RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/AG/R/9
17January 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-0161)
Committee onAgriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON28NOVEMBER 1996
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onAgriculture helditsninth meeting on28November 1996. Onthebasisof
theconsensus reached ininformal consultations undertaken bytheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade
inGoods following theresignation oftheAmbassador Danai Tulalamba (G/AG/R/8 andWT/L/31
refer), theCommittee appointed Mrs.Apiradi Tantraporn ofThailand asChairperson oftheCommittee,
under Rule14ofitsRules ofProcedure, fromthepresent meeting uptoandincluding theMarch 1997
meeting oftheCommittee.
2. Theagenda ofthemeeting, contained inWTO/AIR/494, wasadopted.
PartI:TheReview Process
3. TheCommittee reviewed thefollowing notifications aslisted ontheagenda:
(i) ontheadministrationoftariffandotherquotacommitments(TableMA:1):fromCanada
(G/AG/N/CAN/10) andTunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/4);
(ii) relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/9), Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/4) and the Philippines
(G/AG/N/PHL/4/REV.1);
(iii) inthecontext ofthespecial safeguard (Tables MA:3 toMA:5): from Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/11and13),thePhilippines(G/AG/N/PHL/5),Poland(G/AG/N/POL/6)
andTunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/5);
(iv) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Australia
(G/AG/N/AUS/7/REV.1), Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/6), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/7), South
Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/5) andTunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/3);
(v) inthecontext ofnewormodified support measures exempt from reduction (Table
DS:2): from Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/10);
(vi) relating toexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Honduras
(G/AG/N/HDN/2), Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/12), Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/8), South Africa
(G/AG/N/ZAF/6),Switzerland(G/AG/N/CHE/5/REV.1)andTunisia(G/AG/N/TUN/2).
4. Specific points raised during themeeting withrespect tothenotifications listed inparagraph 3
above aresummarized intheAnnex tothisreport.G/AG/R/9
Page2
5. Thefollowing notifications were subject topreliminary review andaretobereverted toat
thenextmeeting inaccordance withparagraph 9oftheCommittee 'sWorking Procedures:
(i) ontheadministrationoftariffandotherquotacommitments(TableMA:1):fromMexico
(G/AG/N/MEX/1);
(ii) relating toimports under tariff andother quota commitments (Table MA:2): from
Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/2);
(iii) inthecontext ofthespecial safeguard (Tables MA:3 toMA:5): from Mexico
(G/AG/N/MEX/3);
(iv) relating todomestic support commitments (Table DS:1): from Honduras
(G/AG/N/HDN/3) andTurkey (G/AG/N/TUR/3);
(v) inthecontext ofexport subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 toES:3): from Israel
(G/AG/N/ISR/3/REV.1) andMexico (G/AG/N/MEX/4).
6. Withrespecttopointsconcerningnotificationsraisedatpreviousmeetingsthathavebeenpursued
bilaterally, therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCommittee thatinresponse tothe
United States questions posed attheOctober 1996meeting oftheCommittee onAgriculture regarding
domestic support fordairy andsheep thatwasexempted fromreduction commitments, Iceland reported
thatthesupport wascovered byArticle 6.5oftheAgreement onAgriculture (direct payments under
production-limiting programmes). However, theUnited States considered thattheinformation provided
didnotsupport aclaim ofexemption under Article 6.5.Iceland 'sAMS calculation appeared tomerely
classify 80percentto85percentofthedirect payments made toproducers asexempt frominclusion
intheAMS andonlyclassified theresidual asdirect payments under theAMS calculation. The85per
centofbaseperiod production criterion wasathreshold which hadtobemettoclaim theexemption.
Itwasnotintended tobededucted fromsupport thatexceeded thethreshold. TheUnited States believed
thattheamounts claimed inSupporting Table DS:3 should betransferred toSupporting Table DS:6
andadded totheTotal Current AMS. Therepresentative ofIceland stated thathisauthorities believed
theissuetobelimited toonlyoneofthetwoprogrammes inquestion asthesheepmeat payments seemed
toconform tothe85percentbaseperiod production criterion. Asfarasthedairy programme was
concerned, thereseemed tobeatleastatechnical problem ofpresentation. Therepresentative ofIceland
stated thattheissuewasstillunder review withtheUnited States, andassured theCommittee thatshould
Iceland havetoissueacorrigendum toitsDomestic Support notification, Iceland would stillbewithin
itsTotal AMS commitment.
7. TheCommittee noted thatnocounter-notifications hadbeenreceived under PartIDofthe
agenda.
Matters Relevant totheImplementation ofCommitments under theReform Programme:
Article 18:6
8. Thefollowing matters relating totheimplementation ofcommitments under thereform
programme were raised pursuant toArticle 18:6oftheAgreement onAgriculture:
(a) NewZealand: Lack ofdomestic support andexport subsidy notifications; lackofresponses
towritten questions
9. TherepresentativeofNewZealandexpressedconcernatthenumberofoverduedomesticsupport
andexport subsidy notifications andcalled onthedelegations concerned tosubmit theirnotificationsG/AG/R/9
Page3
assoonaspossible. Therepresentative ofNewZealand alsonoted thatitwasamatter ofgeneral concern
thatthere weremany instances where delegations hadindicated thattheywould respond subsequently
toquestions addressed tothem atprevious meetings buthadnotdoneso.Itwassuggested thatthis
wasasystemic issue which needed toberesolved inapractical manner. Ingeneral, written answers
should notberequired where anadequate oralresponse wasforthcoming atthemeeting concerned,
although written copies ofsuchreplies should bemade available todelegations requesting them. But
wheredelegationsindicatethattheywillreverttoamatterraisedunderArticle18:6thegeneralprocedure
should bethattheanswers beprovided inwriting andwithin areasonable timefollowing themeeting
atwhich theywere raised.
10. Therepresentatives ofAustralia, Canada andtheUnited States supported thepoints made by
NewZealand andtheviewthatconcrete proposals should bedeveloped toimprove theprocess soas
toensure thatdeferred answers tomatters raised under Article 18:6were promptly provided tothe
Committee. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thatthere werealsomany examples ofsituations
where domestic policies hadbeenchanged, orwhere newpolicies hadbeendeveloped, butnodetails
ofthese changes were being made available toenable anassessment tobemade ofthedirection of
these policy changes andhowtheyfitted inwiththerulesunder theAgreement onAgriculture. While
thiswaspartly aproblem oflackoftimely andfullnotifications andofthefailure torespond, orto
adequately respond, tomatters raised under Article 18:6, therewerealsosome aspects ofthenotification
requirements inrespect ofcertain policy changes thatmight needtobelooked into. Suggestions were
alsomade concerning thedesirability ofmaking thedetailed versions ofArticle 18:6matters raised
insummary forminadvance ofmeetings available toother interested delegations priortothemeeting
atwhich these matters were tobeconsidered.
(b) United States: Tariffs applied todairy products byEgypt
11. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thatthetariffs applied byEgypt in1996inrespect
ofcertain dairy products (inparticular fortariff items: 0402.10.99; 0404.10.91; 0406.20.10;
0406.30.10; 0406.40.10; and0406.90.10) appeared tobeinexcess oftherelevant bound rates. The
representative sought details oftheratesapplied forthese products byEgypt and,intheevent that
scheduled commitments hadbeenexceeded, asked Egypt when itintended tobring itsapplied tariffs
onthese products intoconformity withitsWTO commitments.
12. Therepresentative ofEgypt indicated thattheUnited States request forinformation regarding
itsapplied tariffs onthese products hadbeenreceived on20November 1996 andthatthere hadbeen
consultations onthematter. Therepresentative stated thatEgypt wascommitted toitsobligations under
theWTO. Thequestions raised totheUnited States hadbeenreferred totheEgyptian authorities for
checking andtoprovide anyfurther clarifications.
(c) United States: Import banonpoultry meat intoEgypt
13. Therepresentative oftheUnited States indicated thattheUnited States continued tobevery
concerned atEgypt 'scomplete banonimported poultry products, which should havebeeneliminated
asof1January 1995. Therepresentative asked when Egypt intended toeliminate thebaninaccordance
withitsWTO commitments.
14. Thedelegation ofThailand alsoexpressed serious concerns overthecontinuing Egyptian ban
onimports ofpoultry products, amatter which Thailand hadraised inthefirstinstance attheMarch
1996meeting oftheCommittee, andabout thefailure oftheEgyptian authorities torespond towritten
requests seeking clarification onthematter. On26November 1996, information hadbeenreceived
byThailand fromtheMinistry ofTrade inCairo thatthetiming ofthepromulgation ofanewregulation
togiveeffect toEgypt 'sannounced intention toopenitspoultry market stillremained tobedetermined.G/AG/R/9
Page4
Thiscontinuing uncertainty wasaffecting theopportunity forThaiexports ofpoultry products tothe
Egyptian market. Thailand accordingly reiterated itsrequest thatEgypt withdraw itsmeasures orbring
them intoconformity withitsobligations under theWTO onanexpeditious basis.
15. Therepresentative ofEgypt indicated thatthematter raised bytheUnited States andThailand
hadbeenunder fullreview forsome timeinCairo. Itwashoped that,shortly, adefinite dateforthe
removal ofthebanwould beestablished. TheMembers which hadraised thismatter andtheWTO
would beadvised accordingly.
(d) United States: Compliance withexport subsidy commitments byHungary
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States, having noted thattheissues involved inrelation to
Hungary 'scompliance withitsexport subsidy commitments were notnewanddidnotneedtobe
reiterated, requested thedelegation ofHungary toreport onHungary 'splans forbringing itsexport
subsidy policies intocompliance withitsWTO obligations. Therepresentative ofHungary stated that
itreconfirmed itsdeepinterest inreaching, assoonaspossible, amutually satisfactory conclusion
oftheconsultations under Article XXII oftheGATT 1994, andassured Members oftheCommittee
thatforitspartHungary would make allthenecessary efforts toachieve thisend.
(e) United States: Status oftheimplementation oftariff quotas inthePhilippines
17. Thismatter wasdiscussed under PartIAoftheCommittee 'sagenda (seeAnnex, page14).
(f) United States: Useofexport subsidies onbeefbySwitzerland
18. Thedelegation oftheUnited States stated thatitunderstood thatSwitzerland wasgranting export
subsidies forbeefinviolation ofitsWTO commitments, andsought information onhowthesubsidies
inquestion werebeing provided andonwhatmeasures werebeing taken bySwitzerland tostopthese
subsidized exports. Therepresentatives ofAustralia andNewZealand associated themselves withthe
question raised bytheUnited States andpointed outthatitwasdifficult toseehow, given internal
market prices thatweremuch higher thanworld market prices, Switzerland could export beefwithout
theassistance ofexport subsidies.
19. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland made thefollowing points inresponse tothematter raised:
(i)thatalthough Switzerland wasnotatraditional exporter ofmeat ithadregularly shipped small
amounts overthelasttenyears; (ii)thatthebeefexports inquestion came from thestocks ofa
parastatal organization which wasresponsible fortheorderly management oftheSwiss meatmarket;
(iii)thatforthefirsttimeinmany years ithadbecome necessary, inthecourse oforderly stock rotation,
tooffermeatforsalenotonlytotheSwiss market butalsotoprivate companies engaged, interalia,
inexport trade; (iv)thattheamount actually exported, asoftheendoftheprevious week, was
1,350 tonnes andconsisted mainly offrozen, boneless bovine meat; and(v)thatnosuchexports were
envisaged for1997.
20. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland confirmed thatthere wasnocommitment onmeat in
Switzerland 'sschedule ofexport subsidy commitments, andindicated thattheSwiss authorities were
looking intothematter inorder todetermine thelegalnature oftheshipments, inparticular astowhether
anyexport subsidy interms oftheAgreement onAgriculture wasinvolved. Atthepresent stage it
appearedthattheparastatalorganizationconcernedwasbenefittingfromvariousgovernmentalsubsidies,
intheformofbothgrants andreimbursable credits, which wereconsidered as"internal support" funds.
Anypossible additional export contribution could therefore onlyhavebeenprovided through voluntary
exporters 'contributions. Moreover, thefactthattheprices atwhich theamount ofmeatoffered for
saleonthedomestic market bytheparastatal organization (9,000 tonnes) wereequal toorbelow thoseG/AG/R/9
Page5
offered toexporters, would seem toconfirm theconclusion thatwhatwasinvolved wassimple stock
rotation andnotanexport subsidy.
21. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland alsopointed outthatSwitzerland hadwitnessed adramatic
deterioration ofitsdomestic andexternal cattle andbeefmarkets, atleastpartly asaconsequence of
theBSEdisease invarious parts ofEurope. Thissituation hadledtostocks offrozen meatofsuch
volumes thatthechannelling ofthemeatintonewmarkets hadbecome imperative. TheSwiss authorities
andtheSwissmeatindustrywerealsoconcernedbyaseriesofsanitarymeasurestakenbyothercountries
which hadcontributed significantly toworsen Switzerland 'sproblems. TheSwiss authorities considered
thatsomeofthesemeasuresmayconstituteviolationsoftheWTOobligationsoftheMembersconcerned,
andreserved therighttoraisethese issues intheappropriate forum attheappropriate time.
22. Therepresentative ofAustralia indicated that,while theresponse provided bySwitzerland to
thequestions raised wasappreciated, itwassomewhat lessthanconvincing. Inthisregard the
representative ofAustralia questioned whether theparastatal organization referred towasnotinfact
astatetrading enterprise andenquired whether ithadbeennotified totheWorking Party onStateTrading
Enterprises. Therepresentative noted inthisregard that"thesaleordisposal forexport bygovernments
ortheiragencies ofnon-commercial stocks ofagricultural products atapricelower thanthecomparable
price charged forthelikeproduct tobuyers inthedomestic market" wascovered byArticle 9:1(b)
oftheAgreement onAgriculture. Theexport subsidy commitments wereofmajor importance tothe
Australian government andthebreaches which hadoccurred inthisareaoverthetwo-year lifeofthe
Agreement werematters ofserious concern. Australia would therefore expect, aswithother similar
cases, thatintheforeseeable future afullexplanation would beprovided regarding theconformity
ofthese beefexports withSwitzerland 'scommitments under theAgreement onAgriculture. The
representative ofNewZealand queried whether theconclusion tobedrawn fromthefactthattheprices
charged todomestic users wereequal toorlower thanthose charged toexporters wasthatSwiss internal
beefmarket prices weremore orlessonaparwithexport prices, which wasclearly notthecase, or
whether certain domestic users hadbeengranted afavourable price sothat,forexample, beefcould
beexported inprocessed products. Ineither caseitwasconsidered thatanexport subsidy wasclearly
involved anditwastobehoped thatawritten explanation oftheoperations oftheparastatal organization
would besubmitted totheCommittee. Therepresentative ofArgentina agreed thatitwasnecessary
toclarify whether theactivities oftheparastatal organization werecovered byArticle XVIIoftheGATT
1994andalsothatitshould bedemonstrated thattheoperations ofthisbodywereconsistent withArticle
9:1(b)oftheAgreement onAgriculture.
23. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted thatevery WTO Member haditsown
obligations toliveupto.Switzerland hadspecific obligations toliveuptoinitsSchedule asregards
export subsidy commitments, bothinrelation tomeat aswellastolivebovine animals. The
representative oftheEuropean Communities questioned therelevance ofwhat hadbeensaidbythe
representativeofSwitzerlandregardingmeasurestakenbytheEuropeanCommunitiesonsanitarymatters
consistently withitscommitments under theSPSAgreement. Therepresentative oftheCommunities
considered thatinthesecircumstances itwasabitofaredherring tothrow thesanitary measures taken
bytheEuropean Communities onbeefintoadebate intheCommittee onAgriculture inresponse to
questions raised inrelation toSwitzerland 'sexport subsidy commitments onbeef. Every issue had
tobedealtwithintheappropriate body. Switzerland hadtherightifitwished todosotoraisematters
concerning theEC'spolicy intheSPSCommittee. Intheviewoftherepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities whatwasnotacceptable wasraising suchmatters intheCommittee onAgriculture as
anexplanation ofthemeasures taken bySwitzerland asregards exports tothirdcountry markets.
24. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidthatitwishedtoexpressthehighestdegreeofconcern
overtheissue. What wasinvolved wasnotamisunderstanding about implementation ,noracase
ofovershooting ascheduled export subsidy commitment level, butademonstrable lackofregard forG/AG/R/9
Page6
arulethathadbeensigned onto.Therepresentative oftheUnited States alsoagreed that,while the
defensive statements made regarding theSPSrestrictions placed onSwiss meat products could be
understood, there wereappropriate procedures todealwiththese kinds ofproblems. Intheviewof
theUnited States itwascertainly notappropriate thatsuchSPSrestrictions should beusedasapretext
forbreaking asubstantive ruleonexport subsidies. TheUnited States would therefore bepursuing
thematter raised through allavailable avenues, including further bilateral discussions.
25. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthattheconcerns expressed byMembers onthismatter
wereunderstood andagreed thatSwitzerland 'scommitments under theWTO stood independently of
actionsandcommitmentsofotherMembers.Theremarksthathadbeenmadeconcerningtherestrictions
imposed bythird countries onmeatproducts were intended asbackground information toillustrate
thedifficult situation intheSwiss meatmarket. Asregards thepoints raised concerning theparastatal
organization, theposition wasthatthisbody hadhadnoinvolvement inimporting orexporting and
hadnottherefore beennotified asastatetrading enterprise under Article XVII. Therepresentative
ofSwitzerland alsoconfirmed thattheprices offered forexport werenotlower thanforthe9,000 tonnes
made available, attheretail level, ontheSwiss domestic market andwerecompetitive withtheprices
ofexports from neighbouring countries, ifnotwithworld market prices. Asregards procedure,
Switzerland would dulyreport these operations andtotaloperations fortheyearinaccordance with
itsnotification obligations, andwould beready toprovide further information onrequest.
26. Therepresentatives ofAustralia andNewZealand indicated thattheyremained oftheview
thatthetransactions inquestion involved subsidized exports, andexpressed theirinterest inparticipating
inanyfurther discussion withSwitzerland onthisissue.
(g) United States: Prohibition onpoultry imports andimposition ofdiscretionary import
licensing restrictions onimports offruits inEcuador
27. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatinearly November Ecuador hadannounced
aprohibition onpoultry imports, whose purpose appeared tobetoprotect domestic producers from
lower costimports. TheUnited States wasdeeply concerned bythismeasure andalsobyreports that
fruitimporters inEcuador were having difficulties inobtaining import licences. Intheviewofthe
United States these measures appeared tobeinconsistent withArticle 4:2oftheAgreement on
Agriculture, which prohibited quantitative import restrictions anddiscretionary import licensing. The
representative indicated thatwritten questions concerning these measures hadonlyrecently been
submitted tothedelegation ofEcuador.
28. Therepresentative ofEcuador indicated thattheUnited States questions hadbeenreferred to
Quito andthattheUnited States andtheCommittee would beinformed oftheresponse thereto assoon
asthiswasreceived. However, inprecedent cases, theprohibition wasrelated tosanitary problems
andimport licences were subject totheapproval oftheSPSauthorities.
Other Matters Relating totheReview Process
29. Nomatters relating tothereview process were raised under ItemFoftheagenda.
PartII:Other Matters within thePurview oftheCommittee
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision onMeasures Concerning thePossible Negative Effects ofthe
Reform Programme onLeast-Developed andNetFood-Importing Developing Countries
30. TheChairperson noted thatunder Article 16:2oftheAgreement onAgriculture, theCommittee
isrequired tomonitor, asappropriate, thefollow-up totheMarrakesh Ministerial Decision onMeasuresG/AG/R/9
Page7
Concerning thePossible Negative Effects oftheReform Programme onLeast-Developed andNet-food-
Importing Developing Countries. Inaccordance with paragraph 6oftheCommittee 'sWorking
Procedures, thisMonitoring exercise isundertaken attheregular November meetings oftheCommittee.
Themonitoring exercise isconducted onthebasis ofthecontributions byMembers, including
notifications intheNFseries concerning actions taken within theframework oftheNetFood-Importers '
Decision.SevenMembershad,sofar,submittednotificationsintheNFseries(Australia,Brazil,Canada,
Korea, NewZealand, theUnited States andUruguay). Anupdated version ofthedataoninternational
foodaidintheSecretariat background noteG/AG/W/20 wasalsoavailable asaroom document. The
Chairperson noted thattheCommittee 'srecently adopted report fortheMinisterial Conference onthe
NetFood-Importers 'Decision (G/L/125) wasanimportant feature ofthegeneral follow-up tothe
Decision.
31. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities assured theCommittee thattheEuropean
Communities wasgreatly attached totheimplementation oftheMinisterial Decision. Therepresentative
stated thatmore detailed elements would beprovided onfoodaidandtechnical assistance inaddition
totheextensive datathatwasalready available, andnoted thattheEuropean Communities supplied
roughly halfofinternational foodaid.Asubstantial proportion ofsuchaidwenttotheleast-developed
countries andnetfood-importing developing countries included inthelistestablished bytheCommittee.
Asregards thoseACPcountries under theLomé Convention which areincluded inthislist,theEuropean
Communities carried outextremely detailed country programmes which included theagricultural field,
regional cooperation andsustainable development, withalotofthetechnical andfinancial assistance
being provided totheAfrican members. Thesame programmes were runinother countries onthe
listsuchasAfghanistan andBangladesh, Morocco, Tunisia, andEgypt. TheEuropean Communities
hadrecentlyadoptedaverybroadrangingandnewprogrammewhichwouldincreasetechnicalassistance
tothese latter countries.
32. Therepresentative oftheWorld Bank stated thattheBank monitored thesituation ofLeast-
Developed andNetFood-Importers bothinthecontext ofworld foodmarkets andthrough itsregular
country dialogue, technical assistance andlending programmes. Developments over1995-96 had
confirmed theBank'sassessment thattheprice shock duetotheUruguay Round would besmall, and
make theestablishment ofaspecial Uruguay Round adjustment facility unwarranted. TheWorld Bank
Groupwasworkingtoraiseagriculturalproductivityinleast-developedandnetfood-importingdeveloping
countries byencouraging ruraldevelopment through lending andtechnical assistance programmes which
include: (i)encouraging appropriate policies andstrategies; (ii)enhancing food supplies through
intensification ofproduction systems andsound natural resource management; (iii)improving access
tofood; and(iv)improving utilization offood. Infiscal year1996, Bank lending foragriculture and
ruraldevelopment wasoneofthelargest single lending sectors ,withcommitments totalling $2,576.7
million (in1992 prices) withnearly one-third ofthetotalgoing tolow-income countries.
33. Therepresentative oftheFAO stated thatduring 1995/96, thecostofcereal imports byLow-
Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDC 's),agroup which includes mostoftheleast-developed and
netfood-importing developing countries, wasestimated tohaverisen by$4.2billion, reflecting not
onlythesharp riseinnominal prices, butalsoafurther decline infoodaid.Theglobal foodsupply
situation asforecast byFAOforthe1996/97 yearis,however, slightly improved withagoodrecovery
inglobal cereal output, andasmall rebuilding ofglobal stocks. ThePlanofAction approved atthe
recently concluded FAO World Food Summit committed countries toensure thattrade policies were
conducive tofostering foodsecurity through afairandmarket oriented trading system. During the
Summit, several donor countries andinternational organizations hadpledged financial assistance for
implementing theSpecial Programme onFood Production inSupport ofFood Security inLIFDC 's.
TheFAO expected theprogramme tobeextended nextyearto10more LIFDC 's,bringing thetotal
ofbeneficiary countries to25.Inaddition totheassistance FAO provides toleast-developed andnet
food-importing developing countries therewasalsoanFAOassistance policy which tookintoaccountG/AG/R/9
Page8
thenewtrading environment evolving since theconclusion oftheUruguay Round. During thepast
yearseveral countries andregions hadbeenassisted inanalysing theAgreements andDecisions relating
toagriculture andtheirimplications fornational policies andprogrammes. Acomprehensive Planfor
providing future technical assistance relating totheUruguay Round wasunder preparation andwould
beforwarded totheWTO Secretariat forconsideration. Finally, therepresentative oftheFAOnoted:
(i)thatanumber oftechnical studies were completed orplanned; (ii)thatarevised Catalogue of
Transactions under theFAO Surplus Disposal andConsultative Obligations taking intoaccount the
Agreement onAgriculture wastobesubmitted totheFAOCommittee onCommodities atitsFebruary
1997Session; and(iii)thatananalysis ofthetransmission ofinternational priceincreases todomestic
markets andofpublic policy responses would become available shortly.
34. Therepresentative oftheWorld Food Programme (WFP) noted thatin1995some 63percent
ofWFP expenditures weretargeted toLeast-Developed countries, withabout 7percentgoing topoor
people in13ofthe16countries falling under theWTO category of"NetFood-Importing Developing
Countries". WFP could playanimportant roleinusing targeted foodaidtoprotect vulnerable people
incountries thatmight benegatively affected bythereform programme through: (i)assessment of
foodaidneeds; (ii)design ofcost-effective foodaiddelivery systems; (iii)monitoring, coordination
andlogistical organization offoodaid;and(iv)thepossibility ofcombining direct foodtransfers with
thebuilding ofproductive assets. However, therepresentative ofWPFstressed thatatthetimeofhigher
world foodprices, WFPfoodaiddeliveries tothe16recognized netfood-importing developing countries
fellbyalmost 60percentfrom 1.6million tonsto700,000 tons, withtheshare offoodaidintotal
cereal imports dropping from more than6percentin1994 tolessthan3percentin1996.
Annual Consultation withrespect toMembers 'Participation intheNormal Growth ofWorld
Trade inAgricultural Products within theFramework oftheCommitments onExport Subsidies
under theAgreement onAgriculture (Article 18:5)
35. TheChairperson noted thatArticle 18:5oftheAgreement onAgriculture provided forMembers
toconsult annually intheCommittee withrespect oftheirparticipation inthenormal growth ofworld
trade inagricultural products within theframework ofthecommitments onexport subsidies. The
Committee 'sWorking Procedures stipulated thatthisannual consultation wastobeundertaken atthe
regular November meetings oftheCommittee. TheChairperson noted thatthiswasthefirstoccasion
onwhich theseArticle 18:5consultations werebeing held.Oneofthemainbases fortheseconsultations,
sincetheyaretobeundertaken "within theframework ofthecommitments onexport subsidies", would
bethefullpicture notifications which cover notonlysubsidised exports andrelated budgetary outlays
butalsototalfoodaidandtotalexport volumes. Since theCommittee didnotyethaveacomplete range
ofsuchnotifications atitsdisposal, theArticle 18:5consultations onthisoccasion would ofnecessity
bemore general incharacter thanmight otherwise bethecase.
36. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesunderlinedtheimportanceitattachedtoArticle
18:5oftheAgreement onAgriculture andnoted thatextensive efforts werebeing made torespect the
notification deadlines. Asregards theorganization offuture consultations under Article 18:5, the
representative oftheEuropean Communities, while noting thatfurther discussions wereneeded and
thatfullnotifications would constitute animportant basis, suggested: (i)thatitwould beuseful toreflect
onthesources ofdatatobeused, since asingle source ofstatistics might giverisetovarious issues
asregards theinformation provided; (ii)thatadecision wasnecessary astowhether there would be
asystematic evaluation forallcountries andproducts; (iii)thatMembers whodonotsubsidize exports
butwhose market share nevertheless was5percentormore insome products ("significant exporters")
should beincluded inthedebate; (iv)thattheuseofareference period against which tomeasure trends
inexports andworld market shares could behelpful; and(v)thattheSecretariat could playaroleby
providing material forthefuture consultations under Article 18:5.G/AG/R/9
Page9
Other Business
37. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesinformedtheCommitteethatthereweregrowingproblems
withtheEuropean Communities onarange ofagricultural issues which hadthepotential toshortly
threaten animportant amount oftrade. These problems related tobilateral andmultilateral commitments
made ongrains, andwould addtotheincreasing tensions which already existed inthelivestock area.
TheUnited States would continue towork intensively totrytoresolve these issues but,failing some
immediate resolution, would raisethese issues ontheagenda ofthe3December 1996 meeting ofthe
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities regretted thatthe
United States hadchosen toputarequest fortheestablishment ofapanel ontheEuropean Communities '
import regime forgrains ontheDSBagenda. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated
thattheEuropean Communities attached great importance toallitsWTO commitments, andwould
continue tomaintain contacts anddiscussions withtheUnited States onanumber ofissues. However,
therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities pointed outthattheUnited States request forapanel
raised important procedural points which would havetobeaddressed intheappropriate forum. The
representative ofThailand expressed concerns similar tothose oftheUnited States asregards thenon-
implementation bytheEuropean Communities ofanegotiated agreement onrice,andemphasized the
great importance Thailand placed onthematter which itintended topursue vigorously induecourse.
38. TherepresentativeofArgentina,withreferencetotheprovisionsofArticle10:2oftheAgreement
onAgriculture regarding thedevelopment ofdisciplines ontheuseofagricultural export credits, stated
thatwork onthissubject wasprogressing atalessthansatisfactory pace, asaresult ofalackofpolitical
willandofobstacles putinthewayofreaching areasonable understanding bycertain participants.
Therepresentative ofArgentina urged alldelegations participating inthisprocess andparticularly those
thatwere blocking progress toreconsider veryquickly theirpositions. Therepresentatives ofNew
Zealand, Australia andCanada associated themselves withtheobservations made byArgentina onthe
importance ofaspeedy conclusion tothework onexport credits. Therepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities stated thattheEuropean Communities hadalsobeenworking actively intheframework
oftheOECD tomake progress ontheimportant question ofexport credits andsupported thecalls
forgreater progress inthearea.
39. TheChairperson indicated thatinaletter dated 28November theChairman oftheCouncil
forTrade inGoods (CTG) haddrawn herattention tothedecision oftheCTGtorequest theCommittee
onAgriculture toconsider themodified notification formats contained inthedraftrevision todocument
G/AG/2,assetoutindocumentG/NOP/W/15(paragraph43ofdocumentG/L/112,refers).Asproposed
bytheChairperson, theCommittee agreed totakenoteofthisrequest onthebasis that,inthefirst
instance, thematter would, asappropriate, betaken upthrough informal consultations. Itwasalso
noted that,atitsnextmeeting inMarch 1997theCommittee would takeupthequestion ofaccording
regular observer status tothose international intergovernmental organizations which currently enjoyed
observer status onanadhocbasis.
40. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thatithadbeensuggested thatawayshould befound
bymembers oftheCommittee tomark theirpermanent recognition andremembrance ofAmbassador
Tulalamba 'scontribution tothework oftheCommittee onAgriculture. Agolftrophy subject toannual
competition between theSecretariat andtheCommittee would therefore becreated, bearing Ambassador
Tulalamba 'sname, andmembers oftheCommittee were invited tocontribute tothepurchase ofan
appropriate trophy.G/AG/R/9
Page10
Date ofNext Meeting
41. Thenextregular meeting oftheCommittee onAgriculture willbeheldon13-14 March 1997.
Theairgram convening thismeeting andthedraftagenda willbeissued onFriday, 28February 1997.G/AG/R/9
Page11
ANNEX
Review ofNotifications bytheCommittee onAgriculture atitsMeeting on28-29 November 1996
Summary ofSpecific Points Raised andResponses Thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/10 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -CanCanada explain whythebutter
tariff quota allocated toNew Zealand has
increased from 1,200 to1,360 metric tons? Does
thatreduce tariff quotas opened forother
countries?
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding the
decision toallocate thetariff quota forbutter
entirely totheCanadian Dairy Commission (CDC)
in1996-97. Clarification sought regarding an
exporter whowishes tosellbutter directly tothe
Canadian Market. How willtheCanadian
Department ofForeign Affairs andInternational
Trade consider anapplication foranimport
permit? Arethere anyeligible entities besides the
CDC?
Australia -When didCanada open thetariff quota
forbutter?
Switzerland/European Communities -What isthe
dutyrateapplied onimports ofbutter from New
Zealand?
New Zealand -Areimports ofkosher margarine
counted against tariff quota commitments?TheCanadian Schedule states thatthebutter tariff
quota allocated toNew Zealand increases from
1,200 tons(initial) to2,000 tons(final). Tariff
quotas allocated toother countries expand in
exactly thesame proportion. Therefore, theMFN
tariff quota hasexpanded from 764tonsin
1995/96 to866tonsin1996/97.
Thedecision toallocate tariff quotas andtoissue
import permits istaken bytheMinister of
Foreign Affairs. TheMinister might consider an
application forpermits from other bodies thanthe
CDC.
Tariff quota forbutter wasopened on
1August 1996.
Canada applies thedutyrateprovided forinthe
Canada/New-Zealand Trade andEconomic
Agreement.
Kosher margarine wasimported within thetariff
quota.
Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/4 Tariff Quota Administration (Table MA:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States -Requested information onthequota
fillforbeefandwhether measures other than
tariffs were applied.Tunisia hasnotapplied anynon-tariff restrictions
onimports ofbeef. TheTunisian market
continues tobesupplied normally. In1996 tariff
quota imports exceeded 2,500 tons. However,
theCommittee onAgriculture andPublic Health
wasrequired togivemore attention topreventing
thespread ofdiseases thatareendemic inthe
bovine meat sector ofother countries.G/AG/R/9
Page12
Table MA:2 Notifications
Canada G/AG/N/CAN/9 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities/United States/New
Zealand/Argentina -Why were thetariff quotas
forthefollowing products notfilled: wheat,
barley, cream anddrywhey?
European Communities -Arethevarious wheat
products coming inatthesame rateofduty?
New Zealand -DidCanada record anyimports of
butter outside thetariff quota?Tariff quotas forwheat andbarley were notfilled
duetothecompetitiveness ofCanadian grains on
theCanadian market. Theapplied tariff mayvary
depending onthetrade arrangements, FTA and
NAFTA. Asregards cream, thetariff quota
quantity wassetinaperiod inwhich imports were
high. Imports ofcream stabilized overthelastfive
years toamore normal level andamount to
300tonsperyear. With respect todried whey,
theunder-utilization oftariff quotas wasdueto
commercial reasons. Ontheonehand, most whey
ingredients andproducts were imported under
other tariff classifications, which arenotsubject to
thetariff quota regime, andthistended tokeep the
price ofwhey asaningredient inthefood process
down. Ontheother hand, duetothe
competitiveness ofCanadian prices withimports
prices, imports ofwhey areconcentrated inareas
where there isnotmuch Canadian production.G/AG/R/9
Page13
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States/Argentina/Australia -Sought an
explanation fortheunder-utilization oftariff
quotas, inparticular formeats, grains andcertain
vegetables? How does Iceland intend toensure
fullimplementation ofitscommitments inthe
future?
Argentina -Expressed theview thattheimport ban
onbeefisnotnecessary andthatquarantine could
ensure inabetter waytheprotection ofnational
livestock 'shealth. Argentina intends toraise this
issue attheCommittee onSanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures.
Uruguay -How canIceland justify thebanon
imports from countries which donothave sanitary
problems?Thenotification contains afewerrors withrespect
toin-quota imports. Acorrigendum tothe
notification willbeforthcoming. Tariff quotas for
grains were notfilled duetothedecrease inmeat
anddairy production following theimplementation
ofproduction limiting programmes inthe
agricultural sector. Asregards vegetables, no
quantitative restrictions areapplied oncurrent
access imports, meaning thatdemand dictates
import quantities. Asshown intheMA:1
notification, tariff quotas areseasonal andthe
applied rates ofdutyarewithin commitments. In
some months applied tariffs maybezero. Imports
canfluctuate quite substantially between years
depending ondomestic supply. Inrecent years,
domestic producers have increased their share of
thenational market asaresult ofadvances in
greenhouse production techniques. With respect
tomeats, Iceland stillmaintains animport banon
fresh andfrozen meat forsanitary reasons as
stated atthelastregular meeting (G/AG/R/7, page
18refers). Thebanshould notbeseenas
condemnation ofthesanitary situation prevailing
elsewhere. Scientific evidence hassupported this
astheonlypractical wayofprotecting Iceland 's
unusually fragile livestock, which hasnotacquired
congenital immunity tomany diseases common in
other countries. During thisfirstimplementation
year, theMinister ofAgriculture allowed the
import ofsome poultry andpork products onthe
basis ofthechief veterinary officer 's
recommendations. Under- ornon-utilization of
tariff quotas forpork andpoultry were i.a.dueto
favourable prices onthedomestic market, with
sanitary regulations inevitably having some
deterring effect. Iceland believes thatallmeasures
were taken toenable importers totake advantage
oftheimport possibilities under tariff quotas.G/AG/R/9
Page14
Iceland G/AG/N/ISL/4 Tariff Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Clarification sought onwhether the
system ofauctioning wasimplemented forimports
which exceed thetariff quota, particularly for
cheese.
Australia -Clarification sought ontheproducts
thatarenotsubject toanytariff quota restrictions.
United States -Clarification sought ontheseasonal
tariff quotas applied forvegetables.Asstipulated innotification MA:1, Iceland may
resort toauctioning intheallocation oftariff
quotas, although itsapplication hasbeen limited in
practice. Anauction system hasbeen used to
allocate allminimum access quotas andinafew
cases quotas inChapter 6.Thesystem hasbeen
applied equally toimports within andinexcess of
therelevant tariff quota quantities.
Theproducts thatarepresently notsubject toany
quota restrictions arelisted onthecover page of
G/AG/N/ISL/1.
There arenoquantity restrictions involved.
Seasonal quotas mean thatimports donottake
place atthesame rateequally throughout the
year.
Philippines G/AG/N/PHL/4 Tariff andOther Quota Fill(Table MA:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
United States/Argentina/Australia/New Zealand -
Why wasthetariff quota forbeefnotfilled?
Clarification sought regarding theaccounting
method forbeefimports.
United States -Stated thattheUSisconsidering
requesting formal dispute settlement consultations
withtheGovernment ofthePhilippines duetothe
seriousness ofthematter andprolonged delays in
implementation oftariff quotas.
Australia -Confirmation requested onwhether the
Philippines wasimposing anyadditional burdens
onimports.
Australia/New Zealand -Indicated thattheywill
pursue thematter bilaterally.
European Communities -Indicated thattheymight
revert tothenotification after amore detailed
examination.
United States -Reiterated apoint made atthe
September andOctober meetings oftheCommittee
regarding theimplementation oftariff quotas for
pork andpoultry. What isthequantity ofpork
thathasbeen imported todateandthatcan
reasonably beexpected tobeimported by31
December 1996? When willthePhilippines
announce anextension oftheimport licence?Therevised beeffigure excludes imports offrozen
beef(HS0202) forwhich thePhilippines hasnot
undertaken atariff quota commitment. Imports of
frozen beefareonlysubject toabound rateof
60%. Imports offresh andchilled beefarea
function ofdemand. Theimportation hasbeen
liberalized since 1992 andtheallocation oftariff
quotas isbased onhistorical market shares.
ThePhilippines tooknoteofthestatement bythe
United States withregard topossible consultations.
ThePhilippines acknowledged theright ofthe
United States tothisrecourse andhoped thata
mutually agreed resolution totheissue could be
reached inorder toavoid such aformal process.
During thelastthree months, thePhilippines had
imported 1,020 metric tonsofpork andtotal
imports hadreached 2,367.19 metric tonsbythe
endofNovember. Asregards theunder-utilized
tariff quotas forpork aswellasforother
products, theyarearesult ofthedomestic demand
situation. Regarding theextension ofimport
licences, thegovernment waslooking intothe
matter andwillinform theCommittee ofits
decision asappropriate.G/AG/R/9
Page15
Tables MA:3 toMA:5 Notifications
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/11 Volume-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia -Reiterated their concerns
about theapplication ofthespecial safeguard
(SSG) when thetariff quota isnotfilled. Could
Japan indicate theperiod forwhich thevolumes
have been calculated andabreakdown ofthe
quantity over thisperiod? Question raised asto
whether thetrigger level formilk andcream with
afatcontent between 1and6%isinconformity
withtheprovisions setoutinArticle 5:4ofthe
Agreement onAgriculture.
Australia -Clarification sought onwhether Japan
iscurrently applying theSSG.
New Zealand/Australia/European Communities -
Considered thattheSSGcannotapply fora
product until thetariff quota fortheproduct in
question isfilled.
Australia/European Communities -Clarification
sought regarding theinvocation oftheSSGfor
each tariff linewhen tariff quota commitments
apply foragroup ofproducts.
Canada -Isthere anyprovision torefund anyextra
dutylevies ifitisproven thattariff quota
quantities have notbeen imported attheendofthe
year?Japan considered thatthere wasnotaproblem in
invoking theSSGwhile tariff quotas have notbeen
filled andconsidered their action tobeinfull
conformity withArticle 5oftheAgreement on
Agriculture. AsJapan didnotrecord anyimports
ofmilk andcream (0<fat<=6%) inthepast
three years, thetrigger level forSSGiszero.
Current imports ofmilk andcream cover the
period from April toAugust 1996, andallthe
imports were made under out-of-quota tariff rate.
Japan iscurrently applying theSSG.
AstheAgreement onAgriculture does notprovide
anyprovisions regarding theSSGinvocation unit,
SSGmaybeinvoked fortariff lines covered bya
tariff quota commitment.
Japan does nothave asystem torefund it.
Poland G/AG/N/POL/4 Price-based Special Safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
European Communities -Stated thattheECwill
pursue matters bilaterally.
New Zealand -Noted thatthenotification contains
twodifferent ranges ofdates ofapplication. What
dothedates represent interm ofSSG's
implementation?Thetwotariff lines which aresubject totheSSG
areseasonal tariff quotas. They relate tothesame
product butareapplied atdifferent periods,
therefore different trigger prices were calculated
foreach product.G/AG/R/9
Page16
Table DS:1 Notifications
Brazil G/AG/N/BRA/6 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Canada -Noted thatthetotalAMS inSupporting
Table DS:7 wasbelow thedeminimis level.
Could Brazil provide datatosupport thisde
minimis claim forwheat inthemarketing year
1995/96, inparticular thetotalproduction andthe
totalvalue ofproduction. Could Brazil provide a
breakdown ofthesupport allocated towheat
through "production andmarketing credit" and
"EGF equalization" (Supporting Table DS:7,
page 11refers)? What aretheprices used to
calculate theexternal reference price inSupporting
Table DS:7 (page 8refers)?Brazil undertook toprovide aresponse.
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/7 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand -Noted thatKorea 'sSchedule
contains twosetsoffigures regarding annual and
final bound commitment levels. Which setis
accurate?Thefigures inbrackets correspond toKorea 'sreal
annual commitment level, using the1993 base
period forriceandthe1989-1991 baseperiod for
other products, asindicated inthefootnote of
Korea 'sSchedule LX. Thesaidcalculation and
annual commitment level ofAMS were already
reviewed andagreed upon byMember countries in
March 1994. Theother setoffigures
corresponds totheannual commitment using the
baseperiod of1989-1991 foralltheproducts.G/AG/R/9
Page17
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/7 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thattheSupporting Tables inthe
notification contain differences tothose included in
G/AG/AGST/KOR: green boxmeasures areless
detailed (Supporting Table DS:1); Korea applied
thedeminimis clause fornewproducts
(Supporting Table DS:4, pages 6-7refer); two
newmeasures areadded inthecalculation ofnon-
product-specific support, "subsidy forfarmland
improvement associations" and"loan programme
foragricultural marketing" (Supporting Table
DS:9, page 11refers). Could Korea provide some
information onthese changes? Information was
alsorequested regarding the"support for
improving farmers 'living conditions" andthe
operation of"thebuffer stock management fund"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:1 (item (l),
page 4refers) andthe"loan interest subsidy"
referred toinSupporting Table DS:7 (pages 9-10
refer).
Canada -Clarification sought regarding the
"investment subsidies generally available to
agriculture" referred toinSupporting Table DS:2
(item a,page 5refers).Korea undertook toprovide responses upon receipt
ofwritten questions.
Korea undertook toprovide responses upon receipt
ofwritten questions.
South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/5 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thatnewgreen boxmeasures are
added inSupporting Table DS:1 compared tothose
included inG/AG/AGST/ZAF, under items 1
"general services" and6"other" (pages 3and5
refer). Could South Africa provide more
information onthese measures?South Africa undertook torespond inwriting.
Tunisia G/AG/N/TUN/3 Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia -Noted thattwomeasures areadded in
theamber boxcompared toG/AG/AGST/TUN,
"chemical fertilizer subsidy" and"irrigation water
subsidy" (Supporting Table DS:9, page 8refers).
Argentina -Willsubmit questions inwriting.Itwasdifficult toidentify thesupport provided for
each input when Tunisia made itsoffer. As
reflected inthenotification Tunisia isnowableto
calculate for"chemical fertilizer subsidy" and
"irrigation water subsidy" thesupport provided.G/AG/R/9
Page18
Table DS:2 Notifications
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/10 New orModified Support Measures Exempt from Reduction (DS:2)
Points raised byother Members
Canada/New Zealand/United States/Argentina -How does Korea claim thatthetwoprogrammes are
compatible withthecriteria setoutinparagraph 6ofAnnex 2totheAgreement onAgriculture? What
aretherequirements forparticipating inthese programmes andthebenefits theyprovided tofarmers?
New Zealand -Clarification sought regarding the"assistance tofarmers suffered from thedisaster".
Does 1January reflect thedateofimplementation ofanewscheme oramodified scheme?
Australia -Clarification sought regarding the"farmers andfishermen 'spension insurance programme".
Onwhat basis isthegrant made?
Response byNotifying Member
These twoprogrammes were established in1995 and1996 andareaimed atincreasing welfare to
producers. Theprogrammes arefully consistent withtheprovisions ofparagraph 6ofAnnex 2tothe
Agreement onAgriculture. Payments arenotrelated tovolume ortoprice ofproduction. The
"farmers 'andfishermen 'spension insurance programme" wasestablished when thepessimistic outlook
andconcern forthefuture offarming became widespread following theconclusion oftheUruguay
Round negotiations. Itisaimed atsupporting farmers andfishermen whoareunable toprovide for
themselves inoldageandisanextension ofthe"national pension programme". Themonthly support
amounts to2,220 wons perperson andrepresents 3%oftheminimum basic monthly income of
220,000 tons. Noconditions such asvolume ofproduction, prices, production factors orobligations of
agricultural production arerequired.
The"farmer disaster assurance" programme wasinitiated in1996 andconsists oftwokindofinsurance:
farming accident security insurance andfarm machinery accident insurance. othofthese programmes
areoperated byagricultural cooperatives. hefarming accident insurance programme pays apremium on
agricultural machinery accidents, insecticide intoxication, death andphysical injury inccurred during
farming activities. Thefarm machinery accident insurance programme pays apremium incaseofdeath
orinjury duetofarming related accidents. Farmers over theageof18possessing ormanaging farm
machinery areeligible. Inbothcases, thegovernment supports 50% oftheinsurance premium charged
tothefarmers. Thissupport constitutes akindofwelfare programme compensating losses incurred
against accidents.
Korea undertook toprovide further information upon receipt ofwritten questions.G/AG/R/9
Page19
Tables ES:1 toES:3 Notifications
Japan G/AG/N/JPN/12 Export Subsidies (Table ES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
New Zealand/Australia/United States -
Clarification sought regarding theend-use ofrice
imported under Japan 'sminimum access
commitment.
TheUnited States stated thatJapan hadviolated
thespirit oftheAgreement onAgriculture andhad
impaired thevalue oftheconcessions thathave
been negotiated bynotallowing imported riceto
have effective access totheJapanese market.Thegovernment ofJapan hasbeen promoting the
saleofgovernment marketed ricetothedomestic
market. Government marketed riceisricewhich
theFood Agency purchases andsells, andincludes
domestic production andimports under the
minimum access commitment. Government
marketed ricestocks continue toaccumulate
reflecting bumper crop anddeclining consumption
induced byhotsummer weather. Countries
suffering from food shortages asked Japan forrice
aid.On26November thegovernment decided to
usegovernment marketed riceasfood aid.Japan
willgrant asumof2.85 billion yen(representing
about 60percentof100,000 tonnes ofmarketed
rice) to9recipient countries. Japan considers that
itcomplies withtheprinciples oftheAgreement
onAgriculture.
Korea G/AG/N/KOR/8 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 andES:3)
Points raised byother Members Response provided byNotifying Member
following themeeting
Canada/New Zealand -Data requested regarding
exports offruitandflowers attheHSsix-digit
level andinformation ontheprogrammes
involved?Subsidies aredesigned toreduce themarketing
costs forexporters whopurchase from small-sized
producers. Thegoalofthisprogramme isto
enhance thequality ofexports andtoeasethe
transportation burden induced byscattered
production regions andlong-distance overseas
markets. Thevolume ofsuch subsidized exports
isminimal andareexceptional given thatKorea is
alarger agricultural importer. Asadeveloping
country, Korea exercised itsrights according to
Article 9:4oftheAgreement onAgriculture.G/AG/R/9
Page20
South Africa G/AG/N/ZAF/6 Export Subsidies (Table ES:1)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand/Argentina -Concern
expressed withrespect toSouth Africa 's
implementation ofitsUruguay Round export
subsidy commitments involume terms forother
milk products, animal fatsandbeerandwine
products, andinvalue terms forteaandcocoa and
cocoa preparations. How does South Africa intend
toremedy these violations?TheGeneral Export Incentive Scheme (GEIS)
constitutes theprimary budgetary instrument for
subsidising exports. Thebenefits ofthescheme
areamixture ofcashpayments andtaxcredits.
TheGEIS makes theclose monitoring of
expenditures within agiven period difficult. Asa
result ofchanged domestic economic priorities and
taking account ofUruguay Round commitments,
thegovernment hasdecided tophase outthe
system completely bytheendof1997. Inthe
interim thebenefits have been scaled down.
Switzerland G/AG/N/CHE/5/Rev.1 Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1 toES:2)
Points raised byother Members Response byNotifying Member
Australia/New Zealand -Explanation sought onthe
changes being made toprevent further breaches of
Switzerlands 'export subsidy commitments in
cattle.Measures have been adopted sothatexport
subsidies willnolonger gobeyond the
commitment level. Even thisyear, theovershoot
hasbeen compensated sothatthelevel ofexport
subsidies willnotreach thelevel authorized inthe
Schedule.