within the three-month period.The licences are non-transferable during the three-month
period.  Once this period lapses, the licences cannot be re-allocated.
Australia: Whether El Salvador has considered that thepremiums might constitute additional charges in excess of
tariff bindings and therefore breach Article II of GATT
1994.
Australia, supported by New Zealand
, clarified the context
against which their concerns regarding the GATT legality
of auctioning were expressed .Request that the question be reformulated so that
Government authorities may be able to prepare an adequateanswer.G/AG/R/23
Page 12
Poland   G/AG/N/POL/34   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/United States:  Pork and poultry –
Basis for maintaining restrictive licensing requirements
given the low levels of TRQ imports in 1999;These requirements were not designed to restrict access but
rather to prevent some unfavourable developments such as
monopolistic practices.  In 1999, Poland has recorded caseswhere licences were obtained for large quantities by groupsof importers.  Actual imports only partly represented the
total number of allocations.  This contributed to underfill of
certain quotas.
Meat of swine : maximum delay foreseen between the
approval of the licence and its actual issuance; guarantees
required from the importer.The maximum delay foreseen between the submission of an
application and its issuance is 30 days, although in practice,
importers are waiting for about 7 days.  For the moment, noguarantees are required.
Canada/United States:  Wheat and meslin
Basis for reducing the limit per application to 1,500 tons
in the year 2000These requirements were not designed to restrict access but
rather to prevent some unfavourable developments such as
monopolistic practices.  In 1999, Poland has recorded cases
where licences were obtained for large quantities by groupsof importers.  Actual imports only partly represented thetotal number of allocations.  This contributed to underfill ofcertain quotas.
Basis for applying more stringent licensing requirementsgiven that, in 1999, imports were only 49,814 tons out ofa TRQ of 388,000 tons (POL/32 refers);In 2000, a duty-free tariff quota of 100,000 tons was
opened.  Importers will probably show no interest inimporting under the WTO tariff quota during the year 2000.
The m.f.n. tariff currently applied on durum wheat is 3 per
cent.
Whether importers can make multiple applications; Impor ters may apply only after the previous allocation has
been utilised.
Fees associated with each application. A fee of 200 Polish Zlotys applies to each transaction
valued at up to 100,000 Polish Zlotys.  A fee of 400 PolishZlotys is associated to higher-value transactions.
Australia, Canada  and the United States  noted that the reduction of the size of licence allocations coupled with limited
validity periods of import licences have severely restricted the ability of exporters to ship wheat to Poland.  As previouslyexpressed by Australia, the system discriminates against distant suppliers.  Despite the assurances provided by Poland in
its responses, the United States reiterated that US exporters did show an interest in shipping wheat to Poland at in-tariff
quota rates but were effectively kept out of the market.  Cana da noted that the limit per application is smaller than a
typical commercial shipment.  The system was found to place disproportionate burdens on wheat exports in non-economically viable, and unrealistic, vessel size quantities.
United States   G/AG/N/USA/29/Rev.1   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Thailand: Sugar (raw, refined and sugar-containing
products) -  Revision of the size of country allocations.No change to the historical allocation procedure is planned
this year or next as regards the tariff quotas concerned.
Access conditions for Mexican sugar will continue as perthe commitments undertaken under NAFTA.G/AG/R/23
Page 13
Venezuela   G/AG/N/VEN/14   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Revenue stamp – Clarification of amount in
monetary terms; whether the fee approximates the cost of
services rendered.The granting of the import licence generates an internal tax
equivalent to 15 tax units.  The tax unit is established in the
Stamp Law (published in the Official Gazette No. 5391Extraordinary dated 22 October 1999).  The RevenueStamp is currently equivalent to 11,600 Bolivares.  This is
an internal tax and not a cost generated by services
rendered.
Canada: Andean Price Band System (APBS)
Whether the APBS applies to the listed TRQs; Confirmed.  All the notified tariff quota products are
presently subject to the APBS.
If so, products affected and impact on the in-quota dutyrates.The APBS foresees that the total duty to be applied to
minimum access tariff quotas cannot ex ceed the bound
duty.  If the resulting duty is lower than the bound in-quotaduty, the lower duty will apply.
Australia: Confirmation that allocation of licences totraditional importers is auto matically based on previous
imports; if not, basis for allocation.Confirmed.  The allocations are automatic and based on the
imports effected during the previous 2 years.
Australia: Possibility to re-allocate licences to other
importers in the event that original licence-holders fail to
import within the three-month period and do not seek a new
licence.Under such circumstances, the unused portion of the
original allocation is reincorporated into the total volume of
the tariff quota and redistributed in the following trimester.Within the prescribed period of validity of the licence, theimporter is given a great deal of flexibility to meet internal
market demand, thus guaranteeing the fulfilment of the
minimum access commitments undertaken by Venezuela.
Australia/Canada:  Cheese  and other dairy products
Reasons for requirements listed under item (a)9; Importers of milk must submit such information in order to
ensure the effective application of sanitary controls.  Thisrequirement was in place prior to the establishment of thecurrent import licensing regime.
Reason why importers of cheese are required to providedetails of purchases of domestic raw milk as per item
(a)10; details on the use of such information;The misunderstanding arises b ecause the listing of
requirements under item (a) covers all dairy products andare not discriminated by sub-product category.  Details on
purchases of raw milk are not required from cheese
importers.  The allocation of import licences is not subjectto the fulfilment of domestic purchase requirements.
Existence of domestic purchase requirements to qualify asa traditional importer or to obtain an import licence; inparticular, whether allocations are proportional todomestic purchases of milk.The import licensing requirements for cheese are described
in the Official Notice published in accordance withArticle 3 of the Gazette No. 36-831 which sets up theimport licensing regime for all dairy products.  Domesticpurchase requirements of raw milk are not listed among
them. Traditional importers: the licence allocations are
automatic. The only applied criterion is with respect to the
imports effected during the previous 2 years (item (8)covers the supporting evidence to be provided by importersof dairy products).
Argentina/Australia: Oleaginous products
Reasons why importers must provide a list of domestic
raw materials, as per item(a)9;This is required for statistical purposes and for the
evaluation of the oleaginous production chain which ischaracterized by a high degree of concentration.
G/AG/R/23
Page 14
Venezuela   G/AG/N/VEN/14   Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Existence of domestic absorption requirements to qualify
as a traditional importer and/or obtain an import licence.The above request of information does not imply the
existence of domestic absorption requirements as a pre-
condition for the obtention of import licences. Theallocation of licences to traditional importers is automaticand based on imports effected during the previous 2 years.
Ten per cent of the tariff quota is distributed among new
entrants.
Australia:  Sugar cane  – Reason why sugar processing
plants are required to submit a report of the state of
payments to sugar cane producers.This requirement became necessary in view of the state of
insolvency of some sugar processing plants vis-à-vis
national producers. Venezuela decided to request thisinformation in order to prevent a social and economic crisisin the sector.  It is worth not ing that the main importers are
also the main processors of sugar cane.G/AG/R/23
Page 15
Table MA:2 Notifications
Australia      G/AG/N/AUS/26    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Thailand: Cheese  (Processed cheese, not grated or
powdered) –
   Reasons for the low fill rate;There is no separate tariff quota for processed cheese not
grated or powdered (actually, imports of this particular
cheese category have increased substantially from 1998 to
1999). The notified imports cover a range of cheeseproducts.  Australia does not consider a fill rate of 78 percent as being low.  This level reflects market factors,
including that suppliers of cheese are getting better returns
in other markets.  In 1999, the imports under this tariffquota accounted for approximately 37 per cent ofAustralia's total cheese imports.
Whether the implementation of a tariff-only regime hasbeen considered.The operation of this tariff quota is being monitored to
ensure that the import opportunities are being provided andthat the administration system does not adversely impact on
the fill rate.  The implementation of any change would be
the result of this review process.
Additional comments:  Australia pointed out that a duty- free, tariff-only regime already applies to the tobacco  tariff quota.
Guatemala      G/AG/N/GTM/20    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Import data for all of the scheduled commitments. Guatemala undertook to provide a reply at a later stage.G/AG/R/23
Page 16
Hungary      G/AG/N/HUN/22    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia: Noted that Hungary has previously explained
low fill on the basis of market factors: whether Hungary
has considered implementing an applied tariff rate on
products where the domestic industry is competitive andthere is low import demand (such as fruit and vegetables,beer, cereals, dairy products)The implementation of applied tariff rates has not been
considered.  Hungary considers that its m.f.n. bindings for
agricultural products are comparatively low on a European-wide basis.  Any further improvements of market accessconditions will be the outcome of the current agriculturalnegotiations.
Argentina/Mexico/New Zealand/United States:  Continuedunder-fill, in particular for :
Apples and pears
Beer
Bovine animals and meat
Cheese and curd
Milk and cream
Poultry
WheatHungary is both a significant producer and exporter of
these products.  Imports usually serve to expand consumer
choice or compensate shortfalls in domestic production.
The tariff quota volumes for some of these products wereoriginally established as minimum access quotas, thus
based on base period domestic consumption, not historical
imports. Since 1986-88, domestic consumption has
decreased and consumption patterns changed.  In addition,preferential access under FTAs may have also affected thefill rates.  Beer : significant foreign investment took place
since the beginning of the 1990s in the domestic beer sectorwhich resulted in increasing production and efficiencygains. Some foreign free trade partners are accordedpreferential access.
Canada/United States:  Swine – Reason for the sharp
decrease in the fill rates from 100 per cent in 1997 and1998 to 54 per cent in 1999.
Referring to the reduction of the application limit in 1999
(HUN/18 refers),  Canada questioned the rationale behind
it.  Since it is claimed that such changes do not affect TRQ
use, how could they possibly respond to the observeddecrease in import demand? Hungary clarified this
relationship by mentioning the impact of deposits on
importers' application decisions (discussed below).See above reply .  The application limit for swine was
adjusted to take into account the evolution of the size ofcommercial shipments.  The size of commercial shipmentsdecreased due to the decline in import demand arising from
increasing domestic production.  The application limit for
swine is the normal commercial quantity in Hungary.There is no link between the reduction of the limit and thedecrease registered by the fill rate.
New Zealand: Volume restrictions placed on licences  –
Whether consideration was given to the possible negative
impact on exporters' ability to use the tariff quotas; possibleelimination of such restrictions.Hungary does not consider that the volumetric restrictions
placed on import permits have a negative impact on
exporters' ability to use the tariff quotas.
United States: High quality beef  –
Indication of volume actually imported under the bovine
meat TRQ given that the fill rate in 1999 was only 23 percent;The exact import figure is not available as Hungary has not
established specific tariff lines for this product category.
On the basis of import lines indicated by the United States,
i.e. HS 0201.20 and HS 0201.30, it would appear that totalimports under heading HS 0201 were in fact effected underthese two tariff sub-items and amounted to 440 tons in1999.
Eligibility and other special conditions to be met byapplicants; whether beef imports under the TRQ mustonly be used for processing; whether importers are
required to distinguish between types of beef, either by
degree of processing, price, quality; if so, rationale;
According to the United States, this end-use requirement
effectively precludes any imports of high quality beef from
entering the Hungarian market.  Hungary recalled that
this TRQ was originally established as a current access
opportunity which had been traditionally used byprocessors.The only criteria is that impor ters must be processors.
G/AG/R/23
Page 17
Hungary      G/AG/N/HUN/22    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Procedural steps to be followed by an importer who wants
to secure an allocation in order to import fresh, chilled,
high quality beef to be used in the hotel and restauranttrade;An application must be completed and sent to the relevant
national authority, the Ministry of Economy, which issues
import permits.  The importer must then make a depositwhich will be reimbursed as soon as the allocated share hasbeen utilised, at least up to the 80 per cent level.
Confirmation that all of the beef products falling under
HS 0202 are afforded equal opportunity of access to theTRQ.Confirmed.
Additional comments:  While the existence of genuine market circumstances that would lead to the underfill of some of the
tariff quotas (especially for milk powders and milk and crea m) was not disputed, Australia reiterated its concerns, already
mentioned in the context of the review of POL/34 above, rela ting to the difficulties faced by  distant suppliers when the size
of import allocations is partic ularly small.  In Australia's view, this concern relates to those other, non-purely market
driven factors, which are negat ively impacting on the fill rates.  This view was supported by the United States.  The
emphasis was placed on the sharp drops in fill rates observed for beef, pork and poultry following the reduction of
allocations to 25 tons per application.  Hungary recalled the smallness of the country and its land-locked situation.  Given
these key market characteristics, as well as the prevalence of road transportation, interested exporters would inevitablyhave to adapt the size of their consignments in consequence or  choose alternative solutions such as warehousing.
Korea      G/AG/N/KOR/27    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand: Significant reduction in percentage
fill rates for the following TRQs:
Beef
Dairy ( Other milk and cream (0 per cent fill); whey
powder, whole milk powder)
Swine, liveSince late 1997, the financial crisis has had an adverse
impact on exchange rates, national incomes and prices ofimported agricultural products.  Declining import demandcontinued to affect the fill rates until 1998.  The import
demand for other milk products was also reduced due to
substitution effects from milk-containing food preparations(HS 1901).
New Zealand:  Whether the application of a tariff-onlytreatment has been considered.The Korean economy has been recovering from the
economic crisis and imports of agricultural products,including those under tariff quota administration, are
increasing.  In this context, Korea is not considering, at this
stage, the application of a tariff-only regime.
United States:  Popcorn  – Progress made by government
authorities in adjusting discrepancy noted in G/AG/R/22.Consultations are still being held with the relevant Ministry
to revise the Customs Law and adjust the discrepancy.
Usually, the revision of the Law is scheduled to take placeonce at the end of the calendar year.
Morocco      G/AG/N/MAR/14    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Preliminary comment: Imports under tariff quotas are not subject to prior approval or import licensing procedures.
Consequently, the fill rates are a direct re flection of prevailing market conditions.  In 1998, all tariff quotas were filled
with the exception of rice, sheepmeat and poultry meat (68 per cent fill rate).
Thailand: Rice  – Low quota fill rates for several products,
especially rice.The level of domestic consumption remains quite low.
Local production amply satisfies domestic requirements.Usually, imports only take place during drought periods.
Australia: Sheepmeat - Explanation for the sharp drop in
the fill rate.This is due to a marked preference towards fresh meat
products and to substitution effects with bovine meat.G/AG/R/23
Page 18
New Zealand      G/AG/N/NZL/24    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Thailand : Fresh apples  -
Noting that the applied rate of duty is zero, explanation
for the low rate of quota fill;The current fill rate entirely reflects import decisions taken
by individual traders. Imports are duty-free and no
quantitative limits are imposed on individuals or companieswishing to import apples.  Currently, New Zealand importsapples from a number of countries including the United
States, France and Japan.  The low demand for imported
apples can be explained in a number of ways.  NewZealand is among the world's largest and most competitiveapple exporters.  With the development of new varieties
and modern storage technology, domestic production is
competitive almost all year round.
Whether the removal of the tariff-quota system and the
introduction of a tariff-only regime has been considered.New Zealand is not considering changing its administration
system as it currently operates as if it were a tariff-only
regime.
Poland      G/AG/N/POL/30    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada: Noting that some TRQs are reported as exactly
filled, confirmation that data  on in-quota imports is only
provided up to Poland's commitments.Confirmed.
Canada:
Non-reporting of data with respect of all scheduled tariff
lines falling within  the same TRQ.
Example:  Wheat and meslin flour (HS 1101), rye flour
(HS 1102) and food preparations of flour, meal, starch or
malt extract (HS 1901) are notified; but other tariff itemscommitted by Poland are not reported, i.e. HS 1008;1103; 1104; 1109; 1902; 1904; 1905 and 2102).
Basis for calculating the quantities applying to the subsetof tariff lines within the TRQs.The Polish Schedule contains a number of global tariff
quotas.  In many cases, only a few items contained in eachglobal tariff quota have higher out-of-quota tariff rates. Inthese cases, the sub-quota volumes are calculated on the
basis of several parameters, such as import and
consumption structures.  The remaining items are importedat applied rates not higher than in-quota rates with noadministrative arrangement in place.  These are notnotified.
Availability of import data for the TRQs which were notopened.Import data are published by the Central Statistical Office.
Slovak Republic      G/AG/N/SVK/ 21    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/New Zealand/United States:  Reasons for the
continued underfill, or the sharp drops of fill rates, for anumber of TRQs including:
Butter
Milk and creamThese are the leading export items of the food industry.
The fill rate registered for milk and cream is directlyinfluenced by imports from the Czech Re public, which
were three times higher than the tariff quota volume.
Live bovine animals and bovine meat
Live sheep and sheepmeatThese are traditional export items.  Low fill is explained by
the existence of sufficient domestic supplies which led todecreasing import demand.
G/AG/R/23
Page 19
Slovak Republic      G/AG/N/SVK/ 21    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Rape seed and rape oil  - Noted that the low fill
rates were previously attributed to the competitiveness of
domestic production: whether the implementation ofapplied tariff rates has been considered.In 1999, the country was self-sufficient in both products
and there was no import demand. Trade within the Customs
Union with the Czech Republic may also have influencedthe fill rates  The seasonal pattern of imports of rape seedsat times may adversely impact on the domestic production.
For this reason, the implementation of applied tariffs only
has not been considered at this stage.
Slovenia      G/AG/N/SVN/13    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia/Canada/Korea/New Zealand:  Reasons
for low fill rates, or sharp reduction of percentage fill, forthe following TRQs:All tariff quotas were opened and entirely distributed.
Imported quantities reflect the level of commercial interestin the items concerned.
Beef
Fresh and frozen beef carcasses; Other fresh beef cuts;Fresh and other frozen beef offal;Meat processors' demand is for fresh meat.  However, there
is a domestic oversupply.  In addition, imports underpreferential trade agreements, and thus more favourableaccess terms, were realized in 1999.
High quality beef; Salted beef There is no commercial demand for these categories since
they are relatively unknown types of meat in the domesticmarket.  Increased imports will depend on the actual levelof consumer demand.
Cereals
Feed barley; Yellow cornThe terms of access under preferential trade agreements
were more favourable than under the respective tariff quotaregimes.  Slovenia's free trade partners are also thetraditional suppliers of these items.
Milling wheat Following the 1998 harvest, there was an accumulation of
stocks.  These were released back to the domestic marketsin 1999.  Total imports in 1999 amounted to 48,791 tons.Thus approximately 50 per cent of total imports wererealized through the tariff quota regime.
Dairy
ButterDomestic consumer demand is  traditionally low and rather
directed to imported margarines and other butter
substitutes.  Imports under preferential trade agreements are
realized through more competitive terms of access.
Whole milk powder Domestic production is satisfying internal market needs
and generating excess supply for exports.  Slovenia is a net
exporter of milk and dairy products.  Imports under tariffquota are only effected in response to consumer demand forproduct varieties which are not domestically produced.
Pork, fresh carcasses The terms of access under preferential trade agreements
were more favourable than under the tariff quota regimesand larger quantities were imported through these schemes.
Rape and colza oil The market access conditions in 1999 were more
competitive under preferential trade agreements.
New Zealand: Progress achieved in implementing changes
in tariff quota administration regime, as announced during
the June 1999 meeting.
New Zealand expressed its satisfaction in relation to the
changes that were already introduced, and hoped that
Slovenia's planned expansion of the first-come, first-served
method to all of its tariff quotas is eventually adopted.On 1 January 2000, Slovenia introduced on a trial basis a
first-come, first-served tariff quota allocation method for
certain tariff headings.  This has provided the authoritieswith some experience in tariff quota distribution.  Thecompetent authorities will continue to develop the
efficiency of this administration system. The list of
products subject to this system will be expanded.G/AG/R/23
Page 20
United States      G/AG/N/USA/30    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: Cheddar and Swiss Emmentaler cheeses  –
Place where the tariff quota quantities for the period were
notified.Changes in the US administration system were notified in
G/AG/N/USA/2 dated 8 March 1995.  Such changes were
introduced in response to requests from countries withallocations.
New Zealand/Thailand: – Reasons for underfill or zero fill.
Dried cream and dried whey/buttermilk
Blended syrups
Cotton  (harsh, rough, waste)
Green ripe olives
Ice-creamMarket access opportunities were made available during
the period in question.  Since there are no measures in placeto restrict imports and since most of these products wereimported on a first-come, first-served basis, under-
utilisation is related to market conditions.  Some items
which have minimal or no in-quota imports, such as cottonwaste, have a zero in-quota duty.
Lowfat chocolate crumb This product is not being used by domestic manufacturers
as much as in the past, resulting in small in-quota imports.
Additional question from Mexico:  Peanuts  – Whether non-
NAFTA Mexican exports to the United States are included
in the notified import volume.The United States undertook to provide a response at a
later stage.
Thailand:  Whether the application of a tariff-only regimehas been considered, especially for those TRQs with zeropercentage fill.The United States is of the view  that the issue of consistent
underfill of tariff quotas merits further discussion in theagriculture negotiations.
Australia:  Sugar, raw  – Expectations regarding future
levels of fill rates, given the continuing decline of imports.The Uruguay Round minimum access commitment for raw
sugar will continue to be honoured.  The extent to which
the raw sugar cane tariff quota is subscribed in the future
will depend on domestic market conditions and world sugarmarkets.G/AG/R/23
Page 21
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
European Communities      G/AG/N/EEC/24        Summary of Special Safeguard Actions (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia: Price-based - Volumes facing
additional duties.No details are available as regards import volumes under
the price-based safeguard.
Australia: Volume-based - Meaning of "made operational" .The Community legislation provides that additional duties
may be collected in accordance to the provisions ofArticle 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The words " has
been made operational " mean that for certain products, the
additional duties are effectively collected if the volume
trigger is exceeded.
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/49       Price-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: New Zealand continues to be concerned with
Japan's reluctance to use other countries' c.i.f. prices from
the 1986-88 base period for the calculation of trigger prices
and finds that the use of the 1988 c.i.f. price alone is not
appropriate, and not in conformity with Article 5.1(b).Reasons for not choosing the 1986 and 1987 externalreference prices (ERPs) as set out in Article 5.1(b).Japan sets the trigger price in compliance with
Article 5.1(b) based on the 1988 import price c.i.f.  Sincethe harmonized system nomenclature was introduced in
Japan in 1988, the import price of the tariff line in question
between 1986-87 is not available.  The Agreement onAgriculture prescribes that " the reference price shall, in
general, be the average c.i.f. unit value of the product
concerned or otherwise shall be an appropriate price in
terms of the quality of the product and its stage ofprocessing. "  This means that a Member is not, at any time,
obliged to use the c.i.f. unit value of other countries.
Japan      G/AG/N/JPN/50 and JPN/53     Price-Based Special Safeguard  (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia:  Wheat flour  – Details on calculation
of the trigger price, including c.i.f. import price; conversionratio; reference milling cost in the base period.Since no imports were realized during the base period, the
trigger price was set according to the following method.
The average c.i.f. import price for wheat (which is the
primary product), i.e. 24.02 Yen per kg., was multiplied bythe conversion ratio, i.e. 1.4, and the external milling costof 13 Yen per kg. was added.  This calculation is in full
compliance with Article 5.1(b).  Sources: conversion ratio
is from Japan's Schedule; external milling cost is from the
US publication Wheat Situation and Outlook Report.
Japan      G/AG/N/JPN/52    Summary of Special Safeguard Actions  (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Quantity of imports affected by SSG actions
summarized in the present notification.Condensed milk : After the volume-based SSG was
invoked, 35 tons were imported under higher tariff rates
resulting from SSG action.  Inulin: No imports of inulin
were effected after the imposition of the volume-basedSSG.  Wheat starch, other starches (excl. Sago starches) ;
peas; food preparations containing not less than 30 per cent
natural milk constituents; wheat flour  : the price-based SSG
was only invoked against each individual freight which fellshort of the trigger price on the notified day. To avoiddisclosing information on individual traders' imports, Japanhas not published the volume of imports affected by theprice-based SSG.G/AG/R/23
Page 22
Korea      G/AG/N/KOR/28    Summary of Special Safeguard Actions  (Table MA:5)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: Reason why out-of-quota imports were
effected when the respective tariff quotas were not filled.
Ground nuts  (shelled)All the tariff quota quantity was imported in 1998.
Because there were some weight losses during the shipping
of the goods, the notified import volume appears to beunderstated by 1.7 per cent.
White ginseng Import prices drastically increased due to soaring exchange
rates in 1998.  Despite the application of a low in-quota
duty, it even proved impossible to fill the tariff quota.However, some importers resorted to under-invoicing inorder to be able to buy ginseng at out-of-quota rates.
New Zealand: Volume-based  -
Absence of MA:3 notifications for the products subject to a
volume-based SSG in 1998;As mentioned during the 18th Session of the Committee,
Korea has difficulty in notifying within the set deadlinesbecause it takes considerable time to the Customs Service
to inform the Ministry of Agriculture of any volume-based
trigger.  The products on which the SSG is triggered aremostly imported from non-WTO Members. In future,Korea  will endeavour to notify any volume-based SSG asearly as possible.
Calculation details; This information will be provided in writing to New
Zealand.
Volume of imports realized prior to the application of theSSG.In 1998, the volume-based SSG was applied to imports of
wheat starch and ginseng.  Even though there were noimports prior to the invocation of the SSG, the tariff quotas
of both products were fully allocated.  The triggering of the
SSG had no effect on imports under tariff quotas.  By theend of the year, the tariff quota for wheat starch had beenfilled.
G/AG/R/23
Page 23
Table DS:1 Notifications
Australia     G/AG/N/AUS/30      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Canada: Whether some of the listed programmes, at both
the Commonwealth and State levels, are new; related TableDS:2 notifications.  In particular :Some programmes are new and some are existing
programmes. In some cases, improvement in data
collection results in programmes being reported that were
not previously notified.
Chicken Meat and Egg Industry R&D; R&D support to these industries is not new and was in
operation during the base period as reflect in Australia 's
AGST tables.
Deer Industry R&D; This programme item had not previously been separately
identified due to the small scale of funding.  A Table DS:2notification will be provided.
CP2002 Sugar Programme; National Weeds Programme;Delicatessen Programme;These are new programmes and the corresponding
Table DS:2 notifications will be provided.
Farm Household Support Described in G/AG/N/AUS/18 (pp. 7 refers).  Applications
were closed in 1997 and the programme ceased in 1998-99.
United States: "Natural Disaster Relief Payments" provided
by the Commonwealth Government (CG) as well as theState or Territory Governments -  Confirmation that allpayments meet Annex 2 para 8 criteria, in particular thoseoutlined in para 8(a).These payments are part of the Exceptional Circumstances
(EC) assistance provided by the CG to support viablefarmers undergoing rare, severe, and unpredictable events.It is part of a broader policy package, the Agriculture-
Advancing Australia  (AAA) aimed at increasing farmers'
responsibility in designing appropriate risk managementstrategies. The EC assistance is in full compliance withAnnex 2 para 8 criteria:
• It is only available following a declaration of
"exceptional circumstances" by the Government  EC
events are usually drought-related but could also include
other events such as frost. Income declines from
fluctuations in seasonal conditions or from falling
commodity prices are expected to fall within the boundsof normal risk management, not "exceptionalcircumstances";
• The nature of the assessment process imposes
rigorous tests to determine that the impact of the event
that relief is provided for is severe and prolonged .
Decisions on EC applications by the CommonwealthMinister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry generallydraw on objective assessment by an expert advisory
body.  Since July 1998, of the 20 regions that have
applied only 4 have been declared eligible while twoapplications are pending.
• A production loss significantly higher than the 30 per
cent threshold (Annex 2 para 8) is required  before the
impact of an event would be considered severe.G/AG/R/23
Page 24
Canada     G/AG/N/CAN/35      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
European Communities: Meaning of " Canada reserves the
right to identify certain payments as meeting the criteria of
Annex 2, irrespective of how programmes are classified inthis notification "; rationale and background; programmes
concerned.When it was not possible to claim that all payments and
support under a programme met the criteria in Annex 2, the
programme was reported as non-product specific AMSsupport.  This applied to the Feed Freight AssistanceAdjustment Fund, most economic and regional
development agreements and to grants to provincial
adaptation councils.  The statement was included so that ina countervailing duty investigation, Canada would not beprejudiced in defending certain payments under
programmes classified as AMS support as non-
countervailable on the ground that they are green.
Australia:  "Marketing and Promotional Services" -  Details
on projects undertaken by Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada's Market and Industry Services Branch (MISB).The MISB negotiates trade agreements, advances Canada's
agriculture and agri-food trade interests, resolves barriers todomestic and international trade, develops and manages
strategic approaches between government and industry as
well as fosters alliances within the industry and withforeign firms.  Its services are designed to promote growthin export and domestic markets and to attract and maintain
capital, technologies and markets.  The cost of providing
these services is reflected in the operating and capitalbudget of the MISB.  The expenditures do not involvepayments to producers or processors.
Australia:  "Infrastructural Services" – Details on listed
projects; confirmation that these do not involve theprovision of subsidized on-farm facilities.The following major items are included: (a) Operating
expenditures by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
Administration ($60.5 million) such as in-houseprogrammes that help conserve soil/water resources (e.g.
community pastures, Shelterbelt and Southwest
Saskatchewan irrigation projects); (b) The portion of theGreen Plan Programme that is not paid directly to
producers ($22.0 million), designed to promote the
conservation and enhancement of natural resources in
agriculture; (c) Alberta's Irrigation Rehabilitation and
Expansion Programme ($19.7 million).
Canada has closely followed the criteria to ensure that the
programmes reported under infrastructural services do not
subsidize the provisio n of on-farm facilities, other than for
the reticulation of generally-available utilities.
Programme item $ million
Western Grain Transition Payments 707.5
Arable Acres Supplementary Payments 49.8
National Transition Scheme for Apples
(decoupled income portion)2.7Australia:  "Decoupled Income Support" – Breakdown of
expenditures by programme item.
Canada-Alberta Hog Industry Development
(decoupled income portion)2.8G/AG/R/23
Page 25
Canada     G/AG/N/CAN/35      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States: "Gross Revenue Insurance Programme
(GRIP)" – Method used to account for GRIP payments;
non-reporting of outlays for 1996 period; clarification of
basis for reporting given that Statistics Canada CatalogueNo. 21-603 shows 1996 GRIP payments totalling C$294Million.Support under GRIP was measured as two-thirds of total
payments per crop year, reflecting the two-third share of
premiums paid by government (federal and provincial).
Payments to producers were accrued to the relevant cropyear.  By crop year 1996/97, GRIP had terminated so therewas no payout for that crop year.  GRIP payments reported
in Statistics Canada Catalogue 21-603 refer to gross
payments, i.e., not only the government share, and arereported by calendar year.
Korea:  Nature, operation, and reasons for classifying thefollowing programmes in the Green Box:These were publicly funded programmes which did not
have the effect of providing price support to producers.
"Other general services"; These services do not fit in any of the General Service sub-
categories of Annex 2 para 2; they did not involve direct
payments to producers. In 1996, the following measureswere implemented:
(a) two federal/provincial measures ($720,000) – the
Agricultural Employment Services which involves the
operation of offices to help farmers assess labour needs andrecruit workers; and the Memoranda of Understanding –
setting up discussion fora that relate to agricultural labour,including the operation of o ffices to help farmers assess
labour needs and recruit workers.
(b) two provincial measures ($4.75 million) – the
Agricultural Service Board (Alberta) provides the
infrastructure for the delivery of weed control, disease and
pest control, soil and water conservation programmes and
enables the administration of related programmes atmunicipal level; the Alberta Summer Farm Employment
Programme enables young people to learn about careeropportunities in farming.
"Other". This category consists of the Technology Innovationcomponent of the Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreementon Agri-Food.  The objective is to speed up the rate ofadoption and dissemination of technologies and innovative
production systems and the development of new products.
This is achieved through fiel d testing of research and
through extension and advisory services activities reportedas "General Services".  Since some of these projects
involve field testing on farm premises, some producers
received some direct payments as reimbursement for thetime they devoted to the project (data collection, supplies,travel, etc.).
The payments were not related to, or based upon, the type
or volume of production, prices, factors of productionemployed.  No production was required.  The results of theresearch are made publicly available on the Internet. Theprogramme meets Annex 2, para 5 criteria.
G/AG/R/23
Page 26
Canada     G/AG/N/CAN/35      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Product-specific AMS
United States: ST/DS:4 - Reason why price-related direct
payments are included in the value of production to
calculate the de minimis level ; category of payments used
to make the adjustment; value of payments by commodity.This approach is consistent  with the method used in
AGST/CAN.  It is based on the need to neutralize the
differences across products or countries stemming fromdifferences in how support is provided.  When support isprovided as market price support, production is valued atworld prices plus the price gap.  When support is provided
through payments, production is valued at world prices.
Unless the value of production is adjusted upward in thelatter case, products or countries relying on direct paymentswould automatically show higher percentage support than
if the same amount of support were provided as market
price support.  Thus the value of production denominatorincludes price-related direct payments from ST/DS:6.  Anamount from column 7 of ST/DS:6 is added to the value ofproduction of each product.
United States: Eggs, turkey, chicken  (ST/DS:5) – Reason
for not notifying market price support for these
commodities given the maintenance of a rigid supply
management system;  establishment of  producer prices.In 1996, as was the case in the base period indicated in
AGST/CAN, no administered rice applied in the chicken,turkey and egg sectors.
Korea/United States:  Operation of the Market RevenueProgramme (MRP) for dried beans and wheat
 (ST/DS:6).The MRP is a federal-provincial programme operating in
Ontario since 1996.  MRP payments are made when the
average annual market price falls below the support price.The payment per acre is two thirds of the differencebetween the support price and the average annual market
price, multiplied by the guaranteed production (85 per cent
of probable yield).  The MRP support price for an eligiblecrop is 85 per cent of the 15-year average Ontario price(adjusted for production costs using an input price index).
The amounts reported in ST/DS:6 equal total payments, by
product, for crop year 1996/97.
Korea/United States: Wheat and durum (ST/DS:4)  –
Reason for the increase in support compared to 1995;The observed increase derives mainly from higher non-
exempt direct payments as shown in ST/DS:6.  The
increase was due mainly to (a) the timing of paymentsunder the Freight Cost Pooling Assistance Programme(payments were made in 1996/97 and are thus reflected in
the 1996 notification) and (b) the cost incurred by the
federal government in covering the deficit of the OntarioWheat Producers Marketing Board for the 1996 crop year.
European Communities/New Zealand/United States : Milk
products ; Butter ; skim milk powder  (ST/DS:5 and
ST/DS:6)
Confirmation that milk used for domestic consumption
(end uses under Classes 1-4) is covered under the price
support system; justification for not including all milk
produced and prices under Classes 1-4, but only milk
produced under Class 4a.-
Whether support was only granted to butter and skim milk
powder; whether milk products benefited from ProvincialDirect Payments;Butter and skim milk powder are the only products to
which support prices apply.  There were no provincialdirect payments for milk and milk products. See also
answers below.
G/AG/R/23
Page 27
Canada     G/AG/N/CAN/35      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Details on support measures for butter and skim milk
powder; clarification of linkages between these measures;Support to milk in 1996 consisted of three components
(summarized in ST/DS: 7): (a) Dairy subsidy
($156.5 million): these are federal direct payments at a
given rate per hectolitre to producers of industrial milk
and cream . (b) Market price support for milk ($457.1
million): only butter  and skim milk powder  received
administrated prices in 1996. (c) Provincial programmes
($0.1 million):  this refers to provincial support for artificial
insemination in the dairy industry in Nova Scotia andOntario.  There are no linkages between (a) and (b).
"Sales for further processing in Classes 5 (a)-(c) " –
Meaning; method used to differentiate supported exportsand non-supported exports;
Differing quantities eligible to receive market price
support in 1995 and 1996; justification for omittingproduction under these Classes if prices are supportedabove world price levels;Changes in dairy pricing in 1995 and 1996 made it
necessary to alter the method of calculating market price
support for milk in 1996, compared to 1995.  Prior to these
changes, production eligible to receive the support price forbutter and skim milk powder was the total production ofeach of these products.  Under the Class 5 permit system
introduced in the 1995-96 dairy year, some butter and skim
milk powder was no longer eligible to receive the supportprice.  This applied to dairy products used by furtherprocessors for certain specific uses.  Since 1 August 1995,
butter and skim milk powder for use in further processed
products is priced in Classes 5(a)-(c) and milk forprocessing into butter for export is priced in Classes 5(d)and (e).  For skim milk powder, pricing in Classes 5(d) and
(e) started around 1 March 1996.  Eligible production of
butter and skim milk powder therefore has to exclude thequantities priced in Class 5.  This is done by subtracting
from total production the quantities priced in Classes (a)-(c)
and by subtracting the quantities exported.  However, as
some quantities that were exported in 1996 had beenpurchased at the support price during the transition to thespecial class system, these quantities are added back intoeligible production.
Whether the same calculation method has been used each
year; if not, volume of eligible production in 1996, basedon the 1995 method.The above calculation details show that the decline in
eligible quantity between 1995 and 1996 results mainlyfrom the exclusion of quantities that did not receive thesupport price, i.e. for further processing and exports.  As
the policy provisions in 1996 differed from those in 1995, it
is not meaningful to apply the 1995 calculation method to1996.
Korea:  Nature of payments provided (ST/DS:7):
"Advance Payments for Crops Act" The programme applied to all storable crops grown inCanada, except wheat and barley grown in the Canadian
Wheat Board designated area.  It enabled producer
organizations make cash advances at harvest to individualproducers of up to $250,000.  The first $50,000 was interestfree to producers.  Support is measured as the interest
payments made by the federal government to financial
institutions (such as banks) on behalf of the producer
organizations.  In April 1997, the programme was mergedwith others into the Agricultural Marketing ProgrammesAct.
G/AG/R/23
Page 28
Canada     G/AG/N/CAN/35      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
"System Improvement Reserve Fund" The programme was established in 1986 to finance
programmes which would reduce costs in the grain
handling and transportation system in western Canada.  The
fund was used to finance some of the additional truckingcosts incurred by farmers when hauling grains or oilseedsto an alternative elevator following branch line
abandonment and to fund trucking costs from off-line
elevators to elevators on operating rail lines.  The fundprovided compensation for shipments through31 December 1999, after which time the programme was
terminated.
Non-product specific AMS
European Communities/Korea: "Net Income Stabilization
Account, (NISA)".
Programme details; NISA is a national programme introduced in 1991. It is
operating in all provinces and assists producers instabilizing their farm incomes through an individual farm
account concept. Governments match annual producer
deposits into an individual NISA account up to a maximumof 3 per cent of their eligible net sales of agriculturalcommodities (which include most commodities reportable
as farming income for tax purposes with the exception of
supply-managed commodities, i.e. dairy, poultry, eggs).Producers may also deposit up to an additional 20 per centof eligible net sales into their account.  The annual eligible
net sales limit per farmer is $250,000.  Producers may
access f unds from their accounts on an annual basis.
Access to funds: (a)  can be triggered when the farm's
operating margin drops below the average operating margin
for the previous five years; or alternatively, (b) producers
can withdraw funds from their account to bring their
individual (or family) income up to a pre-determinedthreshold, currently set at $20,000 for an individual or$35,000 for a family.
Difference between "NISA" and "NISA Enhancement "; In addition to a participant's equivalent deposit allowedunder the NISA Agreement, participants in some provincesmay make an enhanced equivalent deposit into their NISA
accounts. The enhanced matching contributions are
available to participants in several provinces and rangebetween 1 and 3 per cent of eligible net sales.  Theenhancements are separate programmes under differentauthorization than NISA and are thus reported separately.
Reason for classifying the programme as being non-product specific.Since NISA and NISA Enhancement are designed and
operated as whole farm income programmes, it is notpossible to identify support to individual products.
European Communities/United States: "Crop Insurance"
Operation details;This programme operates in all provinces.  It is designed to
stabilize farm incomes by moderating the economic effectsof crop losses caused by natural hazards.  Producers and
federal and provincial governments pay premiums into crop
insurance accounts.
G/AG/R/23
Page 29
Canada     G/AG/N/CAN/35      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Rationale behind calculation method; clarification of
"long-run average contribution from governments";derivation of the 56 per cent government share of support;Indemnities are based on a farmer's average crop yield and
are triggered when a farmer suffers a yield loss due to a
covered hazard.  In principle, the producer share of crop
insurance premiums is 50 per cent and the federal andprovincial government shares are 25 per cent each.Analysis over the long term (since 1981) has shown that the
contributions from governments have amounted to 56 per
cent of total contributions.  Consequently, the share ofgovernments is the total indemnities paid to producers eachyear is represented by this percentage.
Information on indemnities per crop.
Additional comments:  Since the trigger is based on yield
losses, the European Commun ities reiterated its interest
for information on the amount of subsidies per crop.
Canada undertook to convey this question to the
competent authorities.Crop insurance is available to virtually all commercially
grown crops (more than a hundred).  Variations in croplosses generate year-to-year variations in total indemnities.
Under the Farm Income Protection Act, the Crop Insurance
programme reports annually on total indemnities, which arenotified as non-product-specific support.
Korea: "Assistance toward long-term adjustment in the
horticulture industry" –
Operation of the programme; target beneficiaries.This programme included research and marketing projects
to help producers and processors adjust in the long-term todomestic and international market conditions.
Types of crops benefiting from the scheme; As the programme did not target individual products,
beneficiaries included producers and processors of a widevariety of horticultural products, such as fruit andvegetables, honey and maple syrup.
European Communities: "Tobacco Diversification Plan" -
Reason for classifying the programme as being non-productspecific.This programme consisted of two components in 1996: (a)
the Diversification component in Ontario which funded
projects in commodity pioneering and value-added
activities (product and market development); and (b) the
Tobacco Transition Adjustment Initiative (TTAI) in Price
Edward Island which made direct payments to producerswho gave up all their remaining tobacco quota and lefttobacco growing. There was no tobacco-related programme
in other provinces.  As the Tobacco Diversification Plan
did not support producers of any particular product, it isreported as non-product specific support.
European Communities/United States: "Federal Credit
Concessions" –
Programme details;This programme consists of three measures: (a) Farm
Credit Corporation (FCC) loans ($-5.184 million in 1996);(b) Veterans Loans Administration (VLA) ($0.08 million);and (c) Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperative
Loans Act (FIMCLA, previously called Farm Improvement
Loans Act in base period documentation), a loan guaranteeprogramme ($-1.873 million).  Support under (a) and (b) ismeasured by multiplying the stock of debt by the gap
between the weighted commercial rate and the commercial
rate.  Support under (c) is measured as claims paid lessproducer fees and recoveries. These calculation methodsare the same as in AGST/CAN.
Treatment of negative AMS figure. Document G/AG/W/44 dated 14 March 1999, Treatment of
Negative Components in AMS and Total AMS – DiscussionPaper by Canada , refers.  Positive and negative amounts
arising from different policy measures applying to a
product (or as non-product-specific support) may partiallyoffset one another in calculating the product-specific AMS(or the non-product-specific AMS).  Such offset would not
be allowed, however, between two product-specific AMS
or between a product-specific and the non-product-specificAMS.
G/AG/R/23
Page 30
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/12/Rev.1 and Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Philippines: Environmental programmes – Description of
programmes, particularly those relating to extensification
and conservation of genetic resources in agriculture;
conformity with Annex 2 para 12.G/AG/R/15 pp. 46-47 refer. The objectives of the
environmental programs are the promotion of agricultural
production methods compatible with the requirements of
the protection of the environment and the maintenance ofthe countryside.  To achieve such objective, Member Stateshave to draw up schemes by means of zonal programs for
at least 5 years. These must contain a definition of the
geographical area, a description of the proposed objectivesand their justification and the conditions for the grant ofaid.
These schemes may provide aid for farmers who undertake:
• to reduce substantially th e use of fertilizers and/or
plant pesticides, or to maintain the reductions alreadymade, or to introduce or continue organic farming.
• to change, by means other than those referred to in the
first indent, to more extensive forms of crop, including
forage production, or to maintain extensive production
methods introduced in the past, or to convert arableland into grassland;
• to use other farming practices compatible with the
requirements of protection of the environment andnatural resources, as well as maintenance of thecountryside and the landscape (e.g. upkeep of habitats
like traditional orchards, field margins and river
banks), or to rear animals or local breeds in danger ofextinction;
• to set aside farmland for at least 20 years with a view
to use it for purposes connected with environment, inparticular for the establishment of biotopes reserves ornatural parks or for the protection of hydrological
systems;
• to ensure the maintain of abandoned farmland or
woodlands;
• to manage land for public access and leisure activities.
The environmental schemes are drawn up by member states
and have to meet the specific conditions as required inAnnex 2 paragraph 12.  The schemes are subject to the
approval by the Commission and their implementation is
monitored by the competent authorities in the memberstates and by the Commission’s services.
Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/24/Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia/Canada/United States: "Structural adjustment
assistance through resource retirement" -The programmes described below were notified under
Annex 2 para 10.  They were implemented on a temporarybasis to prevent excessive milk supplies by reducing the
number of dairy cows and dairy calves because of declining
domestic milk consumption du e to the financial crisis.
G/AG/R/23
Page 31
Korea   G/AG/N/KOR/24/Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Compliance of both programmes with Annex 2 para 10;
in particular with the requirement that the product bepermanently removed from marketable agriculture.• Purchase of Dairy Calves for the Purpose of Disposal:
the objective was to exclude dairy cattle from milk
production for commercial purposes.  Dairy calves werepurchased at 100 thousand Won per head on the
condition that they should be slaughtered after being
purchased.  None of the purchased dairy calves was usedagain for milk production.  Most died from diseases,were buried or burnt, or provided free to non-profitorganizations, including charity foundations.
•  Compensatory Payment for Slaughtering Dairy Cows:
payments were made for only part of the income losses
incurred by farmers from the voluntary slaughtering of
dairy cows with milking capabilities (100 thousand Wonper head). There was no other requirement but theslaughtering of dairy cows.
Furthermore, these payments were not based on the type or
quantity of production, or domestic or world prices.Therefore the programmes are in compliance with Annex 2para 10 criteria.
Submission of related Table DS:2 notification. These are the same types of programme as those for Stock
Management of Livestock Animals in Supporting
Table DS:4 of Korea's Schedule.  Therefore, these
programmes were not separately notified in Table DS:2.
Mongolia   G/AG/N/MNG/5      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand: "National Programme Green Revolution" -
Whether this programme is new; if so, submission of
related Table DS:2 notification.The related Table DS:2 notification was sent to the
Secretariat on 16 June 2000 and is being processed.
Morocco     G/AG/N/MAR/16      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia:  "Structure and Infrastructure" -  Information and
programmes included; products eligible.This measure concerns the provision of equipment for
maintenance, extension and restoration of buildings;reconditioning and acquisition of equipment; for theexternal services in charge of the monitoring and the
follow-up of agricultural activities in various parts of the
country.  This measure does not cover any specific productin particular.
Australia: "Domestic Food Aid" – Operations; delivery to
beneficiaries; meaning of " compensation less levies ";
whether direct payments are made to producers.Certain basic commodities are subsidized when destined to
the less favoured populations.  The subsidy covers thedifference between the international price and thesubsidized consumer price.  The subsidy benefits the
consumer, not the producer.  The net compensation is
calculated as the difference between (a) the compensationfor basic commodities  and (b) import levies.
Australia: "Livestock Protection" -  Annex 2 category;
basis for payments.This consists in the provision of feedstuffs in favour of
regions that were formally declared as drought stricken bythe competent government authorities.G/AG/R/23
Page 32
New Zealand   G/AG/N/NZL/22      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia:  "Community Irrigation Schemes" – Consistency
of on-site operation and maintenance activities with Annex
2 para 2(g).The payment is fully consistent with Annex 2 para 2(g).
Expenditure is solely related to the maintenance of off-farm
capital works on the one remaining irrigation scheme stillowned by the Crown.
United States: "Rural Sector Assistance Programme" -
Production loss required to trigger payments; basis forcalculation the production loss.The scheme is consistent with Annex 2 para 8. New
Zealand is currently considering carefully whether this
programme might fit more accurately in another Green Boxcategory.  If necessary, a revised notification will beprovided.  The notified expenditure relates to 1,715 grants,
representing an average of $180 per family per week for
four weeks.  Grants are usually one-off, one monthpayment but recipients may reapply for the payment eachmonth.  The grants are in effect social welfare payments to
provide for essential family expenses such as food, and
amount to approximately 50 per cent of the normalunemployment benefit. The grants do not restoreprofitability or enhance the physical integrity of the farm.
In June 1992, New Zealand phased out support aimed at
directly restoring business viability and/or the physicalintegrity of farm or horticultural operations affected by anadverse climatic event or natural disaster.
Korea: "East Coast Afforestation Grants" – Operation; The programme was established in 1992 to address theproblem of severe erosion in the East Coast region of theNorth Island.  With the overall objective of sustainable land
management, the scheme was modified in 1999 to, inter
alia, widen the available treatment options to include
forestry and reversion to indigenous scrub or forest.  Therequirement that trees must be intended for harvesting waseliminated.
Consistency with Annex 2, para 12 criteria; • The programme is fully c onsistent with Annex 2
para. 12 criteria.  Eligibility is determined as part of a
clearly-defined government conservation programme.Payments depend on the fulfilment of specificcommitments under the scheme as set out in each
application.  Each year, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry sets an upper limit on the aggregate amount of thesubsidy based on statistical estimates of the actual cost ofimplementing such schemes.
Eligibility requirements These are set out in the Forestry ("East Coast Grants
Regulations 1992").  Individuals who either own or have aninterest in, "target land" within the Gisborne district, or
who are acquiring the right to use the land, are eligible for
payments. "Target land" is land that does not havesufficient vegetation cover for either current or futureeffective erosion control.  Applications must contain aforest management plan that covers the area to be planted
each year for up to three years and the tending regime to be
followed.   The amount of payment is determined by anannual bidding system.
G/AG/R/23
Page 33
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/25      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
New Zealand/United States: "Grain Price Support" –
Details on (a) price support payments covered by
ST/DS:5 and (b) payments made for food securitypurposes;This is a separate budgetary item within the main budgetary
item also covering public stockholding for food security
purposes (NOK 21.8 million) on the Ministry ofAgriculture's budget.  For reasons of transparency, the totalexpenditures of the budgetary item were included in theGreen Box of the Norwegian Schedule, although the price
support element is covered in ST/DS:5.  The price support
element is thus covered in the Schedule, in ST/DS:1, and inST/DS:5.
Request that programme be removed from ST/DS:1because of non-compliance with fundamental criteria.Norway has chosen to include the total budget item in the
notification in order to keep it in line with its Schedule.
United States: "Compensation for Natural Disaster" –
Compliance with Annex 2 para 8; production losstriggering payments; payments calculation basis.Norway undertook to provide a reply at a later stage.
New Zealand: "Summer Dairy Operations in Mountainous
Regions" - Noted that eligibility conditions require
producers to (a) farm the designated areas over the summer,
and (b) ensure at least four weeks of deliveries to a dairyper summer (G/AG/R/19 refers).  Consistency with
fundamental criteria; whether farmers would r eceive the
support even if they were not farming the designated areas;if not, the programme should be part of Norway's currentAMS.This subsidy compensates for the extra costs of keeping
dairy cows on summer pasture in mountainous areas in
order to ensure the conservation of mountainousagricultural landscape and safeguard traditional milkproduction in mountainous regions, including the
conservation of traditional buildings.  The allowance is
paid in the form of a lump sum per year.  The requirementsof milk delivery are designed to ensure that only summerfarms with milk production based on mountainous pasture
receive the payment.  The payment has no or minimal
influence on total milk production, which is limited byquotas.  The scheme is consistent with Annex 2 para 12 (a)and (b).
New Zealand: "Production on Steep Areas" - Noted that the
payments appear to be calculated on a per hectare basis.Consistency with fundamental criteria; whether farmerswould receive the support even if they were not farming the
designated areas; if not, the programme should be part of
Norway's current AMS.The programme aims at safeguarding the cultural landscape
through the encouragement of farming activities in steepand remote areas.  The objective is to compensate for extracosts due to difficult topographical production conditions in
steep areas.  Support is only available to farms that have an
elevation equal or steeper than 1:5, on at least 50 per centof their total production area.  The types of productionseligible for support are coarse fodder (including grasslands
and pasture), grain, potatoes, berries, fruit and vegetables.
Support is calculated on a per hectare basis, within amaximum amount per farm equal to a maximum of5 hectares.  Approximately 23,900 hectares were covered
by the scheme.  The scheme has thus minimal effects on
production and trade.  The scheme is consistent withAnnex 2 para 12 (a) and (b).G/AG/R/23
Page 34
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/25      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  "Vacation and Replacement Scheme" –
Consistency with Annex 2 paras 5(d) and (e).
In New Zealand's view, the scheme appears related to
production as the workers hired and employed in the
absence of the farmer are most likely employed to keep up
production on the farm (G/AG/R/19 refers.).The objective of the programme is to enable livestock
producers to hire workers for replacement during vacations
and time off in line with national regulations related to the
work environment.  The maximum payment, which takesthe form of an annual lump sum per farm, aims at partlycompensating a full time farmer. Part time farmers are
granted an accordingly reduced payment (calculated on the
basis of the number of animals kept in the farm).  Themaximum amount, calculated for each farm, is not payableuntil the hiring expenses are legitimized, in order to avoid
misuse of the scheme.  The scheme thus gives an
opportunity to farm families to take a couple of weeks offwithout production being affected.  It operates according to
Annex 2.  The production factors employed are not
influenced by the scheme.  If the hired worker did not do
the job, the farm family itself had to do it, but without thesame opportunities for v acations.
Thailand/United States:  "Promotion and Storage" –
Description of operations; details on market regulation,
promotion and sale; payment method used to "obtain
administered prices "; consistency with Annex 2 para 13(b)
if payments are indeed made with this objective.This programme covers several measures: (a) payments
allocated to information and generic marketing activities offruit and vegetables in order to facilitate the sale of theseproducts and to secure supplies in all parts of the country;
(b) payments to facilitate the demand for ecological
products.  The payments are allocated on the basis ofapplications. The item "obtain administered prices" isincluded in the AMS market price support calculations inaccordance with Annex 3, para 8.
AMS
New Zealand: Deduction of negative non-product specific
AMS component – Justification of this approach which has
the potential to allow for domestic support commitments tobe circumvented.The taxes on fertilizers and pesticides are deducted from
the non-product-specific AMS. These taxes were alsoincluded in the Norwegian Schedule.  According toAnnex 3 para.4, specific agricultural levies or fees paid byproducers shall be deducted from the AMS.
Turkey   G/AG/N/TUR/10      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:
Request that Turkey provides its Current Total AMS in
Turkish Lira, i.e. the currency of its Uruguay RoundSupporting Tables.The calculations of domestic support in terms of Turkish
Lira have become meaningless in view of the chronic ratesof inflation suffered by Turkey since 1995.
Data on yearly rates of inflation; Explanation of the
reasons why these rates are considered to be excessive for
the Committee to give due cons ideration to this issue as
foreseen in Article 18.4 of the Agreement on AgricultureInflation rates fluctuated between 88 and 53 per cent
between 1995 and 1999.  However, the rate of inflation has
dropped during the course of the year 2000.  Turkey willtherefore submit the calculations  in Turkish Lira in next
year's domestic support notification.
Australia: EMS vs. AMS –
Purpose for using the EMS in an Annex to ST/DS:5(product-specific AMS);Up to 1998, Turkey has been using the EMS.  However, in
response to questions raised by Members during the reviewprocess, the basis for calculations in 1999 was changed to
the AMS and Turkey will continue to do so in future.  The
Annex to ST/DS:5 in 1999 mistakenly reads "EMS" andthe Secretariat will issue a corrigendum in this respect.
G/AG/R/23
Page 35
Turkey   G/AG/N/TUR/10      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Non-translation of support from Annex to ST/DS:5 to
ST/DS:5.
Having listened to the reply, Australia still remained
confused about the way support to sugar beet was
reflected in this notification,  especially since "the same
calculations are applicable to both tables" (i.e. Annex to
ST/DS:5 and ST/DS:5).  Thus, if support to sugar beet
were properly reflected, this would lead to an AMS
breach.These are omitted for no particular reason.  The same
calculations are applicable to both tables.
Canada/New Zealand/United States: Sugar beet  –
Steps taken by Turkey to bring itself into compliance with
its domestic support oblig ations (in 1999, EMS =
51.61 per cent of the value of sugar beet production);This problem arises only with respect to sugar beets. As
reflected in the Annex to ST/DS:5, the average reference
price for sugar beets was noticeably low in 1986-88, which
affects the calculation results.  In addition, exchange rateadjustments have not kept us with rates of inflation.  Thishas resulted in an over-valued Turkish Lira, further
aggravating the problem.  Nevertheless, Turkey is fully
aware of its WTO commitments and has recently launchedan agricultural policy reform programme. Within thisframework, Turkey will be further reducing its budgetary
outlays for domestic support.  The state sugar factories
which predominantly buy sugar from the producers willalso be privatised.
Elaboration of the argument " there is no private buyer "
(previously invoked as a justification for exempting
support from AMS commitments) and in-depthexplanation of Turkey's reasoning in this regard;-
Request that a modified notification be submitted to
include this support in the AMS calculation.Turkey does not deny that support to sugar beet is above
the de minimis  level.  Turkey will solve this problem when
implementing its agricultural policy reform.
Additional comments.  The United States  noted that Turkey was in violation of its commitments as support levels for sugar
beet are in excess of domestic support commitment level for the second year in a row.  Moreover, according to Canada
and the United States, the absence of private sector trade in this commodity does not appear to be a valid reason for
exempting support from reduction commitments, nor does it ju stify the provision of support in excess of Turkey's
commitments.  Australia noted that since sugar factories are state-owned, calculations for market price support should be
notified in ST/DS:5.
United States : Wheat  – Calculation details of de minimis
support, 9.95 per cent in 1999 (i.e. same level as in 1998);
source of wheat production figures in 1999 in view of
differing data obtained from other sources; existence of apublished source for the applied administered price and themarket price reported in the notification.Results show the same percentage by pure coincidence.
The wheat production figure (18 million tons in 1998) was
officially published by the Institute of State Statistics.  As
notified, there is a published source for the appliedadministered price: the Official Gazette. In 1999, theapplied administered price for Anatolian hard red winter
was 80,000 Turkish Lira per kg.  The market price in 1999
was the average price of the largest three grain stockexchanges in Turkey.
Argentina/Australia: Value of production figures to supportthe de minimis  claims, including for sugar beet.This information is specified  in the Annex to ST/DS:5.G/AG/R/23
Page 36
Table DS:2 Notifications
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/17      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Philippines:
Nature and manner in which minimum standards for
hygiene, environment and animal welfare are determined;These are established in EC and national legislation.
Conformity of above standards with Annex 2 paras 11
and 12.During the discussions of the EC domestic support
notifications for 1995/96 and 1996/97, detailed information
has been provided on the measures and their compatibilitywith specific provisions of Annex 2.  In the Agenda 2000reform, some existing measures were slightly modified.  On
top of the existing requirements, as regards the financial
and physical restructuring of their operations, recipientshave also to comply with the above minimum standards.G/AG/R/23
Page 37
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
Cyprus   G/AG/N/CYP/8/Rev.1    Export Subsidies (Table ES:    )
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Article 9.4 subsidies – Description of programme
operations and how payments are effectuated; confirmationthat subsidies are restricted to Article 9.1(d) and (e) typesof programmes.Undertook to provide a reply at a later stage.
New Zealand:  Wine alcohol and other grape products  -
Noted that, notwithstanding Article 9.2(b), export subsidieswere provided in excess of commitment levels. Detailed
breakdown of subsidy programmes; explanation of how
Cyprus is going to bring its elf back into conformity.Undertook to provide a reply at a later stage.
Estonia   G/AG/N/EST/1    Expo rt Subsidies    (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada:  Milk  - Confirmation of reported plans to launch a
state-run company to encourage exports through financialsubsidies; if so, details on programme operations and pricespaid to producers.There has been an open debate in Estonia on how to
maximize revenues from milk exports.  However, there isno state-run company, nor any government plan to establishany.  Likewise, there are no plans to subsidize milk exports.Estonia is aware of its WTO commitments.
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/20/Rev.1    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Rice  – Destination of subsidized exports. Destinations which may benefit from export refunds are
published in the relevant regulation. However, actual
exports to specific countries cannot be linked back toexport refunds.
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/23    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia:  Circumstances or particular market conditions in
1997/98 which led to the use of cumulated export subsidies.The use of the provisions of Article 9.2(b) is not linked to
any particular market conditions.
Morocco   G/AG/N/MAR/17    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/Thailand: Flowers, fruit and vegetables  –
Operation details on freight subsidies in 1998; programmeoperations; method of payment.This is a freight subsidy be nefiting flowers, fruits and
vegetables.  The amount to be allocated depends on the
number of applications received and actual export
opportunities.  The subsidy is pre-financed by air transportcarriers.  The application files are then directly forwardedto the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development forexamination and final decision.G/AG/R/23
Page 38
Norway   G/AG/N/NOR/23 and Corr.1    Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1-ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia/Thailand: Cheese ; Meat ( bovine,
swine, sheep and lamb ) - Circumstances which led to the
increase of subsidy outlays and quantities for these
products.Norway made use of the right to carry-over unused
quantities or outlays in accordance with Article 9.2(b) and
its WTO commitments.  This reflected the actual market
situation in 1998, where total supplies including importsand stocks were in excess of domestic demand.  Subsidizedexports of swine meat were reduced from 4,547.1 tons in
1997 to 817.9 tons in 1998, and subsidized exports of sheep
and lamb meat were reduced 1096.6 tons in 1997 to785 tons in 1998.  Subsidized export volumes for theseproducts did not increase, as reflected in the corrigendumissued on 8 March 2000.
Thailand:  Processed agricultural products  -  Details on
the types of products involved.The main products receiving export subsidies are pizza and
chocolate.  The subsidy compensates for the high prices of
raw materials in order to ensure the competitiveness of the
food processing industry at world market prices.
Slovak Republic   G/AG/N/SVK/23    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1, ES:2, ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia: Other dairy  (cheese) - Circumstances
which led to the continued use of cumulated exportsubsidies.During several years, this group of commodities has been
exported in significant quantities. The Slovak Republicmade recourse to the provisions of Article 9.2(b) due tochanging world market conditions in 1998 and 1999.
Changes in the dairy market  situation in Central and
Eastern Europe have also influenced the country's previousmarket orientation and increased the necessity to usecumulated export subsidies.
Canada: Malt – Circumstances with led to the increase of
both outlays and subsidized exports in 1999.Due to the decrease of the world market price for malt in
1999, the Slovak Republic provided higher amounts ofexport subsidies. However, these remained within the
scheduled limits.
United States   G/AG/N/USA/32    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1, ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Philippines/Thailand:  Poultry meat
Trends in notified outlays (none in 1996; US$863,000 in
1997; and US$1.4 million in 1998);Export Enhancement Programme (EEP) subsidies for
poultry do not show an increasing trend.  The poultry EEPwas a small programme for just 3,546 tons covering part ofthe 1997 and 1998 reporting periods.
Export markets of subsidized exports; Eligible markets for poultry meat EEP exports during the
period in question included Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman,United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
Whether the United States are prepared to considereliminating export subsidies for agricultural products ofparticular interest to developing countries, such as poultrymeat.The limited use of EEP for pou ltry is consistent with the
US commitments negotiated during the Uruguay Round.The United States is looking forward to address this issuein the agriculture negotiations.
G/AG/R/23
Page 39
United States   G/AG/N/USA/32    Export Subsidies (Table ES:1, ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Japan/Korea:  Skim milk powder ;  Other milk
products  –
Reasons for the sharp increase in export subsidies (using
roll-over provisions).
Korea noted that in 1998 the United States had provided
export subsidies to skim milk powder amounting to
136 per cent of the scheduled commitment level in termsof budgetary outlays and 154 per cent of the scheduledvolume commitment level.  For other milk products, the
figures were 128.6 per cent and 106.8 per cent
respectively.The use of Article 9.2(b) flexibility during the 1997 period
was explained at the June 1999 Committee meeting.  At theend of 1997, approximately 70,755 tons of skim milk
powder were available to program from this flexibility.
Due to unusually strong markets and the availability ofskim milk powder, part of this volume was apportionedover the 1998 reporting period.  The United States remains
committed to the elimination of export subsidies in the
agriculture negotiations.
Status of the Dairy Export Incentive Programme (USA/22refers).The DEIP has not been abolished.  The skim milk powder
figure reported in Table ES:2 is from published US trade
statistics and includes exports with and without DEIP
assistance.
European Communities:  Upda te of all export subsidy
notifications to take into account Appellate Body findings
on US Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC).Direct and on-going negotiations are currently taking place
with the European Communities in an attempt to solve this
important issue.  The United States is looking forward tomake further progress  with a view to conclude thesenegotiations as expeditiously as possible.  However, in the
interest of greater transparency, the United States submits
the most recent edition of its Statistics of Income Bulletin,developed by the US Internal Revenue Service, whichprovides the most recently published annual financial
statistics related to use of FSC. This report shall be
available at the Secretariat for consultation by interestedMembers.
European Communities/Japan: Food aid -
Explanation of differences with volumes of coarse grainsnotified in USA/31;The quantity of coarse grains food aid in the 1998 export
subsidy notification only in cludes sorghum, whereas the
coarse grains figure in the 1998/99 Table NF:1 notification
includes sorghum, sorghum grits, and corn.  Since there is
no reduction commitment  for sorghum grits and corn,these products are not incorporated into the coarse grainsfigure in the export subsidy notification.
Reason why pulses are not listed; absence of Table ES:3notification.A Table ES:3 showing exports of pulses as food aid is not
included because this information is already provided in theTable NF:1 notification.  In addition, the United States'understanding of the notification requirements is that this
information is not required in the US export subsidy
notification.
Reasons for the sharp increase of wheat exported as foodaid;
The European Communities and Japan
 noted the
doubling of food aid, especially wheat and wheat flour,
between 1997 and 1998 .Wheat export as food aid increased following the
implementation of the Food Aid Initiative, which provided
for donations of wheat to countries where food needsexisted.  In addition, the United States also implementedthe Food Assistance Package for Russia, which alsoaccounted for increased exports of wheat as food aid.
__________