RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/28
26 October 2001
(01-5266)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27 SEPTEMBER 2001
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its twenty-eighth regular meeting on 27 September 2001
under the chairmanship of Minister Yoichi Suzuki, of Japan.  The agenda of the meeting as contained
in WTO/AIR/1621 was adopted.
PART I:  T HE REVIEW PROCESS
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6
(a) Argentina:  European Communities – Payments under production-limiting programmes
2. Argentina recalled that it had asked the EC about the level of subsidies provided pursuant to
Article 6.5 of the Agreement at the March 2001 meeting of the Committee, without being able to
obtain a response.  Nor did Argentina receive a response at the informal consultations organized bythe EC on 13 June 2001.  Finally, in the response provided by the EC at the June meeting of the
Committee, the EC stated that it was not in a position to provide information concerning the level of
support by product.   It was clear to Argentina that it made little sense to continue the questioning in
this Committee.
3. Argentina therefore wished to put on record that:
(i) the question put by Argentina pursuant to Article 18.6 had remained without a
satisfactory response;
(ii) Argentina was keeping this matter pending since it did not consider this issue
resolved due to lack of cooperation by one Member;
(iii) Argentina's question to the EC was of great importance since Argentina sought to
assess the legal situation of the EC's domestic support in light of Article 13 of the
Agreement;  and
(iv) Argentina was concerned by the EC's lack of transparency in this matter.
4. The EC expressed disappointment about Argentina's statement since it had hoped that the
EC's response at the June meeting would have  been satisfactory (G/AG/R/27, page 2 refers).
(b) United States:  Venezuela – Issuance of import licences for yellow corn
5. According to information available to the United States, on 18 September 2001, the
Government of Venezuela had published in a Caracas newspaper an official announcement regarding
domestic corn purchases.  One element of the announcement stated that "the issuance of importG/AG/R/28
Page 2
licences for yellow corn will be suspended until the domestic production of corn and sorghum is
purchased, as agreed with the feed producers in June 2001".  The United States requested clarification
from Venezuela as to when, given Venezuela's WTO commitments, this provision of the official
announcement would be repealed.
6. Venezuela explained that in view of seasonal difficulties in marketing maize and sorghum,
the measure referred to above had been adopted which would remain in force until domestic
production of these commodities was taken up.  Venezuela undertook to convey the US concerns to
the capital and ensured the Committee that the competent authorities would give the matter due
consideration.
B. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS
7. 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
Poland (POL/40), South Africa (Z AF/35) and Thailand (THA/38);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from the
Czech Republic (CZE/29), the EC (EEC/31) , Japan (JPN/66), Poland (POL/30 and
POL/41), Thailand (THA/39) and Venezuela (VEN/20);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Japan (JPN/65
and Corr.1) and Poland (POL/42);
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Australia (AUS/36
and Corr.1), Bulgaria (BGR/4), Cana da (CAN/43), Cuba (CUB/15/Rev.1),
EC (EEC/30 and Corr.1), Malta (MLT/8 ), Pakistan (PAK/8), Slovak Republic
(SVK/30), United States (USA/36) and Venezuela (VEN/19);
(v) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  from Canada (CAN/44), and Cuba (CUB/13);
(vi) relating to export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from the Czech
Republic (CZE/31/Rev.1), EC (EEC/32) , Poland (POL/43), Turkey (TUR/13),
United States (USA/35 and Corr.1) and Venezuela (VEN/21).
8. Specific points raised with respect to the notifications listed above and the responses thereto
are summarized in Part I of the Annex to this report.
C. OTHER NOTIFICATIONS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
(a) Notifications in respect of which no questions have been raised in advance
9. The Committee took note of the following notifications, which had been circulated in advance
of the date on which the notice convening the present meeting was issued but in respect of which no
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures:
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  from
Canada (CAN/45, CAN/2/ Add.2, CAN/6/Add.1, CAN/ 10/Add.1, CAN/19/Add.1),
Japan (JPN/1/Add.1), JPN/8/Add.1, JPN/23/Add.2, JPN/57/Add.1), Latvia
(LVA/1/Add.1), New Zealand (NZL/1 /Add.1) and Norway (NOR/1/Add.1);G/AG/R/28
Page 3
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Morocco (MAR/21/Corr.1) and Ne w Zealand (NZL/27 and Corr.1);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Canada
(CAN/46), Czech Republic (CZE/30), Nami bia (NAM/13), New Zealand (NZL/28)
and Poland (POL/28/Corr.1);
(iv) in the context of domestic support co mmitments (Table DS:2):  from Cuba
(CUB/11/Rev.1), Guyana (GUY/3, GUY/4 and GUY/5),  Namibia (NAM/14) and
New Zealand (NZL/29);
(v) relating to export subsidy commitments (T ables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Argentina
(ARG/14), Bulgaria (BGR/5), Ghana (GHA/2), Guyana (GUY/6, GUY/7 and
GUY/8), Latvia (LVA/5), Malta (MLT/9), Namibia (NAM/12), and Pakistan
(PAK/9).
(b) Notifications circulated or made available after the notice convening the meeting was issued
(G/AG/1, paragraph 9 refers)
10. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the
next meeting for substantive review in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working
Procedures:
(i) on administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  from
Australia (AUS/1/Add.1);
(ii) on domestic support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2):  from Australia
(AUS/36/Corr.1), and Sloven ia (SVN/18, SVN/4/Rev.3, SVN/5/Rev.2, SVN/8/Rev.2,
SVN/12/Rev.2, SVN/19);
(iii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Japan (JPN/67).
D. POINTS CONCERNING NOTIFICATIONS RAISED AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS (G/AG/R/2,
PARAGRAPH 14 REFERS )
There was no discussion under this agenda item.
E. COUNTER NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.7
11. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18:7
of the Agreement.
F. OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE REVIEW PROCESS
(a) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process
12. New Zealand and the United States informed the Committee that they were pleased to have
received responses to a number of outstanding questions from Mexico.  The deferred replies by Chile
concerning notification G/ AG/N/CHL/13 are reflected in Part II of the Annex to this report.G/AG/R/28
Page 4
(b) Overdue notifications
13. As had been agreed at the March 1997 meeting of the Committee (G/AG/R/10, paragraph 10
refers) the Secretariat made available a Room Document, dated 27 September 2001, showing the
current status of compliance with the notification obligations.
PART II:  O THER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE
A. IMPLEMENTATION -RELATED MATTERS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE GENERAL
COUNCIL (WT/L/384 REFERS )
14. The Vice-Chairman recalled that the Committee had been requested by the General Council
to report by the end of September regarding the outcome of the Committee's considerations
concerning the following three implementation-related issues:
(i) implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, on the development
of internationally agreed disciplines to govern the provision of export credits, export
credit guarantees or insurance programmes, taking into account the provisions of
paragraph 4 of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of
the Reform Programme on Least-Devel oped and Net Food-Importing Developing
Countries (the Decision);
(ii) addenda to Table MA:1 notifications concerning tariff rate quota regimes;  and
(iii) examination of possible means of improving the effectiveness of the implementation
of the Decision.
15. The Committee considered a draft report and recommendations on these implementation-
related matters and agreed that this report, as amended, be submitted to the General Council on theresponsibility of the Vice-Chairman (G/AG/11).  A number of Members welcomed the Committee's
decision.  Sri Lanka stated that, while the recommendations of the report fell short of its expectations,
it considered the report to be a first step towards full implementation of the Decision.  Sri Lanka had
therefore joined the consensus to adopt the report.   Sri Lanka expressed the hope that the donors, too,
would show flexibility when the Committee em barked on its future work on this issue.
B. 
MATTERS RAISED UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS "
(a) Chile - Functioning of the United States' Hass Avocado Board
16. Chile reiterated its concerns expressed in previous Committee meetings concerning the
United States legislation regarding the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Act.  The
implementation of this Act would present an additional burden for Chile's avocado exporters, have
serious implications for the competitiveness and profitability of its producers and adversely affect
numerous families dependent on this crop.  Chile was particularly concerned about the form of taxcollection, the mechanism of disbursement and the limited reach of the programme with respect to
other similar or competing products.  Chile was of the view that the proposed programme should not
be implemented, at least with respect to imports.  Chile also recalled a recent US Supreme Court
decision which had ruled that a similar programme, the Mushroom Checkoff Program, was
unconstitutional.  Chile also had serious doubts that the proposed regulation was WTO compatible.
17. New Zealand stated that it continued to monitor the developments regarding the planned Hass
Avocado Act.G/AG/R/28
Page 5
(b) Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods
18. As agreed by the Committee at its June 2001 meeting, the Vice-Chairman had prepared a
short factual report for the Council for Trade in Goods on the work undertaken by the Committee in
the course of 2001.  A draft of the report had been circulated under Job No. 6688 (dated 19 September
2001) to facilitate Members' consideration of the matter.  It was noted that the Annex to the reportconcerning compliance with notifications obligations would be updated or revised as appropriate
before the report was finalized.  The Committee took note of the report and agreed that the report
would be submitted to the General Council on the re sponsibility of the Vice-Chairman.  (This report
has since been distributed as document G/L/483 dated 28 September 2001.)
(c) Schedule of Meetings for 2002
19.  The Committee took note of the following schedule of provisional dates for meetings in
2002, on the basis that this schedule may need to be re-visited in light of other developments:
28 March 2002 (Thursday)
13-14 June 2002 (Thursday and Friday)
26-27 September 2002 (Thursday and Friday)
21-22 November 2002 (Thursday and Friday)
(d) Date of Next Meeting
20. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on 6 December 2001.
The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be issued on Friday,
23 November 2001.G/AG/R/28
Page 6
ANNEX
Review of Notifications by the Co mmittee on Agriculture on 27 September 2001
Page
Part I Summary of specific points raised on  notifications and responses thereto -
(27 September 2001)
(i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):   Poland
(POL/40), South Africa (ZAF/35) and Thailand (THA/38);7
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  C zech Republic
(CZE/29), EC (EEC/31), Japan (JPN/66), Poland (POL/30 and POL/41),
Thailand (THA/39) and Venezuela (VEN/20);8
(iii) use of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  Japan (JPN/65 and Corr.1)
and Poland (POL/42);13
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  Australia (AUS/36 and Corr.1),
Bulgaria (BGR/4), Canada (CAN/43), Cuba (CUB/15/Rev.1), EC (EEC(30 and
Corr.1), Malta (MLT/8), Pakistan (PAK/8), Slovak Republic (SVK/30),
United States (USA/36) and Venezuela (VEN/19);14
(v) new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction (Table DS:2):
Canada (CAN/44) and Cuba (CUB/13);34
(vi) export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  C zech Republic
(CZE/31/Rev.1), EC (EEC/32), Poland (POL/43), Turkey (TUR/13),
United States (USA/35 and Corr.1) and Venezuela (VEN/21).35
Part II Deferred replies to questions on notifi cations raised at previous meetings
(i) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): 37
Chile (CHL/13)                         G/AG/R/27, page 21 refers.G/AG/R/28
Page 7
ANNEX
Part I - Summary of Specific Points Raised on Notifications and Responses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Poland      G/AG/N/POL/40   Tariff quota administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Butter and dairy spreads:
Clarification sought regarding the TRQ for products
of HS 0405 (butter and dairy spreads).  Is
consideration given to increasing the tonnage
allocation from 20 tonnes to 100 tonnes per licence aswas the case in 2000 to improve TRQ fill?The Polish authorities are monitoring the system of
TRQ administration.  The methods used are
evaluated by the end of the calendar year and
appropriate decisions taken, taking into accountinformation from importers, evolution of the marketsituation and the outlook for the next year.  As far asimports of HS 0405 are concerned, there was asignificant increase: 1998 – 1,022 tonnes, 1999 –
7,646 tonnes, 2000 – 12,322 tonnes.
South Africa      G/AG/N/ZAF/35   Tariff quota administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada –  Reasons for change in permit eligibility for
"historical importers and new importers" for frozenvegetables, dried peas, other cereals and foodpreparations.  Does this ch ange limit or exclude any
particular applicants?  Reasons for issuing permitsnow on pro rata , rather than a first-come, first-served
basis.No written questions were received from Canada in
advance of the meeting.  As a preliminary response,the switch to the pro rata  method based on historical
imports was made to harmonize the administration oftariff quotas and ease the administrative burden.  Nosignificant change in fill rates has been observed thus
far.  Importers seem to have accepted the change.
Thailand      G/AG/N/THA/38   Tariff quota administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/United States – Validity periods:
Confirmation sought that there are no limitations on
the period of validity of import certificates when notspecified.  Licence validity period for onions andgarlic, tea, pepper, maize, rice, cane or beet sugar,and instant coffee?  Are limited validity periods a
reason for low quota fill?Import licences for these products, as well as for
other products under TRQ, are valid for 30 days.Normally, the licence permit can be extended asrequired, but no later than 31 December of eachimporting year.  The validity period is not a factorcausing low quota fill for the products in question.
The quantity imported depends on import demand.
United States – Non-fat dry milk:
Two quota allocations were provided for non-fat dry
milk for the calendar year 2000.  Actualannouncement for these quotas was delayed for theJanuary-June and the July-December periods.  Thisdelay may have caused milk product manufactures,
who may normally import non-fat dry milk under the
TRQ, to purchase domestic raw milk suppliesbecause the TRQ was not available.  How doesThailand plan to ensure that TRQ allocations aremade available in a more timely and transparentmanner in the future?  Clarification sought regarding
tariff quota quantity made available.The volume of the non-fat dry milk quota allocation
in the year 2000 was 55,600 tonnes while actualimports were 53,233 tonnes.  This was more than thescheduled TRQ volume of 50,555.56 tonnes.
Thailand always allocates the non-fat dry milk TRQ
in a timely and transparent manner.  The delay in
2000 was due to unforeseen circumstances and a
change of chairman in the Committee on NationalLivestock Policy  which authorizes the allocation ofthis quota.  Thailand has usually extended the
importation period to compensate for any delay.G/AG/R/28
Page 8
Table MA:2 Notifications
Czech Republic      G/AG/N/CZE/29    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Reasons for continued underfill of a
number of TRQs, in particular offal meat, milk and
cream, fresh grapes, rapeseed and ethyl alcohol.
Intentions for changing TRQ administration.Lack of import demand, a sufficient level of domestic
supply, lower domestic prices, structural adjustments
and corresponding changes in the consumer
behaviour continue to be pertinent factors.  Atpresent, a change to the current TRQ regime is notenvisaged.
European Communities      G/AG/N/EEC/31    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia/Canada – Reasons for under-
utilized tariff quotas, including some where the fillrates have been low over the past three years or
declining.Lemons, oranges, potatoes, fresh apricots, "bran,
sharps and other residues", "preparations consisting
of malt sprouts and barley", carrots and turnips,
orange juice:  For these products there were sufficient
supplies at competitive prices on the internal market.
Mushrooms, wheat:  For mushrooms the supply in
certain exporting countries was reduced. For wheat
the standard import duty was zero during most of the
year, so there was no need to use the tariff quota.
"Other citrus fruit hybrids", meat of swine:  There
was sufficient supply at competitive prices on the
internal market.
Maize and sorghum:  The quota quantities of these
TRQs were reduced by the imports of maize gluten
feed, brewers' grains and citrus pulp. This reductionbeing accounted for, the quota fill was 100%. This
quota quantity reduction is stipulated in the EC's
commitments, as indicated in footnote 2 of EEC/31.
Oranges, citrus, bran, malt, orange juice and meat of
swine:  As to the reasons for a low fill rate during the
last three years, there has been sufficient supply at
competitive prices on the internal market.
Maize, grain sorghum, orange juice and meat of
swine:  For orange juice and meat of swine the
decline of the fill rate was related to the situation on
the internal market with sufficient supply and
competitive prices.   For maize and grain sorghum
the fill rate was 100 per cent, taking into account thereduction of the quota quantity for imports of maizegluten feed, brewers' grains and citrus pulp(footnote 2 of EEC/31).
Brazil – TRQ for frozen orange juice:
Clarification sought regarding frozen orange juice(total value of import licences issued;  mechanism for
issuance;  reasons for low fill rate).A reply will be provided at the Committee meeting in
December 2001.G/AG/R/28
Page 9
European Communities      G/AG/N/EEC/31    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Brazil – TRQ for poultry cuts and pork:
Clarification sought why TRQ for poultry cuts was
filled while pork TRQ was only 30 per cent filled.A reply will be provided at the Committee meeting in
December 2001.
Japan      G/AG/N/JPN/66    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Australia/Brazil/New Zealand:
Reasons for underfill of most tariff quotas for dairy
products.Skimmed milk powder for school lunch:  Due to a
decline in the number of school children, domestic
demand for school lunch bread, which uses skimmed
milk powder as an ingredient, is decreasing.
Skimmed milk powder for other purposes:  Most of
the skimmed milk powder in this category is used as
livestock feed, and demand for feed is decreasing
reflecting a decline in the number of livestock.
Whey and modified whey for feeding purposes:
Demand for feed is decreasing reflecting a decline in
the number of livestock.
Prepared whey for infant formula:  Demand for
prepared whey for infant formula is decreasing due to
a decline of the birth rate and a growing preference
for breast-feeding.
Butter and butteroil:  Demand for imports is low
because of the continued over-supply of domestic
products.
Mineral concentrated whey:  Demand for imports is
low because of the lack of supply that can satisfy the
domestic needs (i.e. the quality of the products is
unstable;  for example, imported products are prone
to precipitate).
Comment by New Zealand:
Japan frequently implements the provisions of
Article 5 against products which are subject to tariffquotas, and yet about 80 per cent of its tariff quotasare consistently underfilled.  Considering the SSG
mechanism is available to protect industry from
import surges, how can Japan justify the essentiallyperfunctory application of a SSG when many of thesetariff quotas are not even filled?The SSG mechanism was agreed in conjunction with
tariffication as a package in the Uruguay Round.  Thetrigger levels are set based on the average importvolume of the past three years in conformity withArticle 5.4 of the Agreement.  The SSG is applied
when the volume of imports reaches the trigger level,
regardless of TRQ fill rate.  The application of theSSG is not related to TRQ underfill.  As prescribed inArticle 5.2, the additional duty as a result of the SSGis imposed only to out-quota imports, but not to in-quota imports.  Under the TRQ system, Members are
committed to provide access opportunities for
tariffied products, but are not committed to fill theTRQs.G/AG/R/28
Page 10
Poland      G/AG/N/POL/30    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Clarification sought regarding the
TRQ for butter and other dairy spreads (products ofHS 0405).The TRQ for HS 0405 was introduced in 1999.
Prior to 1999, the MFN duties were at the level of in-quota tariffs.
Poland      G/AG/N/POL/41    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Reasons for low fill rate for "Meat
and edible offal of the poultry of heading No. 0105,fresh, chilled or frozen" (HS 0207).  Clarificationsought regarding provision limiting import permits to
a maximum of 100 tonnes per application and its
effect on fill rates (POL/40 refers).  Is a change tothis potential impediment to trade being considered to
allow higher TRQ fill?The current allocation method for import permits is
designed to assure broad access to the TRQs for thelarge number of small importers operating on themarket.  It is not considered to be an obstacle to
trade.  Administration methods are reviewed by the
authorities at the end of the calendar year, taking intoaccount information from importers, the market
situation and the prospects for the coming year.G/AG/R/28
Page 11
Thailand      G/AG/N/THA/39    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Reasons for low or zero fill rates for
the following TRQs:  milk and cream;  garlic, freshor chilled;  coconut, fresh or dried;  tea;  rice;  copra;soybean oil;  palm oil;  coconut oil;  cane or beet
sugar, and instant coffee and other extracts.Milk and cream:  Domestic demand was very low
because the product has been substituted by
concentrated milk and cream in powder form(48,087.77 tonnes of imports or almost 100 per cent
of the TRQ commitment).
Garlic:  There were no requests for quota allocations
from juridical persons due to sufficient local supplies
at low prices.
Coconut, copra and coconut oil:  Thailand is one of
the major exporters of these products.  There was an
excess of supplies of coconuts at low prices, and as
consequence, no demand for imported copra and
coconut oil.
Tea/palm oil:  Low quota fill was largely to due to
high domestic production and low import demand.Soyabean oil:  Demand was low due to the unlimited
import volume of soyabeans at zero duty, part of
which was used to produce soyabean oil.
Rice:  Thailand is one of the major producers and
exporters of rice.  Thailand imports some Japonica,
Basmati and medium grain rice but most importedrice is to satisfy the demand by foreigners and certain
restaurants.
Sugar:  Thailand is one of the major producers and
exporters of sugar.  In 1999, the domestic price was
lower than the landed price for sugar.  Nonetheless,there were some imports of sugar used as food
processing ingredient.
Instant coffee:  The low fill was largely due to the
economic downturn, resulting in coffee consumption
being lower than the previous year.  In addition, largeamounts of instant coffee were produced in Thailand.G/AG/R/28
Page 12
Venezuela      G/AG/N/VEN/20    Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Clarification sought with regard to
the footnote on page 4:  "Venezuela implemented
tariff quotas … for yellow maize … and sorghum.
Imports of all other products were made withoutquantitative restrictions."  Were any other importmeasures in place (i.e. specific licensingrequirements) for yellow maize and sorghum?  Forall other products, were any  requirements in place,
other than quantitative restrictions?
Were notified imports subject to the in-quota duty or
less?   For each item, indicate the volume imported ator below the in-quota rate and the volume imported
above the in-quota rate.The notification covers, for reason of transparency,
all products subject to TRQ commitments.  Products,
other than yellow maize and sorghum, were subject
to a tariff only regime.  For these products, therewere no additional import requirements in place,other than those indicated in the national tariffschedule in force at that time.  In each case, theapplied customs duty did not exceed the bound in-
quota tariff.
United States - Reasons for low fill rates. All tariff quota products, except yellow maize and
sorghum, were subject to a tariff only regime.  The
level of imports depends on demand for imports for
these products.  It should be noted that actual importsexceeded TRQ quantities for milk powder,sunflowerseeds, other fats and oils, and margarine.
United States - Once a tariff rate quota is filled for aparticular product, are additional permits issued tointerested importers?  If so, are licences only
allocated to the traditional importers or new
applicants as well?  Requirements for obtaining"traditional importer" status.Once the TRQs for maize and sorghum were filled,
licences were still issued to all interested importers atthe in-quota tariff.  Traditional importer status is
acquired by having realized imports during the last
two years.  All interested importers, whethertraditional or new, had access to import licences oncethe TRQs were filled.G/AG/R/28
Page 13
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/65 and Corr.1    Volume-based safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Information requested regarding
applied tariff prior to the application of the SSG;  theadditional rate of duty, and volume of trade affected
thus far.Tariff rate applied prior to the SSG action:
119 Yen/kg.
Rate of additional duty levied as a result of SSG:
39.67 Yen/kg.
Volume of imports affected by the SSG:  0 tonnes.
Poland     G/AG/N/POL/42    Price-based safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan – Clarification sought regarding reference to
"period of application".  Confirmation sought that anadditional duty is not imposed, even during the"application period", unless the price of a shipment
falls below the trigger price.The products in question are subject to seasonal
duties in Poland's Schedule.  Period of applicationmeans that additional duties are applied only for aspecific period of the year, not necessarily to the endof the calendar year.  Additional duties are notimposed unless the price of the cargo falls below the
trigger price.
New Zealand – Rationale for calculating one trigger
price for three different periods using average pricevalues.  Is the level of affected imported productsincreasing or decreasing?  Information requestedconcerning tariffs applied to these products prior to
the safeguard application and the additional duty.During the base period all three products were under
one tariff line, therefore this was the only practicalway to calculate a trigger price.
The duty before application of the SSG:
HS 070200005 0.35 Euro/kg.
HS 070200007 and 070200008 0.25 Euro/kg.
Imports under SSG:HS 070200007 221,300 kgs.
Total SSG duty: 5,628 PLNG/AG/R/28
Page 14
Table DS:1 Notifications
Australia    G/AG/N/AUS/36 and Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Infrastructure services:
Table DS:1 contains an entry for infrastructure
development funds for transport, irrigation, anddrainage in the sugar industry by the CommonwealthGovernment and the Queensland Government.  Arethese funds only used to assist sugar producers, and ifso does this programme meet the criteria for
Annex 2, paragraph 2?The funds provide infrastructure assistance to the
sugar industry and do not involve direct payments to
individual producers or processors for on-farm workand are therefore consistent with Annex 2,paragraph 2 criteria.
Commonwealth and NSW funds were provided as the
Government's contribution to two infrastructure
projects: construction of a public bridge in the
vicinity of a sugar mill to provide sugar trucks with amore direct route to a sugar refinery; andconstruction of a co-generation facility powered bywaste materials, including bagasse, to meetrequirements of the sugar industry.  Excess electricity
will be transported to the grid. In both cases, the
funding was delivered primarily to improve theeconomic performance of the sugar industry butflow-on benefits are provided to the regional
community.
Canada – New Green Box measures:
Clarification sought regarding plans to submit toTable DS:2 notifications for certain new Green Box
measures: Deer industry R&D, CP2002 SugarProgram, National Weeds Program and DelicatessenProgram.  Are the Emergency Management ofAnimal Disease incursions, the Pork Producer Exit
Program, the Queensland Tobacco Adjustment
Program, the National Heritage Trust and RiverlandRural Partnership new Green Box measures?  If so,when can we expect the relevant Table DS:2
notifications?The relevant Table DS:2 notifications are in AUS/37.
As to the Deer industry R&D, this item falls within
another programme "Rural Industries Research and
Development" and should not have been separatelylisted.  This resulted in some double counting.
Table DS:2 notifications for the Emergency
Management of Animal Disease incursions, the Pork
Producer Exit Program, the Queensland Tobacco
Adjustment Program, the National Heritage Trust andRiverland Rural Partnership will be provided shortly.G/AG/R/28
Page 15
Australia    G/AG/N/AUS/36 and Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Natural disaster relief:
Clarification sought regarding the eligibility and
payment criteria for the "Exceptional CircumstancesRelief Payments" programme and in particular its
compliance with Annex 2, paragraph 8.See also G/AG/R/23, page 23.  Natural disaster relief
payments (Exceptional Circumstances ReliefPayments (ECRP) and Rural Adjustment Scheme(RAS) Exceptional Circumstances Provisions) are
only available following a declaration of "exceptional
circumstances" by the Commonwealth Government.The nature of the assessment process imposesrigorous tests to determine that the impact of theevent on production is rare, severe and prolonged.Production losses significantly higher than the 30 per
cent threshold contained would be required before the
impact of an event would be considered severe.  Inaddition, production losses of this magnitude are alsorequired to occur less than once in 20 to 25 years for
the area.
A tight set of eligibility and payment criteria for
ECRP are set to assist only those farmers in a
declared exceptional circumstances area who needhelp meeting living expenses as a result of  the rareand severe event impacting on their income.  TheECRP payment is available to eligible producersduring the 12 months in an EC declared area, and for
a further 12-month recovery period after the
declaration is revoked.  E ligible farmers can therefore
have access to the ECRP for up to 24 months.
A revised Table DS:2 notification for ECRP and the
Rural Adjustment Scheme Exceptional
Circumstances Provisions will be  provided shortly.
New Zealand – Natural disaster relief:
Clarification sought regarding the distinction between
the Rural Adjustment Scheme (ExceptionalCircumstances provisions) and the ExceptionalCircumstances Relief Payments programme.  Inparticular, it appears that the two programmes areproviding a similar type of assistance for a similar
type of adverse event.Eligible farmers within an exceptional circumstances
declared area may access two different forms of
support for a period of up to 24 months: Welfareassistance (income support), which is in the form ofthe Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment(ECRP); and business assistance, which is in the formof interest rate subsidies (also known as the Rural
Adjustment Scheme Exceptional Circumstances
Provisions).  EC business support is designed toassist farm businesses that are experiencing financialdifficulties due to a rare and severe event, but are
considered viable in the long term.
Canada – Non-product specific AMS:
The amounts for non-product specific support inSupporting Tables DS:4 and DS:9 are different.
Would Australia indicate which is the correctamount?Non-product specific support totalled $A 3.939
million in 1999-2000 as indicated in ST DS:9.  A
corrigendum to AUS/36 provides for a correction to
ST DS:4.G/AG/R/28
Page 16
Bulgaria    G/AG/N/BGR/4      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada - AGST material:
Bulgaria's commitment in its Schedule (Part IV,
Section I, column 3) refers to a documentAGST/Bulgaria.  Such a document does not seem to
exist.  Could Bulgaria confirm that the relevant
supporting tables are those in Spec(95)4/Add.2 of16 August 1995?Affirmative.
Australia/Canada -  Green Box:
Bulgaria did not report any Green Box measures in
the base period but notified several Green Boxmeasures in 1997 to 1999.  When were thesemeasures introduced, and how do they comply with
specific Annex 2 criteria?  If these measures were
introduced after 1995, when does Bulgaria intend tosubmit DS:2 notifications of new or modified
support?In document AGST/BGR, Green Box measures are
listed, categorized as general services.  Thesemeasures comply with Annex 2 criteria because theyare part of a governmental programme and financed
by the state budget.
The "environmental programmes" notified in BGR/4
were started in 1993 as part of a governmentprogramme.  Under "other", Bulgaria notifiesmeasures that include government support for the
restitution of land and forests.
Canada – De minimis :
Bulgaria did not claim any de minimis  exemption in
calculating the 1986-1988 Base Total AMS.  In
calculating its Current Total AMS, Bulgaria nowseeks to exclude some product-specific AMS on thebasis of de minimis .  Can Bulgaria confirm that each
product-specific AMS included in the calculation ofBase Total AMS exceeded the de minimis  amount of
5 per cent of value of production?
Follow-up comment by Canada :
Canada considers that if Bulgaria decided in the
calculation of its Base Total AMS not to claim d e
minimis exemptions which could have been claimed,
it is required, by virtue of Article 1(a)(ii) of the
Agreement, to apply the same methodology in thecalculation of its Current Total AMS.It is Bulgaria's understanding that in order to exclude
some product-specific AMS on the grounds of de
minimis it is not necessary to have claimed this
specifically in the course of accession.
Canada - What exchange rates has Bulgaria used toconvert Bulgarian leva to ECU in each of 1997, 1998
and 1999?The exchange rates are as follows (leva/euro):
1997 - 1,681.87       1998 - 1,740.05       1999 - 1,836G/AG/R/28
Page 17
Canada    G/AG/N/CAN/43      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan/New Zealand - corn:
Clarification sought regarding the reasons for
introduction of the Market Revenue Program for cornand greatly increased expenditures on Provincial
Direct Payments for corn.The Ontario Market Revenue Program has been in
existence since 1996.  Corn is an eligible commodityunder this programme.  There were no payments forcorn until 1998.  These were triggered due to lower
prices.
Provincial Direct Payments for corn increased from
the previous year due to increased payments underthe Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program inQuebec for corn.  These were also triggered by lower
prices.
Japan/New Zealand - pork:
Reasons for the significant increase in theexpenditure on Provincial Direct Payments for pork.Expenditures increased from the previous year due to
increased payments under the Farm Income
Stabilization Insurance Program in Quebec for hogs.
These were triggered by lower prices.
United States – Clarification sought whetherexpenditures under the Quebec Income StabilizationInsurance programme have been notified in TableDS:1.  Requested a breakdown of expenditures for
each commodity eligible for this programme.Payments under the Farm  Income Stabilization
Insurance programme in Quebec have been notifiedin ST DS:6 (column 7) under "Provincial DirectPayments".  Payments are reported on a calendar year(CalY) basis.  Payments in CalY1998 were: wheat
($4.1 million); barley ($19.6 million); oats ($13.0
million); corn ($53.2 million); soybeans ($1.6million); potatoes ($0.9 million); beef cattle ($82.2million); hogs ($152.8 million); sheep/lamb ($5.4million), and apples (nil).  Rye is not an eligible
commodity.
Cuba    G/AG/N/CUB/15/Rev.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada - Cuba now reports 1999 support in the
appropriate supporting tables (ST DS:1 for Annex 2
support and ST DS:2 for Article 6.2 support).  Do thesame differences in classification apply to 2000support, i.e. "Retail price subsidy from certainproducts that constitute the basic food basket" in STDS:1, and "Compensation from the State Budget for
inputs of agricultural products" in ST DS:2?Yes, Cuba applies the same classification criteria.G/AG/R/28
Page 18
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/30 and Corr.1      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Support for wine:
The only domestic support relating to wine appears to
be in ST DS:8 which lists the guide price.  Accordingto the 1998 EU budget, funding was provided for
distillation of wine and by-products, depreciation of
stocks, aid for the use of must, and abandonmentpremiums for area planted with vines.  In what tableare these measures notified?  How will the domesticsupport measures provided for in Regulation 1493/99be notified, including restructuring and conversion of
vineyards, private storage aid, and distillation of wine
and by-products?  There have been reports of ECmember States aids to the wine sector in recentmonths.  Has any aid been authorized and in what
form?  How will national aids be notified?The EC did not list the guide price in ST DS:8.
Support for the wine sector was notified asEquivalent Measurement of Support. The EMS thatwas notified resulted from a price gap calculation,
with the guide price being used as the applied
administered price.  If the use of a budget figure hadbeen necessary for the notification of support in thewine sector, this would have been the 1999 budgetand not the 1998 budget.  However the 1998/99 pricesupport for wine is covered by the earlier mentioned
price gap calculation in conformity with Annex 4 of
the Agreement. Regulation 1493/99 entered intoforce on 1 August 2000.  The impact of thisregulation, as well as of any recent national aids, interms of the notification of support in the wine sector
will not show before 2000/2001.
United States – Grass seed subsidies:
Clarification sought regarding subsidies benefiting
grass seed (fine fescue seed) in this notification;details of the total amount of support provided tograss seed in 1998/99;  payment rate for grass seed in1998/99, and value of production for seeds for
sowing and grass seed.A reply will be provided at the Committee meeting in
December 2001.
Brazil –  Green Box:
Requested further details on the Green Boxprogrammes of "aid for young farmers" and "support
and protection of organic production …".A reply will be provided at the Committee meeting in
December 2001.
Brazil –  Blue Box:
Clarification sought regarding "per hectare
compensatory payments for producers of cereals …",including a breakdown per type of cereals benefiting
from such support.A reply will be provided at the Committee meeting in
December 2001.
Malta    G/AG/N/MLT/8      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand - Decoupled income support -
Guidance and guarantee programme for beef:
Considers that payments are not fully decoupled from
production and as such, considers that Malta shouldadjust the programme appropriately or correctly
notify it under product-specific domestic support.Bilateral consultations on this issue are being held
with New Zealand with a view to resolving this
matter.G/AG/R/28
Page 19
Pakistan    G/AG/N/PAK/8      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia - Flood protection services:
Can Pakistan confirm that payments are not made to
producers, in accordance with the criteria of Annex 2,paragraph 2(g)?  Does the programme fit within the
Annex 2, paragraph 8 criteria?Response will be provided in writing.
Canada – Water supply facilities:
Pakistan notifies "Water supply facilities, on farm-
water management" as Green Box support underAnnex 2, paragraph 2(c) for 1998/1999 and Annex 2,paragraph 2(g) in 1999/2000.  Could Pakistan pleaseexplain how all parts of the measure comply with the
criteria?Response will be provided in writing.
Canada - AMS calculation:
The "constituent data and methodology" provisions
of Article 1(a)(ii) require Pakistan to calculateCurrent Total AMS in rupees.  Pakistan may alsoprovide the rate of inflation if it cannot meet its totalAMS commitment (Article 18.4).  Could Pakistanplease clarify its intentions to submit DS:1
notifications appropriately revised?
At the September 1999 Committee meeting Pakistan
assured the Committee that "where negative values ofAMS occur, a zero will be indicated in futurenotifications".  Pakistan continues to use a negativeproduct-specific AMS to offset a positive non-
product-specific AMS.  Will Pakistan submit a
revised DS:1 notification, using the agreed method?Response will be provided in writing.
Canada – Non-product-specific AMS – electricity
subsidy:
Under column 7, Data Sources, Pakistan reports "See
annexed statement".  Could Pakistan provide the
annexed statement.Response will be provided in writing.
Slovak Republic    G/AG/N/SVK/30      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
New Zealand - General services - marketing services:
Compliance with Annex 2 criteria.  Will a Table
DS:2 notification be submitted for this new measure?Payments are granted for exhibitions for promotion
purposes.  It is considered that this measure conforms
to paragraph 2 of Annex 2. A Table DS:2 notification
will be forthcoming.G/AG/R/28
Page 20
Slovak Republic    G/AG/N/SVK/30      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada/New Zealand - Cows without market milk
production:
Compliance with Annex 2 criteria.  Will a Table
DS:2 notification be submitted for this new measure?This measure should be understood as a development
programme.  Pursuant to the decree of the Ministry ofAgriculture on "Business Promotion in Agriculture",the applicant is required to submit a confirmation on
breeding in a grazing system.  Cows for meat
production are to be kept in separate cowsheds.  Milkproduction is not supported.  The relevant Table DS:2was submitted on 22 June 2001 and circulated in
document G/AG/N/SVK/31.
Canada/New Zealand – Payments for relief from
natural disasters – Drought Consequence Refunds:
Clarification sought regarding "DroughtConsequence Refunds", including compliance with
Annex 2 criteria, and the reason for the largebudgetary expenditure on this new measure.  Will a
Table DS:2 notification be submitted?This is not a new measure but an extraordinary and
emergency measure during the disastrous drought in2000.  The subsidy was granted directly by the
Government, not from appropriations for the
agricultural sector, and therefore not notified underTable DS:2.  The total expenditures for this measureof 6 bn SKK (95 mill. US$) are considered to be inconformity with paragraph 8 of Annex 2.  The
subsidy compensated for the total costs of drought
losses and did not exceed the level required tomitigate other losses.
Blue Box
Canada/Korea/New Zealand:  Clarification soughtregarding the "set-aside programme", includingcompliance with the criteria in Article 6.5.  Reasonsfor reintroducing  the set-aside programme althoughthe Slovak Republic had stated at the March 2000
meeting that it did not intend to apply Blue Box
measures at present or in the near future.
Follow-up comment by New Zealand :
Expressed disappointment that the Slovak Republic
had reverted to Blue Box subsidies and wondered
whether other support measures had been considered
to achieve the objectives.Last year the Blue Box subsidy, which had been
terminated in 1997, was reintroduced.  This becamenecessary in order to encourage a change invegetative cover to improve soil conditions in thefuture.  A subsidy of 6,000 SKK/ha (125 US$) is
granted for planting grass on arable land, vineyards,
orchards and hop yards;  or 4,000 SKK/ha (83 US$)for restoring and maintaining permanent pastures fora minimum of 5 years.
AMS
New Zealand/United States – Non-product-specific
AMS: capital construction:
Clarification sought regarding the programme"capital construction" and the reason for the large
increase in expenditure under this support measure.In 2000, payment for the following purposes was
covered by this programme:  purchase of equipmentand machinery;  restoration of vineyards, hop yards,orchards etc.; irrigation equipment; storagetechnologies; various modernization and
reconstruction investments, and rationalization of
power management.  Expenditures vary from year toyear.G/AG/R/28
Page 21
Slovak Republic    G/AG/N/SVK/30      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Canada/United States – Non-product-
specific AMS:  cow breeding for milk production:
Could the Slovak Republic explain the classification
of "cow breeding for milk production" as non-
product-specific support.
Follow-up comment by Canada :
Raised doubts whether the response given was
satisfactory in terms of an explanation why the
support in question was non-product-specific.This measure is a compensatory payment, not a milk
subsidy, to support breeding.  A subsidy is granted inannual amounts of 4,600 SKK per head (95 US$) for
herds of a minimum of 5 heads.
United States – Non-product-specific AMS:  worse
natural conditions:
Clarification sought regarding the programme "worsenatural conditions".Pursuant to the relevant decree by the Ministry of
Agriculture, selected areas in mountainous and otherless favoured regions are claimed to take into account
the soil value and other criteria.  The main objectives
are: maintenance of land by grazing and mowing;compensation for earlier retirement in adverseproduction conditions or lower yields;  sheep and
goat breeding.G/AG/R/28
Page 22
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia:  General services:  agricultural marketing
service
Clarification sought whether grants to state projects
meet Annex 2, paragraph 2(f) criteria; whether the
Shipper and Exporter Assistance programme and the
Federal State Marketing Improvement programmewithin the Agricultural Marketing service meetAnnex 2, paragraph 2(f) criteria rather than
Article 9(d) criteria?Descriptions of the US marketing programmes in
question are provided to demonstrate compliancewith Annex 2, paragraph 2(f).  Under theseprogrammes, there are no subsidies employed that
reduce the direct cost of products to domestic or
foreign consumers.  Only widely availableinformation, marketing and promotion, and advisoryand technical services are provided.
(a) Federal State Marketing Improvement Program -
This programme is listed in the Green Box as
Payments to States and Possessions, more commonlyknown as the Federal State Marketing ImprovementProgramme (FSMIP).  USDA's AgriculturalMarketing Service (AMS) website for the programme
(www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/fsmip.htm) states that the
programme funds can be used for a wide range ofmarketing research and marketing service activities,such as:  (1) developing and testing new moreefficient methods of processing, handling, packaging,storing, transporting and distributing products;
(2) assessing customer responses to new or
alternative products or marketing services;(3) evaluating potential marketing opportunities indomestic and international markets;  and(4) identifying problems and impediments in existingchannels of trade, and devising improved practices,
facilities, or systems to address the problems.
Additional information and descriptions can be foundon the AMS website, the FY 2000 Appendix to theBudget of the United States Government and the
FY 2000 and 2001 Explanatory Notes of the Budget.
(b) Shipper and Exporter Assistance Program - This
programme is included in ST Table DS:1 as part of
Marketing Services, which is administered by AMS.The programme provides exporters with "theinformation they need to get their products overseas -
on time, in good condition, and at the lowest cost."
continued on next pageG/AG/R/28
Page 23
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
The information includes handbooks, transportation
reports, articles on identity preservation, and seminarannouncements.  The four aspects of the programmes
are: (1) educational programmes that provide
seminars and workshops to help shippers meet importrequirements, learn how to ship live animals, andother aspects of the shipping business; (2) marketinformation programmes that include market
newsletters and a data base of ocean freight costs;
(3) regulatory activities involving working withexporters to evaluate the impact on exports oftransportation regulations;  and (4) special reports onemerging markets covering information aboutpackaging, refrigeration, container requirements,
foreign port operations, etc.
EC – General services: State programmes for
agriculture:
Under the heading "State programmes for
agriculture," the US notifies an amount of $3,334million.  Does this amount include financing forprogrammes that promote exports of US products?  Ifyes, is any support contingent upon exportperformance?  Does any support reduce the cost of
marketing exports?  Does the amount cover all State
expenditure in the Green Box or are Stateexpenditures also included under other headings inST DS:1?
Follow-up comment by the EC :
The EC remains to be convinced that the related
expenditures are not contingent on export
performance and calls on the United States to take the
necessary steps to ensure that this is the case.The Bureau of the Census (BOC) does not provide
details on the policy composition of this aggregate
amount.  Based on the BOC Classification Manual of
Government Finances, examples of programmescovered by this total include: development andconservation of natural resources for agriculturalpurposes; support and promotion of agriculturalassociations, fairs, exhibitions, and shows; extension
services; research; promotion and improvement of
livestock and dairy production; promotion ofimproved methods of licensing and standardization;and protection of crops and livestock from natural
hazards.
Based on the information available, it is considered
that the kinds of activities included in these state
expenditures meet Annex 2, paragraph 2 criteriainsofar as they provide services or benefits to theagricultural and rural community at large, and do notinvolve direct payments to producers.  We also donot believe that any of these expenditures are
contingent on export performance, nor that they
directly reduce the costs of export marketing otherthan through widely available export promotion andadvisory services.  Marketing and promotionprogrammes of state governments and associations,
including some that focus on specific commodities,
may well be included in the total expenditures,consistent with Annex 2, paragraph 2(f).
All known state expenditures for agriculture that
belong in Supporting Table DS:1 are included in thesingle entry reported in section (a) of the table -
"State programmes for agriculture".G/AG/R/28
Page 24
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC – Domestic food aid:
Clarifications sought regarding the competitive
tender or contract process for domestic food aidpurchases.  Whether in these tender and contract
processes both domestic and foreign products are
purchased?  If yes, what is the approximate share offoreign products in the total of commoditiespurchased?
Japan - Domestic food aid:
Japan understands that some of the programmes
under this category require that food (i) which is
domestically produced, or (ii) which is procured bygovernment through price support measures, shouldbe used.  What is the ratio of such food to all foodprovided as domestic food aid?  How are theserequirements consistent with the national treatment
obligation?  How does requirement (ii) above meet
Annex 2, paragraph 4?Consistent with Annex 2, paragraph 4, the
United States purchases food at current market pricesthrough a competitive tender  or contract process in
programmes where commodities are provided instead
of monetary transfers.  We do not see how the
additional information requested in these questions isrelevant to the criteria for exemption contained inparagraph 4 of Annex 2.
EC – Structural adjustment through resource
retirement programmes.
Is any State expenditure for structural adjustmentthrough resource retirement included?  If so, couldthe US provide details of both Federal and State
expenditure separately?All known state expenditures are currently reported
in one single entry in section (a) as State programmesfor agriculture.  We are unaware of any stateprogrammes under the category of structural
adjustment through resource retirement.
Canada – Environmental programmes: Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Programme
When will the US submit a Table DS:2 notification
(new and modified domestic support) for the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Programme?A Table DS:2 notification for the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Programme has been submitted to the
Secretariat (circulated in USA/37 dated 5 October2001).
EC - Environmental payments.
Is there any State expenditure for environmentalpayments included in this amount?  If so, could the
USA please provide details of both Federal and State
expenditure separately?The reported amount of $297 million is only Federal
government expenditures.  All known stateexpenditures are currently reported in one single
entry in section (a) as State programmes for
agriculture.G/AG/R/28
Page 25
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Crop disaster payments (Green Box) and crop disaster payments and crop insurance (AMS)
EC – Clarification sought regarding the individual
insurance schemes notified in the Green Box and theinsurance schemes notified in the Amber Box.The 1998 crop disaster payment entry under ST
DS:1, section (f), "payments for relief from naturaldisasters" ($1,341 million), is the amount of actualexpenditures through 30 September 2000 for the"single-year" emergency crop disaster payments
authorized by the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of1999 (P.L. 105-277, Section 1102 (b)).  This is aprogramme to provide financial assistance touninsured producers who suffered crop losses in 1998due to natural disasters.  This programme is not part
of the on-going, annual crop insurance programme.
Multi-year crop disaster payments, reported in ST
DS:9 ($577.349 million), were also authorized byabove-cited Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277, Section 1102(c)).  Multi-year payments were paid to producers
who had experienced crop losses in three or more
crop years between 1994 and 1998.  Payments couldnot be received under both single-year and multi-yearprovisions.  All of the multi-year payments wereallocated to the 1998 marketing year for the WTOnotification since there was no information available
on specific crop years covered by the various
participants.
The Federal crop insurance programmes notified inST DS:9 include a variety of annual insurance plansthat are subsidized and reinsured by the USGovernment.  Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance (MCPI)protects producers from effects of reduced yields on
individual farms.  Under the Group Risk Plan (GRP),
payments are made to participants based oncounty-wide yield experiences.  Revenue insuranceplans have also become available starting in 1996.These revenue plans include: Group RevenueInsurance Policy (GRIP), Adjusted Gross Revenue
(AGR), Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC), Income
Protection (IP), and Revenue Assurance (RA).Participants in the various insurance programmesmay choose from various generic coverage protectionlevels. Also, Catastrophic Coverage (CAT)endorsements, available only on some of the above
policies, provide a minimum amount of protection for
a small, fixed administrative fee.
EC – Could the subsidy in the reimbursement forincome losses of one single farmer lead to reportingpartly in the Green Box and partly in the Amber
Box?  If yes, can the total subsidy be higher than
70 per cent of the producer's total income loss?Each farmer must choose one policy coverage option
for each crop, therefore the annual net benefit (whichincludes the effect of the subsidy) would all be
notified in only one table, based on current
notification methodology.  Federal Crop InsurancePrograms in the United States have all been notifiedin ST DS:9.  Annual emergency crop disaster
assistance payments have been notified in ST DS:1.G/AG/R/28
Page 26
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC – In the case of the "crop disaster payments" is
any formal disaster declaration required beforeincurred losses would be reimbursed?Emergency crop disaster assistance payments were
authorized by the US Congress in P.L. 105-277,21 October 1998 (as indicated in the description ofthe programme), in formal recognition of adverse
weather and natural disasters that severely reduced
crop yields.  Estimates of crop damage and incomelosses were based on analysis by USDA, as part ofthe budgetary authorization process.
EC – Clarification sought regarding the distinctionbetween single-year" (Green Box) and "multi-year"
crop disaster assistance (Amber Box).Producers were eligible for single-year, 1998 crop
disaster assistance payments if their losses exceeded35 per cent of their historic average yields, consistentwith the loss threshold criteria under Annex 2,
paragraph 8.  Producers were eligible for multi-year
crop disaster assistance payments if they had anylosses in 3 or more years from 1994 to 1998,therefore eligibility was not consistent with thecriteria in Annex 2, paragraph 8.  For this reason the
multi-year disaster payments were included in ST
DS:9 (AMS).
EC – The last sentence of the comments to theAmber Box "multi-year" crop disaster paymentsstates that "Multi-year" payments are reported here,along with the crop insurance benefits, becauseeligibility was not based on the 30 per cent losscriteria required for green box."  What is the meaning
of the word "because" here?  Is there any relation
between the single - multi-year distinction and the30 per cent loss criterion?The multi-year disaster payments were included in
ST DS:9 because the 30 per cent loss thresholdcriteria of Annex 2, paragraph 8, was not satisfied.
EC – Does the Risk Management Agency establishcrop prices per each crop for the calculation ofreimbursements of crop losses incurred in yieldrelated insurance, e.g. MPCI.  Clarification sought
whether, in such case, it was not more appropriate to
notify the related expenditure under the product-specific category of support rather than non-product
specific category.
Follow-up comment by the EC :
The EC considers that the US should revise its
notification with the related expenditure being
notified as product-specific AMS.All commodities covered by the yield-based MPCI
programmes are offered the same generic programmeprovisions. One such generic procedure is that thebest estimate of the expected market prices of each of
the various commodities is used as the basis for
calculating the market value of the loss, should therebe any, and the amount of the payments, given theproducer's choice from among the various genericcoverage options.  For some revenue insurance
programmes, like the Crop Revenue Coverage
(CRC), other bases for estimating the actual marketvalue of the loss is used, such as market determinedfutures prices.
Follow-up comment by the United States:
The United States does not agree that such insurance
benefits should be notified as product-specific.  The
intended basis of the payment is the market value ofthe loss, not an exaggerated higher than marketsupport level.G/AG/R/28
Page 27
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
EC - Is it correct that in case of revenue-related
insurance, like CRC, IP and RA, futures prices oreven actual prices at the time of harvest for individualproducts are used in the calculation of
reimbursements for crop losses?  Clarification sought
whether, in such case, it was not more appropriate tonotify the related expenditure under the productspecific category of support.The market value of income losses for all
commodities covered by a particular programme istreated in the same generic way.  The market value ofthe loss is based on the per-unit market value.  There
is no option to a country, even if the programme used
payments-in-kind, for in that case the market valuewould still be implicit.
EC – Clarification sought whether in the calculationof reimbursements according crop insurance schemesindividual farmer's or grouped farmer's ActualProduction History (APH) is used as reference yield
specific to each crop?  Clarification sought whether,
in such case, it was not more appropriate to notify therelated expenditure under the product specific
category of support.All commodities are treated in the same generic same
way in regard to the base yield.  The actualproduction history is a 4-10 year average of past
yields.
New Zealand – Clarification sought regarding an
apparent inconsistency between this Table DS:1notification and its DS:2 notification (USA/25)
regarding the crop loss disaster payments
programme?  In this notification, payments under thisscheme are made available where production lossesare at least 30 per cent when the DS:2 notificationstated that producers are eligible for compensation if
losses exceed 35 per cent.The Table DS:2 notification is correct.  ST DS:1
could be revised to say that losses must exceed 35 percent for producers to be eligible for the crop disaster
payments.
Brazil - Reasons for signficant increase in "cropdisaster payments (crop year)" from 1997 to 1998.Question was submitted during COA meeting.  The
United States took note of the question and will
provide a response.
Follow-up comment by Canada :
Took issue with "crop disaster payments (crop year)"
being notified as an exempt measure, with lossesbeing compensated compared to a five-year-period.Canada considered that this was not in conformity
with Annex 2, paragraph 8, which prescribed a three-
year reference period.Took note of comment.
AMS
Argentina/Japan: What are the reasons for the
significant increase in the product-specific AMS forthe following products: barley, corn, oats, sorghum,wheat, soyabeans, sunflower, rice, hogs and pigs and
cotton?
Follow-up comment by Argentina :
Greatly concerned about increase in support,
particularly sorghum.  Recalls that the Members arecommitted to show due restraint.
Comment by Japan :
Observed that there was a conflict between increasing
support levels and calls for ambitious reductions in
the current negotiations under Article 20.Increased loan deficiency payments and marketing
loan gains resulted in the bulk of increased supportfor the categories listed.  A temporary programmetargeted to small-sized hog operations created
support for producers of hogs and pigs.G/AG/R/28
Page 28
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia/Japan - Decoupled Income Support:
Production Flexibility Contract payments:
Given that market loss assistance payments (MLA)
are provided in proportion to PFC payments, it would
seem reasonable that the total payments made on that
basis should be similarly classified.  Why are thePFC payments claimed to be exempt under the GreenBox on the grounds of decoupling while the MLApayments are considered to be in Amber Box andnon-exempt, except on de minimis grounds?
Compliance of PFC payments with the fundamental
requirement that has no, or at most, minimal trade-distorting effects.PFC payments meet the fundamental requirement of
Annex 2 of having no, or at most minimal, tradedistorting effects on production because eligibility forthe payments is clearly defined and the payments are
decoupled from production, prices and factors of
production.  In addition, no production is required toreceive PFC payments.
Canada/Korea – Non-product-specific AMS: MLA
payments:
Why are market loss assistance (MLA) paymentsclassified as non-product-specific AMS rather than
product-specific AMS, given the crop specificity of
the annual payment rates in the production flexibilitycontract payments which underlie MLA?  Can the USindicate the type of year (i.e. crop, accrual, or fiscal)
used to notify 1998 MLA payments?Since it is not possible to ascribe payments in the
current marketing year to a particular commodity,payments were notified as non-product specific.MLA were made (and recorded by USDA) based on
area and production criteria from a prior base period,
regardless of what commodity was planted on thearea in the current (1998) marketing year.  Thecrop-specific payments rates are based on thehistorical period, not the current period.  Forexample, a producer with a wheat base received a
payment based on that historical base, but may have
in fact planted corn and soybeans and no wheat at allin 1998.  Or, the farmer may not have planted anycrop at all, and still received a payment based onprior wheat area.  (Production was not required to
receive a MLA payment.)
Korea - Could US provide the data on the breakdownof the MLA payments for each crop in 1998?Since the payments are non-product specific, we are
unable to provide the requested breakdown.G/AG/R/28
Page 29
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada – Tax exemptions:
Elaboration sought regarding the US comment at the
September 1999 meeting that it does not consider taxexemptions, particularly fuel tax exemptions, to fall
within the scope of domestic support programmes
covered by the Agreement ?
Japan – Tax exemptions: bio-energy payments:
The US Federal Government has implemented bio-
energy programmes, such as tax concessions, whichare aimed at the promotion of ethanol usage for fuel.Could the US clarify its position on how theseprogrammes should be treated in the Table DS:1
notification?
Follow-up comment by Canada :
Recalls provisions in Annex 3 with respect to
"subsidies shall include … revenue foregone".We do not believe exemptions for such taxes belong
in the AMS.
Follow-up comment by the United States :
US fuel tax exemptions are not necessarily specific to
agricultural uses. For example, off-road useexemptions are tax differentials based on user fee
concepts of equity.  There is no subsidy involved for
any off-road users, whether they are farmers or not.
Canada - What is the status of the process to updatethe 1994 survey used to estimate the state creditprogrammes?Regarding estimates for State Credit Programs, these
annual surveys are no longer made, and we do notknow when or if we will receive any new estimates.
Japan - Federal Milk Marketing Orders:
Is the support for milk under the Federal MilkMarketing Orders included in the calculation of
market price support for dairy in ST Table DS:5?No.  Support for milk is provided through USDA's
offer-to-purchase programme, under which USDAproduct purchases are used to maintain the supportprice for manufacturing milk.  The single national
average support level for all manufacturing grade
milk (3.6 per cent milkfat) was used as the"administered price" for dairy.  This support priceprovides the foundation of the national price support
for all milk.G/AG/R/28
Page 30
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Total value of production:
Could the US describe how it arrived at its figure on
the total value of production?  We note that the value
of production is based on National Agricultural
Statistics Service data, however, arriving at the finalvalue appears to be a complex process and is difficultto replicate from the source material referred to in thefootnotes.  Could the US also provide greater detailon how the value of production is calculated and
whether the basis of this calculation has been the
same during the implementation period?The list of commodities and sources of information
has remained unchanged during the implementationperiod, 1995-98.  The total value of production wasnotified in supporting table DS:4 for 1998 as$190,885.951 million.  In addition to the specific"AMS" commodities listed in supporting table DS:4,which had a value of production of $111,614.199million, there were also the following non-"AMS"commodities included in the total, which had valuestotalling $79,271.752 million.
Vegetables 15,144.792
Fruits and nuts 12,237.918Hay 11,606.734Sheep and lamb 354.437Eggs 4,439.446Broilers 15,144.551Chickens 75.542Turkeys 2,679.301Horses and mules 1,914.350Aquaculture 781.043"Other crops" 14,893.638Total: 79,271.752
Some of these non-AMS commodities are
represented in the notifications by the value of cash
receipts from farm marketings as provided by the
Economic Research Service  (ERS) website. Thecash receipts data are for calendar years, while theNASS value of production data are marketing yearsthat varies for each commodity.  (See the ERS cash
receipts tables for the United States and by States
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/finfidmu.htm)
Cash receipts are used in the case of vegetables, fruits
and nuts, horses and mules, aquaculture, and "othercrops".  Actual value of production data from theNational Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) isused to measure the value of hay, sheep and lamb
meat, eggs, turkeys, broilers, and chickens.
"Other crops" is the total value of cash receipts from
farm marketings for Other Crops, as defined by theERS, minus the ERS cash receipts from cane sugarand from sugar beets, since they are represented byactual value of production data in the WTO total
value of production.  In addition to the sugar receipts,
the ERS Other Crops category includes mapleproducts, various seeds, hops, mint, Christmas trees,
mushrooms, and greenhouse/nursery products.
continued on next pageG/AG/R/28
Page 31
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
The value of production of the specific "AMS"
commodities in the 1998 notification, Supporting
Table DS:4, are represented by published NASS
value of production data.  The general procedure hasalways been to use the NASS value, if available, andotherwise, to use the ERS cash receipts data.
NASS Sources of Data on Value of Production for
1998 (see the www address at http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/estindx.htm).
Information is provided for meat animals, milk, wool
and mohair, honey, poultry and a summary of cropvalues for 1999.
New Zealand – Could the United States provide adescription and clarify the nature of the variouspayments made under its loan deficiency programme,
such as marketing loan gains, loan deficiency
payments, commodity loan forfeit and others?  Inparticular, there appears to be no comparable value in
the United States' domestic support notification for
1998 (USA/36
).Marketing assistance loans—These commodity loans
provide producers the opportunity to receive
immediate cash at harvest, through either market loangains, certificate exchange gains, loan deficiencypayments, interest subsidies, and loan forfeit benefits.The foundation of these opportunities is thenon-recourse marketing assistance loan for
commodities, as provided for by Title I of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996(P.L. 104-127, or "the 1996 Act").
Immediate cash at harvest - Non-recourse market
assistance loans are available for the 1996-2002 crops
of wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice, soybeans, and
minor oilseeds.  Producers may receive a 9-month
loan equal to the previously announced per-unit loanrate multiplied by the quantity of the eligiblecommodity a producer agrees to store and maintainas security for the loan.  By no later than the loanmaturity date the producer may settle the loan
obligation by either repaying the loan and accrued
interest or by delivering to the government thecommodity used as security.
Marketing loan gains - Under the 1996 Act,
producers can repay with cash their non-recourse
market assistance loans for particular commodities at
a per-unit rate that is less than the original contractloan rate.  This option is available when marketprices tend to be lower than the loan rate in particularlocalities.  Producers receive an implicit gain calledthe "marketing loan gain" equal to the difference
between the original loan rate and the announced
repayment rate.
continued on next pageG/AG/R/28
Page 32
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Loan deficiency payments - When producers are
allowed to repay commodity loans at less than the
original loan rate, they are also offered the option of
accepting a direct payment called a loan deficiency
payment in return for not taking out a loan in the firstplace.  The per-unit payment rate in this case is equalto the announced difference between the original loanrate and the announced repayment rate being used in
the locality for the marketing loan gain programme.
Commodity loan forfeit benefit - This benefit is
received when producers actually exercise their
option to deliver to the government the commoditybeing held as security for the loan as a way of settlingthe loan obligation, instead of paying off the loanwith cash.
Commodity loan interest subsidy - An interest
subsidy is received by the producers who take out a
commodity loan.  The subsidy occurs because thegovernment charges producers less than thecommercial market interest rate, or completelywaives the interest in some cases.  Interest is waived
if the loan is repaid under the above marketing loan
gain provisions, when the commodity is forfeited tothe government to settle the loan, or whencommodity certificates are used to pay off the loan.The value of the subsidy depends on the total valueof the loan, the interest rate differential (commercial
versus government rates), and how long the loan is
outstanding.
Certificate exchange gain s - These are considered
received when loans are repaid at a repayment rate
that is less than the original contract loan rate, andwhere commodity certificates are used to pay off the
loan instead of cash.  These payments were added
into the notification separately from the otherpayments because the normal budget summary andreport process did not cover them.G/AG/R/28
Page 33
United States   G/AG/N/USA/36     Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand - The USDA ERS appears to record
only cash payments made directly to farmers andshows the amount paid under the loan deficiencyprogramme amounted to  $1.783 b illion in 1998.
What is included in the USDA ERS description of
direct government payments, with regard to the loandeficiency programme, and how does this relate tothe product-specific and other product-specific
measures of support notified?The loan deficiency payments ($1.783 billion) are
those reported by the Economic Research Service(ERS) in the ERS website found athttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/finfidmu.
htm.  These data are on a calendar-year basis, as are
all the ERS farm income data.  That is, the amountsrepresent only those amounts paid out by theGovernment during the specified 12-month calendaryear.  The direct payments notified to the WTO for1998, however ($2.780 billion), are on a
crop-marketing-year basis.  The notified totals for
1998 are the totals associated with the 1998programme provisions regardless of when theyactually are paid out and received in terms ofcalendar years.  Direct payments, in general, areprovided by the government on a
crop-marketing-year-basis.  These payments include
the producer's share plus the landlord's share in allcases, and they also include the value of"payments-in-kind," when applicable.
Brazil – Reasons for increase in AMS support andwhether this suggests a new orientation in US
agricultural policy.Question submitted during COA meeting.
Venezuela    G/AG/N/VEN/19     Domestic Support   (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States:   Domestic food aid:
Clarification sought regarding the Strategic Food
Programme.  The description states that the state
directly subsidizes seven key agricultural products.Does this mean that the state buys the products fromfarmers and then donates it to the poor, or does thestate directly buy products from poor producers at a
fixed price?The Strategic Food Programme (PROAL) is a social
programme with the aim of providing a low income
target population with a group of selected products
based on their caloric contribution (sardines, oil,maize, flour, rice, leguminous crops, "quinchoncho"and "caraotas"  and milk).  The programme functionsthrough a network of distribution centres for foodwhich covers 222 municipalities, consisting of supply
centres in marginal zones.
PROAL is financed with public resources coming
from the central government as well as localgovernments.  The funds are destined for thepurchase of the selected products at market prices to
offer them to the target population at a discount of no
more than 40 per cent.G/AG/R/28
Page 34
Table DS:2 Notifications
Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/44      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Japan – Alberta Environmental Sustainable
Agriculture:
Clarification sought regarding kind of activities/
financial assistance in the "Farm based component"of the above programme?  Is it correct that paymentsare not provided to the producers, but to the
municipalities?Payments are not provided to producers.  Assistance
is provided to agricultural service boards, agriculturaland environmental organizations and nativeorganizations to encourage better management ofpractices by farmers and ranchers to reduceenvironmental impacts of primary production.
Examples of activities eligible for assistance include
sustainable cropping and grazing systems; alternativelivestock watering systems; shelterbelts, agroforestryand woodlot management; municipal resourcemanagement; environmental liability and riskmanagement; and wildlife habitat and biodiversity
conservation.
New Zealand – Clarification sought with regard to
Canadian Government's announcement in March2001 of an immediate inj ection of C$500 million in
new federal funding for farmers experiencingsignificant income pressures. In particular, areexisting programmes being used to channel this
additional support, or what new or modified
measures are required to give effect to theannouncement?The new federal funding announced in a news release
on 1 March 2001 helps address challenges facing thefarm sector in Canada in 2000 and alleviate thepressures that many Canadian farmers wereexperiencing that year.  Support is being providedthrough existing programmes and programme
mechanisms reported in our annual notification as
well as some new programmes.  The support will beincluded in future notifications.
Cuba G/AG/N/CUB/13      New or Modified Domestic Support (Table DS:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Clarification sought regarding the
Price Stabilization programme, including criteria to
qualify as low-income and resource-poor producers.The embargo by the United States against Cuba has
resulted in severe problems for the agricultural sector
and for food security.  These problems are aggravatedby restrictions on the purchase of fuel and spare partsfor agricultural machinery and transport, pesticidesand fertilizers.  These circumstances have not onlyresulted in additional expenditures but have also had
a negative effects on agricultural productivity.
Cuba has therefore established the Price Stabilization
programme for agricultural inputs which has been inforce since 17 February 1999.  It was established tobenefit those producers whose production is destined
to ensure food security and is not commercialized on
the market, but purchased by the state, with the aimof safeguarding the basic food basket of thepopulation, i.e. fresh milk, meat, coffee and potatoes.It is only low-income and resource-poor producers
who have access to this programme.G/AG/R/28
Page 35
Tables ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications
Czech Republic   G/AG/N/CZE/31/Rev.1    Ex port Subsidies    (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada – Clarification sought regarding
circumstances leading to the granting of export
subsidies for malt for the first time.By supporting exports of malt, the Czech Republic
exercised her rights based on scheduled
commitments.  The provision of export subsidies wasnecessitated by unfavourable quality and quantity ofbarley used for brewing in 2000.  Exporters also hadto be supported to compensate for unequalopportunities on world markets resulting from
subsidy programmes implemented by other exporting
countries.
European Communities     G/AG/N/EEC/32     Export Subsidies    (Tables ES:1 to ES:3)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina/Brazil/New Zealand - For wheat and wheat
flour, coarse grains, butter and butteroil, and othermilk products, subsidized exports exceeded the levelof notified total exports for these products.  Can the
EC provide an explanation for this?Data on total exports are from EC export statistics
(i.e. they represent actual exports) for the period July1999-June 2000, and are expressed in product weight.The figures on subsidized exports are in equivalent
weight and are based on export certificates issued
during the marketing year in question, irrespective ofthe actual date of export.  Moreover, not allcertificates will be effectively used.  Given certaineconomic circumstances, it may be advantageous fortraders to apply for new certificates instead of using
the certificates previously granted.
New Zealand – Expressed disappointment at the
decision to roll-over unused export subsidies for eightproducts in 2000.Members are entitled to do so.  The use of roll-over
was consistent with Article 9.2(b).
Brazil – Details requested (value and volume)regarding destination of subsidized exports toMercosur countries for wheat, rice, secondary grains,
powdered milk and wine.A reply will be provided at the Committee meeting in
December 2001.
Poland     G/AG/N/POL/43     Export  Subsidies    (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Clarification sought whether notified
subsidized skimmed milk powder constitute a
reporting error.The correct figure is 36,620.875 tonnes.
United States – Information requested regarding
exports of potatoes in 2000.Export data for potatoes in 2000 are on page 4.
Poland did not provide export subsidies for potatoes
during this period.G/AG/R/28
Page 36
Turkey   G/AG/N/TUR/13    Export Su bsidies    (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States - Data requested concerning the volume
of wheat reported in Table ES:2 that was exported bythe TMO during calendar year 2000, the average
price of that wheat when purchased by the TMO and
sold on the commercial market.Undertook to provide the requested data as soon as
possible.
United States   G/AG/N/USA/35 and Corr.1    Export Subsidies    (Table ES:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada - At the June 1998 Committee meeting, the
United States indicated that it notifies its dairy export
subsidies on the basis of bids accepted by the Dairy
Export Incentive Program (DEIP) rather than awardspaid, as "shipping data would not be timely". It alsonoted the practice of re-issuing foregone exportsubsidies (i.e. resulting from awards which were
issued but subsequently cancelled) for re-use in
subsequent years. Given that no roll-over provisionexists beyond the fifth year of implementation, whatmeasures has the United States put in place to ensurethat the payment of DEIP export subsidy awards will
not be made in excess of bound commitment levels?As outlined in USA/FAS Program Announcement
DEIP-FY-01-1, the United States has changed the
operating procedures for the Dairy Export Incentive
Program (DEIP). Under the new procedures, bidsawarded in a marketing year (July-June), which arenot exported by a certain date within that marketingyear, will be considered cancelled. Any tonnage
cancelled will be re-announced for awards during the
balance of that same marketing year. Cancelledtonnage from previous years will not be awarded insubsequent marketing years.
Brazil – Requested data concerning the share of
subsidized exports of butter, powdered milk, cheese,
other milk products, and poultry to countries takingpart in the FTAA negotiations.Took note of the question and undertook to provide a
response.
Venezuela   G/AG/N/VEN/21    Export Subsidies    (Tables ES:1 and ES:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada - The subsidized export volumes for the
following products are higher than the total exportvolumes - 0602.99, 0714.90, 0805.90.  CouldVenezuela clarify the figures?Confirmed that there was an inconsistency in the
notification and undertook to clarify the matter.G/AG/R/28
Page 37
ANNEX
Part II – Deferred Replies to Questions on Notifications Raised at Previous Meetings
Table DS:1 Notification
Chile   G/AG/N/CHL/13    Domestic Support    (Table DS:1)   ( G/AG/R/27, page 21 refers)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Argentina – ST DS:2 credit programmes:
Programme requirements, including allocation
details, subsidy amounts.The objective of the credits is to promote the creation
of income sources, improve the economic, social and
technical level of the beneficiaries and integrate them
in the national development process.
The recipients of the credits are:  smallholders with
limited sources of income, mainly based onagricultural and livestock production and
independent of land ownership; organizations formed
by the former (juridical persons) which developprogrammes and productive activities which directlybenefit the rural sectors; organizations for theprotection and development of indigenous people;members of peasant families, young persons and
women who participate in INDAP's productive
programmes.
The subsidy amount depends on the specific
situation.  The objective is to provide an incentive toINDAP users allowing a better integration in the
process of modernization of the sector.
__________