RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/45 
13 April 2006 
 (06-1756) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27 JANUARY 2006 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  1. The Committee on Agriculture held its forty-fifth regular meeting on 27 January 2006.  At its 
last meeting on 10 November 2005, following the re signation of the previous Chairman, the Council 
for Trade in Goods had nominated Mr. Christia n Häberli as Chairman until March 2006 (G/C/M/82, 
Item XI, refers).  In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Agriculture elected 
Mr. Häberli of Switzerland as Chairman by acclamation.   
2. The Chairman recalled that the present meeting ha d been originally scheduled to take place 
on 10 November 2005, but, in the run-up to the Sixth Ministerial Conference, it had been rescheduled 
to take place on 27 January 2006.  
3. The agenda of the meeting as set out in the convening airgram WTO/AIR/2740 was adopted 
with the following addition: questions by Ecuador to Switzerland in the context of the review of 
Table MA:1 notifications G/AG/N/CHE/13/Add.5 to Add.7.  
P
ART I:  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
4. No implementation-related matter was raised.  
5. The Chairman recalled that, under paragraph 12 of the Committee's Working Procedures 
(G/AG/1), delegations may raise any matters rela ting to the implementation of commitments under 
Article 18.6 in the intervals between the regul ar meetings of the Committee, including any 
implementation matters arising from Members' notifications.  Under these procedures, the Article 18.6 matter is conveyed thr ough the Chairman.  The Member to  which the matter is addressed 
is required to respond in writing to the Committee within 30 days. 
B. R
EVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS  
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
6. The Committee reviewed the following no tifications as listed in the agenda: 
 (i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  from 
Switzerland (CHE/13/Add.5, CH E/13/Add.6 and CHE/13/Add.7); 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/R/45 
Page 2  
 
   (ii) relating to imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from 
Iceland (ISL/25), Israel (ISR/39), Japan (JPN /114), Nicaragua (NIC/19), South Africa 
(ZAF/53) and Thailand (THA/55); 
 (iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Chinese Taipei 
(TPKM/26);  
 (iv) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Armenia 
(ARM/5/Rev.1), European Communities (EEC/51, EEC/49/Corr.1 and EEC/51/Corr.1), Iceland (ISL/26), Israel (ISR/37), Nicaragua (NIC/18), South Africa (ZAF/54), Switzerland (CHE/34) and Tunisia (TUN/36); and 
 (v) in the context of export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from 
Switzerland (CHE/33). 
7. Specific points raised with respect to the notif ications listed above and the responses thereto 
are summarized in the Annex to this report. 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
8. The Committee took note of the following notificatio ns, 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 unde r the Committee's Working Procedures (G/AG/1): 
 (i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  from 
Thailand (THA/56, THA/57 and THA/58); 
 (ii) relating to imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from 
Bulgaria (BGR/9/Corr.1), the Domini can Republic (DOM/11) and Panama 
(PAN/3/Corr.1); 
 (iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Israel (ISR/38), 
Nicaragua (NIC/20), Panama (PAN/12), South Africa (ZAF/55), Chinese Taipei (TPKM/27, TPKM/28 and TPKM/29) and Thailand (THA/54); 
 (iv) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Bolivia 
(BOL/8), the Dominican Republic (DOM/10), Estonia (EST/12), European Communities (EEC/38/Corr.1), The Gambia (GMB/1/Rev.1), Myanmar (MYN/5), and Uganda (UGA/4); 
 (v) in the context of new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction 
(Table DS:2):  from Canada (CAN/54/Corr.1); and 
 (vi) in the context of export subsidy comm itments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Bolivia 
(BOL/7), Canada (CAN/55), Colombia (COL/11/Add.1, COL/12/Add.1, COL/13/Add.1, COL/19/Add.1, COL/26/A dd.1 and COL/28/Add.1), The Gambia 
(GMB/3), Myanmar (MYN/6), Chinese Taipei (TPKM/25), Thailand (THA/53) and Uganda (UGA/3).  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (c) Notifications circulated or made available af ter the notice convening the meeting was issued  
9. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the 
next meeting for substantive review in accordan ce with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working 
Procedures: 
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Tables MA:1):  from 
El Salvador (SLV/26); 
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Tables MA:2):  from 
Canada (CAN/56) and El  Salvador (SLV/25); 
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard  (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Malaysia 
(MYS/17) and Chinese Taipei (TPKM/30); 
(iv) in the context of new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction 
(Table DS:2):  from Israel (ISR/40);  and 
(v) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from the Dominican 
Republic (DOM/12) and Malaysia (MYS/18 and MYS/19). 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
10. The Chairman recalled that delegations have the possibility to inform the Committee of the 
outcome of discussions which are of general interest , but which may have been pursued bilaterally as 
a result of the review of notifications.  Th ere was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(e) Counter-notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement  
11. The Committee took note that no counter-notifi cations had been received under Article 18.7 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process  
12. Tunisia provided answers to the questions po sed by the United States during the September 
2005 meeting.2  Tunisia's answers, which relate to notifications on tariff quota administration and 
export subsidies, are reflected on page 29 of this report. 
(g) Overdue notifications  
13. The Chairman recalled that the airgram (W TO/AIR/2732 refers) for the present meeting 
contained a reminder regarding overdue notifica tions.  An updated room document showing the 
current status of compliance with notification obligat ions was made available by the Secretariat.  The 
Chairman drew Members' attention to page 13 of  that room document which showed that, for the 
implementation year 1995 alone, more than 40 notifications were still overdue.  The situation 
appeared to deteriorate throughout the implemen tation period, as for the implementation year 1999, 
over 90 notifications were still overdue.  The Ch airman urged Members to comply with the 
notification requirements adopted by the Committee gi ven the crucial importan ce of notified data for 
the Review Process, as well as in the context of the agriculture negotiations. 
                                                      
2 See G/AG/R/44, pages 11 and 24. G/AG/R/45 
Page 4  
 
  14. Australia mirrored the comments made by th e Chairman and urged all Members to submit 
timely notifications, particularly in the area of do mestic support.  Australia emphasized that some 
major developed country Members had not submitted any domestic support notifications since 2001.   
15. The United States enquired whether the Secretaria t had taken any steps to assist developing 
countries to fulfil their notification obligations. The Chairman pointed out that the Secretariat was at 
(developed and developing) Members' disposal to help  them prepare their notifications.   In addition, 
a training module specifically dedicated to notification obligations under the Committee on Agriculture was an integral part of all technical assistance activities carried out by the Secretariat.   
Finally, the Geneva Week was also an opportunity for the Secretariat to establish contacts, or follow-
up, with the developing countries' delegations , on notification matters, as appropriate.  
(h) Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications
3  
16. The Committee took note that 9 Members4 administering tariff quotas had submitted the 
requisite Table MA:1 Addenda in accordance with  the General Council Decision.  The Chairman 
recalled that Members were able to raise any ma tters relating to these addenda or relating to the 
administration of particular tariff quotas in the course of the Committee’s regular Review Process. 
The Chairman urged those Members administering ta riff quotas which had not yet done so to provide 
addenda to their Table MA:1 notifications in accordance with the General Council Decision.    
PART II:  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
A. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 10.2  OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE ON THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONALLY AGREED DISC IPLINES TO GOVERN THE PROVISION  OF 
EXPORT CREDITS , EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES OR INSURANCE PROGRAMMES 5 
 
17. Argentina stated that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture with respect to circumvention of ex port subsidy commitments, the establishment of 
additional and specific disciplines on export cr edits, export credit guarantees and insurance 
programmes was still an outstanding implementation issue resulting from the Agreement on 
Agriculture of the Uruguay Round.  Argentina theref ore requested that this item be retained on the 
agenda of this Committee. 
B. A NNUAL MONITORING EXERCISE ON THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE MARRAKESH NFIDC  
DECISION , INCLUDING THE FOLLOW -UP TO A PROPOSAL BY THE AFRICAN GROUP6 
 18. The annual monitoring exercise is undertaken on the basis, inter alia , of contributions by 
Members, including Table NF:1 notifications, as we ll as contributions by the observer international 
organizations.  The Chairman recalled that the notif ication requirement under th e NF Series relates to:  
the quantity of food aid provided to LDCs and NF IDCs, with an indication of the proportion provided 
in fully grant form or on appropriate concessional terms; technical and financial assistance provided; 
and other relevant information with respect to ac tions taken within the framework of the Decision. 
19. The Committee took note of the circulation of no tifications in the NF series since the 2005 
monitoring exercise, as follows: Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/57), Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/57), Japan 
                                                     
 
3 See paragraph 1.1 of WT/L/384, General Council Decision; and G/AG/16, Section C. 
4 Australia, Canada, the EC-25, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, and the 
United States.   
5 See G/AG/16, Section A. 
6 See paragraph 1.d of WT/L/579; G/AG/16, Section B; paragraph 52 of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2; and 
G/AG/20.  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (G/AG/N/JPN/107), Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/42, South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/56). A revised 
background note for the purpose of facilitating the a nnual monitoring exercise was also circulated by 
the Secretariat as G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 (dated 10 January 2006).   
20. The Chairman reminded delegations that the fo llow-up to the NFIDC Decision also included 
the consideration of : (a) the recommendation cont ained in the Committee's report on implementation-
related issues (paragraph 19(c) of G/AG/16), as we ll as (b) the July 2005 report by the former 
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture to the General Council on the S&D proposal by the 
African Group.   In this context, the Chairman br iefly outlined the oral report he delivered at the 
meeting of the General Council on 2 December 2005.7    
21. Egypt indicated that his remarks were relevant to both Part A above, i.e. the implementation 
of Article 10.2 of the Agreement, and to the im plementation of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision.  
Egypt supported Argentina's demands to have the implementation of Article  10.2 of the Agreement 
remaining on the Committee's agenda.  Consideri ng the work undertaken during the regular, as well 
as during the special, sessions of the Committee on Agriculture, Egypt highlighted that the discussions on the proposals to establish a financin g mechanism had led to no concrete results.  
Furthermore, Egypt held that the pressure ha d always been on the LDCs and net-food importing 
developing countries (NFIDCs)  to either table or amend proposals.   
22. In Egypt's view, there were three alternativ e ways to address the difficulties experienced by 
LDCs and NFIDCs.  The first was the creation of a multilateral financing facility designed to 
overcome short-term effects, as had been discussed  in the regular meetings of the Committee.  The 
second option was to have some kind of direct fina ncing provided by the importers, an option which 
had not been explored so far in the Committee.  The third solution would be  through rule-making, a 
solution which was not within the mandate of the regular Committee on Agriculture.  Egypt stressed, 
however, that the work in the regular meetings of the Committee could not be dissociated from the 
work undertaken in the Special Session.  In both fo ra, LDCs and NFIDCs had consistently been the 
driving force behind all the attempts to finding effec tive solutions.  In this regard, Egypt recalled that 
Ministers in Hong Kong had instructed Members to  conclude the modalities on food aid and export 
credits by April 2006.  Such modalities would incl ude provisions relating to LDCs and NFIDCs, as 
provided for in paragraph 4 of the Marrakech Decision. 
23. Moreover, Egypt had witnessed a disparity in  Members' positions on these issues depending 
on the attended forum:  in the regular meetings, LD Cs and NFIDCs we re often blamed for not coming 
forward with workable proposals, while in the Sp ecial Session, it was often pointed out that the only 
solution resided in the effective implementation of the Marrakech Decision.  Underlining the 
importance of shared responsibility, Egypt ur ged those Members who supported the "effective 
implementation" solution in the Special Session  to submit concrete proposals to the regular 
Committee in order to mitigate the negative effects of the reform programme on LDCs and NFIDCs.  
24. Echoing Egypt, Cuba stressed that the Committe e found itself in the same situation, as in 
2003.  Egypt, Cuba and other NFIDCs continued to  repeat the same statements but their demands 
remained unanswered.  As Egypt, Cuba considered that this was a matter of shared responsibility.  
Citing the Chairman's reference to an "impasse" as  regards the proposal by the African Group, Cuba 
argued that there were other proposals which the Co mmittee should consider exploring, together with 
new alternatives.  LDCs and NFIDCs are being asked to assume new commitments under each pillar 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  However, in Cuba's opinion, there had been no satisfactory 
settlement of an important matter which touched upon the food security of LDCs and NFIDCs.  To 
this effect, Cuba considered that it was necessary to  address this matter again at the next meeting of 
the Committee, in a responsible and innovativ e spirit, and on the basis of new proposals. 
                                                     
 
7 See Section 3 of WT/GC/102. G/AG/R/45 
Page 6  
 
  25. Supporting both Egypt and Cuba, Kenya held th at Members had a collective responsibility to 
ensure that the Marrakech Decision be made operati onal.  Discussions therefore should not be delayed 
on implementation-related issues on the grounds that the African Group had not reviewed its previously submitted proposals.  In this respect,  Kenya highlighted that the absence of counter-
proposals from the other side had been a major impe diment to the effective revision of the African 
Group proposal.  Kenya further considered that th ese matters should be addressed more seriously and 
that a collective examination was necessary given the mandate agreed by Ministers in Hong Kong. 
26. The Chairman underlined that Part A of the ag enda related to Members' undertaking to work 
toward the development of internationally agreed di sciplines to govern the provision of export credits, 
export credit guarantees or insurance programmes.  It was the Chairman's understanding that this 
matter was essentially being addressed in the Speci al Session but remained on the agenda of the 
regular session at Argentina's request, a request which had been endorsed by a number of other delegations.   
27. As for Part B of the Agenda, the Chairman understood that it dealt with the effective 
implementation of the NFIDC Decision, including with  respect to the consideration of any proposal 
tabled by Members.  Again, in his view, the work carried out in the regular session had to be 
distinguished from that undertaken in the special  session.  The regular session of the Committee on 
Agriculture had examined the African Group proposal focussing on the establishment of a revolving fund in the Framework of the NFIDC Decision.  On the other hand, some Members continued to believe that certain food aid-related elements of th at proposal should more appropriately be addressed 
in the special session.   As reflected in paragraph 20 above, the Chairman had reported on the work of 
the regular session to the General Council, signalling that one Member had indicated the readiness of 
the African Group to prepare a follow-up proposal.  The Chairman suggested that the regular 
Committee on Agriculture should address expeditiously any proposal tabled by interested Members, 
whereas if Members wanted such proposals to be  considered under the negotiations agenda, these 
should be submitted to the special session.   
28. As regards Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Argentina agreed with the 
Chairman that the issue of export credits, e xport credit guarantees and insurance programmes was 
being negotiated in the special session.   Arge ntina hoped that the matter would be dealt with 
successfully and that an agreement would be finall y reached in that forum.  However, Argentina 
believed that the issue of export credits could also  be negotiated in the regular meetings of the 
Committee, because it was an implementation issue.  In Argentina's opinion, therefore, that second 
option remained valid.  It was for this reason that, consistent with the decisions adopted by the WTO, 
Argentina requested the maintenance of this item on the agenda of the regular meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture. 
29. Concerning the NFIDC Decision, Argentina unde rlined that, independently of the forum 
where this question was debated, it was an implem entation issue, and as such, it needed to be 
addressed in its entirety: one paragraph of the Deci sion could not be implemented in isolation of the 
others.  Argentina pointed out that, if paragraph 4 referred to export credits, paragraph 3 in turn 
referred to food aid matters, for example, review of food aid le vels and technical and financial 
assistance, and paragraph 5, for example, referred to some financing mechanisms.  Argentina underscored that the Ministerial Decision, which was ove r 10 years' old,  needed to be implemented in 
an integrated manner, in one committee or anothe r, without setting aside specific paragraphs or 
prioritizing one paragraph over the others.  
30. As concerns food aid, the EC fully concurre d with the Chairman and expressed support for 
his conclusions.  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 7 
 
 
  31. Kenya asked the Chairman to hold some inform al consultations in order to clarify these 
questions.  Kenya believed that the consultations would be useful and would assist in revising the 
African Group proposal.  Kenya's request was supported by Cuba who believed that such 
consultations would give a new impetus to the overall debate. 
32. Cuba fully supported the statement made by Argen tina.   Cuba considered most important that 
all aspects of the Marrakech Ministerial Decision be taken into account.  Cuba announced that it 
intended to adopt that position in future discussions.  Cuba also thanked the Secretariat for preparing 
the background note which provided a comprehensive outlook on the NFIDC Decision. 
33. In concluding this agenda item, the Chairman pointed out that the whole membership was 
bound by its Decisions, in the sense that all Members had to fully implement all parts of the WTO 
Agreement, including the Agreement on Agriculture and the NFIDC Decision.  In this respect, the 
Chairman supported Kenya's call for consultations.  Informal consultations with interested Members 
on both Parts A and B of the agenda would thus be held with a view to examine possible ways to carry forward each of these issues, as an implem entation matter, in the regular session of the 
Committee. The Chairman indicated that he would in form the Chairman of the special session on the 
proceedings.  The United States supported the pro cedure suggested by the Chairman.  It was so 
decided. 
34. The Committee took note of the statements made by the observer organizations.  The 
contributions made by the representatives of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the 
International Grains Council (IGC ), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the 
World Food Programme (WFP) were circulated by the Secretariat.
8 
35. The representative of UNCTAD reported on its work with FAO on the elaboration of a 
practical, cost-effective financing scheme that w ould protect net food importing developing countries 
against possible food import financing constraints in times of high world prices.  This scheme had 
been examined by some of the major bankers i nvolved in international food trade finance who 
considered that the scheme was operational and fille d the gap in the current food financing system. 
 UNCTAD would continue to work with FAO a nd interested WTO Members on the implementation 
of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision towards the establi shment of a food financing facility, as well as in 
the framework of the ongoing agriculture negotiations.  
C. ANNUAL CONSULTATION UNDER ARTICLE 18.5  OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE WITH 
RESPECT TO MEMBERS ' PARTICIPATION IN THE NORMAL GROWTH OF WORLD TRADE IN 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMITMENTS ON EXPORT 
SUBSIDIES UNDER THE AGREEMENT  
36. The Committee took note of the statistical background paper prepared by the Secretariat for 
the purposes of the annual consultations under Art. 18.5 of the Agreement.9  The Chairman 
highlighted that the statistical data contained in  this revised document included export volumes and 
world market shares recorded during the Urugua y Round base period for export subsidy reduction 
commitments, i.e. the period 1986-1990. 
                                                      
8 See G/AG/GEN/71. 
9 See G/AG/W/32/Rev.8. G/AG/R/45 
Page 8  
 
  D. M
ATTERS RAISED UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS " 
(i) Renewed request for observer status by the South Centre  
37. The Chairman reported that, in  a letter dated 19 October 2005, the South Centre had renewed 
its request, previously presented in February 2001, for obser ver status in the regular meetings of the 
Committee on Agriculture.  The Committee had recei ved requests for observer status from twelve 
international organizations10 so far, but no consensus on this issue had been reached by WTO 
Members.   
38. The Committee took note of the request presented by the South Centre.  The Secretariat was 
asked to inform the South Centre that this matter remained pending. 
(ii) Date of next meeting  
39. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Ag riculture had been provisionally scheduled 
to be held on Thursday, 23 March 2006.   The Chairman sought guidance from Members on the possibility to postpone the meeting to 12 May or 22 June, in view of the intensification of the 
agriculture negotiations towards the establishment of modalities by 30 April 2006, and in order to 
allow for a sufficient number of notifications to be  received for review.  Based on Members' initial 
reactions, and after further informal consultati ons, the 23 March 2006 meeting was rescheduled to 
take place on Friday, 12 May 2006 at 10.00 a.m .   On this basis, the airgram convening the regular 
meeting of the Committee will be issued on Tuesday, 2 May 2006. 
                                                     
 
10 See G/AG/W/29/Rev.6.  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 9 
 
 
  ANNEX  
 
  Page  
 
Part 1   
Review of notifications by the Committe e on Agriculture at the meeting on  
27 January 2006   
 
 (i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1 ):  
Switzerland (CHE/13/Add.5, CH E/13/Add.6 and CHE/13/Add.7); 10 
    
 (ii) imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:2 ):  Iceland 
(ISL/25), Israel (ISR/39), Japan (JPN/114), Nicaragua (NIC/19), South Africa (ZAF/53) and Thailand (THA/55); 13 
    
 (iii) use of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3-MA:5
):  Chinese Taipei (TPKM/26); 16 
    
 (iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1 ):  Armenia (ARM/5/Rev.1), 
European Communities (EEC/51, EEC/49/Corr.1 and EEC/51/Corr.1), Iceland (ISL/26), Israel (ISR/37), Nicaragua (NIC/18), South Africa (ZAF/54), 
Switzerland (CHE/34) and Tunisia (TUN/36);  and 16 
    
 (v) export subsidy commitments (Table ES:1 to ES:3
):  Switzerland (CHE/33). 28 
    
 
Part II    
Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process of previous 
meetings  
  
  Reply provided by Tunisia in the c ontext of the review of notification 
G/AG/N/TUN/34 concerning imports under ta riff quotas (page 11 of G/AG/R/44 
refers) 
 29 
  Reply provided by Tunisia in the c ontext of the review of notification 
G/AG/N/TUN/33 and Corr.1 concerning export subsidy commitments (page 24 of 
G/AG/R/44 refers) 
 29 
 G/AG/R/45 
Page 10  
 
  ANNEX – PART I
 
 
Review of notifications by the Committee on Agriculture at the meeting on 27 January 2006 
 
 
(i) Table MA:1 Notifications 
 
 Switzerland    G/AG/N/CHE/13/Add. 5, CHE/13/Add.6 and CHE/13/Add.7  
 
1. Question by Australia - Can Switzerland explai n the tender process for products such as 
live horses, dairy produce, seed fruit, and animals for slaughter?  
2. The statutory provisions are contai ned in the following Ordinances: 
(a) Framework provisions:   General Ordinance of 7 December 1998 on imports of 
agricultural products (Ordinance on Agricultural Imports, OIAgr;  RS 916.01), Articles 16 to 20. 
 
(b) Animals for slaughter:   Ordinance of 23 November 2003 concerning the slaughter 
cattle and meat market (Ordinance on Ca ttle for Slaughter, OBB;  RS 916.341), 
Articles 17 to 20. 
 (c) Live horses:   Ordinance of 7 December 1998 regulating the import of horses 
(Ordinance on Horse Imports:  OICh;  RS 916.322.1), Article 4. 
 (d) Seed  fruit:  Ordinance of 7 December 1998 on the import and export of vegetables, 
fruit and horticultural plants (OIELFP;  RS 916.121.10),  Article 16. 
 
(e) Cheese:  Ordinance of 7  December 1998 on th e import of milk and dairy products, 
edible oils and fats, and caseins and caseinates (Order on the Import of Milk and Edible Oils, OILHGC;  RS 916.355 .1), Article 4, paragraph 4. 
 3. All holders of a general import licence (PGI) may participate in a tender process.  Tariff quota 
tendering is made public by the specialized pr ess and on www.blw.admin.ch\ rubriques\importations. 
4. Question by Australia - Can Switzerland expl ain the process of allocation of durum 
wheat to Réservesuisse.  We note that import authorisation for durum, bread grains and coarse 
grains are restricted to special mills - what does this include?  
5. Réservesuisse (Swiss Food Fund) is a semi-pub lic institution.  The right to import durum 
wheat at the tariff quota rate (26) is granted only to legal and natural pers ons who, pursuant to 
Article 8 of the Law of 8 October 1982 on natio nal food supplies (RS 531), hold a general import 
licence (PGI) issued by réservesuisse.  The PGI is  granted only to importers who, within Swiss 
territory, maintain a compulsory reserve stock of cereals for human consumption or who are exempted from establishing compulsory reserve stocks because they produce only fodder.  No durum wheat is 
produced in Switzerland.  Durum wheat imported at th e tariff quota rate has to be processed.  It is 
used to make pasta or semolina. 
6. As regards allocations to special mills: the importation of coarse grains for human 
consumption under tariff quota 28, i. e. coarse grains, is restricted to millers who process the raw 
material for their own use and undertake to respect th e statutory output requirements.  This restriction 
is calculated to ensure that the products are used  in accordance with import regulations.  The millers  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 11 
 
 
  have unrestricted access to imports at the reduced tariff quota rate.  Only a neglibible quantity of  
coarse grains is produced in Switzerland. 
7. Question by Australia - We note that for live swine and liv e sheep and goats, 
Switzerland has an amendment of TRQs being a llocated as needed.  Can Switzerland explain 
this process and give an example of its utilisation?  
8. Up to 2003, tariff quota shares were allocated  on the basis of the order of receipt of 
authorization requests by the authority which issu es authorizations, namely the Federal Agriculture 
Office.  Moreover, the tariff quota share allocated to  the holder of a PGI could not exceed 5 per cent 
of the quota.  In 2004, the provisions concerning the five per cent ceiling on allocations to PGI 
holders were repealed in view of the fact that th ey could be circumvented by an agreement on the use 
of tariff quota shares under Article 14 of the OLAgr. 
9. Question by Australia - We note that the TQ  period for animals for slaughter can be 
extended by the OFAG on request.  Can Switzerland explain what information must be provided, how long the extension would generally  be, and give examples of the use of this 
provision?  
10. In practice, it may happen that for logistical or other reasons ( force majeure,  ship delayed, 
strike, storm, etc.) the full quantity may not be  imported during the period of importation (e.g. 
1 January to 31 March).  The Federal Agriculture  Office may, as an exceptional measure, extend the 
period of importation (e.g. 1 January to 30 April), if it is found that the delay is caused by problems 
not attributable to the importer.  For that purpose,  an application would have  to be submitted before 
the end of the period of importation. 
11. Question by Ecuador - Dairy produce:  How is the quota distributed for dairy produce 
subheadings on the basis of purchases of domestic products?  
12. For unskimmed milk powder (tariff item 0402.2111/2911) TQ shares are allocated as a  
proportion of the Swiss product purchased (" prise en charge ") (purchase of Swiss produce).  Such 
purchases may be required in a maximum proportion of four shares of the Swiss product to one share 
of the imported products.  The Federal Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) determines the 
proportion of the prise en charge  and issues the implementing provisions. 
13. Question by Ecuador - Is th ere an annual allocation?  
14. TQ shares are allocated according to the arrival of notices of purchase of the Swiss product. 
15. Question by Ecuador - Is there a public bo dy that determines the percentages of 
domestic production that must be purchased a nd which acts as a reference for the distribution 
of the quota in the same percentages?  
16. See reply in paragraph 12. 
17. Question by Ecuador - Which institutio n is responsible for the control and 
administration of quotas?  
18.
 The Federal Office for Agriculture allocates the TQ shares according to the arrival of 
applications. G/AG/R/45 
Page 12  
 
  19. Question by Ecuador - Is there any seasonal allocation of quotas?  
20. No.  As a general rule, quota shares are allocated for a calendar year. 
21. Question by Ecuador - Is there any official  medium for publishing allocated quotas?  
22. The TQ shares allocated are published on www.blw.admin.ch
\rubriques\importations\ 
publication de l'attribution des contingents tarifaires. 
23. Question by Ecuador - What is the legal ba sis for the quota distribution method and 
where is it published?  
24. The legal provisions are as follows: 
(a) General Ordinance on the Importation of  Agricultural Products (Ordinance on 
Agricultural Importations), OlAgr (RS 916.01); 
 
(b) Ordinance on the Importation of Milk and Dairy Products, Edible Oils and Fats, and 
Casein and Caseinates (Ordinance on the Importation of Milk and Edible Oils), OILHGC (RS 916355.1). 
 
 These ordinances are available on www.admin.ch
 (recueil systématique du droit fédéral). 
 
25. Question by Ecuador - For dairy produce and potatoes:  Is the distribution of quota 
volumes dependent on purchases of the entire domestic production or a percentage thereof in relation to the overall volume of the quota?  A re there any conditions for quota applicants 
beyond the purchase of domestic production?  
26. Dairy produce:  tariff quota number 7.3 ("vari ous dairy products") is allocated as needed.  
Distribution is decided according to the order of a rrival of the applications.  The shares are allocated 
for one calendar year. 
27. Question by Ecuador – Within the fram ework of which WTO Agreements does 
Switzerland justify the requirement to purchase do mestic production prior to quota allocation?  
28. Following the entry into force in Switzerla nd of the results of the Uruguay round the prise en 
charge  system was abolished in certain cases.  In  cases where the system was maintained, it was 
applied in such a way as to ensure that market access for the products concerned was not made more 
difficult.  This method is therefore consistent with the WTO Agreements, in particular with 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture a nd Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures: 
(a) Prise en charge  does not apply to out-of-quota imports. 
 (b) The domestic purchase obligation is no greater than during the base period.  (c) No product would be subject to a ratio of imports against domestic purchases that 
would prejudice the possibility of complete absorption by the domestic market of the 
entire import quota for the product.  For example, if total consumption for a product is 1,000 tonnes and a quota is 500 tonnes, the prise en charge  requirement must not 
exceed a ratio of 1 to 1. 
  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (d) Prise en charge  never applies to products for which the volume of out-of-quota 
imports is higher than the volume of imports at the TQ rate. 
 (e) Generally speaking, the prise en charge  system allows the quota limits set forth in 
Schedule LIX to be exceeded as long as the ratio (1:1 for example) is respected. 
 
(f) Newcomers are entitled to import at the TQ rate. 
 29. In short, prise en charge  is a quota allocation system whic h constitutes an internal measure 
that does not violate the rights of other WTO Members or Switzerland's obligations under the 
Agreement.  Economically, the system imposes no restri ctions on trade greater than those exercised in 
other quotas.  It is without prejudice to the agr eed market access obligations  because all of the quotas 
can be filled and the origin of the product plays no role. 
30. Question by Ecuador - Fresh potatoes: On wh at basis are quotas allocated to packers 
that deliver Swiss potatoes packaged and ready for consumption to retailers;  or can other types 
of applicants have access to a percentage of the quota?  
31. Tariff quota No.14 is subdivided into partial tariff quotas (CTP) as follows: 
(a) CTP 14.1:  potatoes (including potato seedlings); 
 (b) CTP 14.2:  potato products. 
 
32. TQ shares for potatoes (CTP 14.1:  potato seedlings, fresh potatoes and potatoes for 
processing) are allocated on the basis of the purchase  of Swiss produce as defined above (B, iii).  TQ 
shares for potato products (CTP 14.2) are allocated by auction. 
 
(ii) Table MA:2 Notifications 
  Iceland    G/AG/N/ISL/25
 
 
33. Question by Australia - We note that on a number of products including meat and 
edible offal of swine, meat and edible offal of horses, butter, bones and horn-cores, and some 
animal fats (amongst others) Icel and has recorded a nil fill rate for its tariff rate quota.  We also 
note that a large number of Iceland's other tariff rate quotas were under-filled during the 
notified period.  
34. Almost all products falling under Iceland's current access commitments are subject to a tariff-
only regime.  Notably, a tariff-only regime replaced TRQs for most vegetables in 2002.  For these products therefore, demand is the sole determinant of imports. 
35. Question by Australia - Given this, does Icel and intend to modify its TRQ regime or 
move to a tariff only regime during the Doha Round?  
36. Products falling under minimum access are subj ect to TRQs in accordance with Iceland's 
scheduled commitments.  There are at present no pl ans to move away from a TRQ regime as far as 
these products are concerned, pending  conclusion of the Doha Round. G/AG/R/45 
Page 14  
 
  Israel     G/AG/N/ISR/39
 
 
37. Question by Australia – We note that all of  Israel's tariff rate quotas were over-filled 
during the notified period.  This situation suggests there is significant demand for these products;  does Israel intend to move to a tariff-only regime during the Doha Round?  
38. Some of Israel's tariff rate quotas were over-filled during the notified period, but most
 of our 
TRQs showed an impressive fill rate of around 90 per cent and over. This is due to an efficient and 
professional quota management of all our quotas, for which Israel should be given credit. 
39. Israel saves no efforts to allo cate the quota in the best possible way and constantly improves 
its allocation system to meet its commitments. Is rael does not intend to change the import policy. 
However, we do examine it from time to time and when needed in view of the domestic production 
and the world markets.  In this regard, the curre nt applied tariff rates for sheep and goat meat and 
frozen meat of bovine animals are equal to tariffs at  the in-quota rate (tariff items 0202, 0204, 0206). 
40. Question by New Zealand - Noting that Israel's  in-quota imports for edible fats and oils 
for the calendar year 2003 amo unted to 13,847 tones, could Israel please explain why there were 
no in-quota imports for the same products during 2004?  
41. Israel would like to thank New Zealand for its question and refer to a corrigendum concerning 
the notification of imports under tariff quotas (Tab le MA:2) during the calendar year 2003 submitted 
by Israel on 17 August 2004 (G/AG/N/ISR/34/Corr.1).  This corrigendum indicates that the in-quota imports for edible fats a nd oils during year 2003, was also 0 tonnes.   The import statistics for this item 
was wrongly calculated taking into account the tota l import under tariff item 1516 instead of imports 
under subheading 1516.1011 whic h corresponds accurately to edible fats and oils. 
 Japan    G/AG/N/JPN/114
 
 
42. Question by New Zealand - Fill rates for a large number of dairy quotas in FY 2004 
remained below 40% (SMP for school lunches - 38%, SMP for other purposes - 36%, prepared 
whey for infant formula - 38%, butter and butt eroil - 15%, and mineral concentrated whey - 
25%).  Previous answers provided by Japan indica t e  t h a t  t h i s  i s  d u e  t o  a  l a c k  o f  d o m e s t i c  
demand for these products.  Examination of previo us WTO notifications of fill rates since 1995 
clearly indicate that these rates have not improved over that ten year period.  Demand must have therefore been consistently low throughout this period.  Given this, has Japan given any further consideration to moving to a tariff-o nly regime at the in-quota tariff rate?  Why 
continue to retain a complicated administration system for quota allocati on when low domestic 
demand continues to ensure that the quota is not utilised?  
43. Under the TRQ system, Members are committed to providing access opportunities for 
tariffied products, but they are not committed to filling the quotas. 
44. In order to increase the fill-rates of the quotas, we think it is necessary for the private sector in 
exporting countries to make the commercial effort to  expand their markets.  Japan therefore is not 
considering changing its TRQ system for low fill-rate reasons. 
45. Question by the United States - Could Japan please explain why it did not notify its 
trading partners about the change to Simult aneous Buyer System (SBS) rice imports in 
advance?  
46. Japan changed the minimum lot size for the tenders of SBS rice imports from 17 tonnes to 
34 tonnes in December 2005.  This change was to respond to the increase in the number of items for  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 15 
 
 
  the safety inspection with regard to imported rice in accordance with the amendment of the Food 
Sanitation Law.  
47. Before implementing this change, when it was still at an early stage of consideration, 
Japanese authorities explained repeatedly the changes in the safety inspection to importers in Japan.  
We consider that exporters including those in th e U.S. have been well informed about the changes 
through business connections with importers in Japan. 
48. Question by the United States - Can you tell us how the change in lot size for tenders 
under the Simultaneous Buyer Seller (SBS) system  might affect Japan's imports to the retail 
market and Japan's ability to fill the quota for rice?  
49. The minimum lot size for tenders was expanded to 34 tonnes in December 2005.  However, 
according to the records of past SBS imports, the tenders whose lot size was below 34 tonnes 
occupied only 3 per cent of the total SBS tenders.  We believe that the change in the lot size does not 
affect Japan's imports to the retail market. 
50. In addition, the entire expected amount of ri ce for contracts was successfully bidden in 
December 2005, which took place after the change in the minimum lot size.  We therefore believe that 
the change in the lot size does not affect Japan's ability to fill the quota for rice. 
 
 Nicaragua    G/AG/N/NIC/19  
 
51. Question by Australia - We note that most of Nicaragua's tariff rate quotas are not in 
force because goods are being imported at an applie d tariff rate which is lower than the levels 
bound in Nicaragua's Schedule XXIX.  Given this, does Nicaragua intend to move to a tariff-
only regime during the Doha Round?  
52. Since 1990, Nicaragua has undertaken unilateral trade liberalization measures which have 
resulted in a reduction of its tariff levels.  Neve rtheless, the products subject to tariff quotas are 
considered sensitive products and in many cases respond to food security, subsistence and rural 
development criteria.   
53. Nicaragua considers that it is premature to r espond to Australia's question given that the 
modalities in the agriculture negotiations have not ye t been adopted.  However, Nicaragua is ready to 
contribute to the Doha Round negotiations as long as th e contributions are compatible with its level of 
development and dependent on the access granted for its exports by its principal trading partners. 
 
 South Africa    G/AG/N/ZAF/53  
 
54. Question by Australia - We note that South Africa's fill rate for its quotas on butter, 
eggs and potatoes were very low – could So uth Africa explain why this was the case?  
55. Butter (04.05) - Permits for the full quota amount were issued for the year 2004.  A decision 
to import under these quotas is based on commercial cons iderations.  Local market conditions, such as 
supply and prices were the main reasons for the low utilization of import quotas for butter in 2004. 
56. Eggs (04.07, 04.08) - The applied rate for eggs  under the HS heading 0407 is zero.  For HS 
heading 04.08, no application for import permits under the quota were received in the year 2004. G/AG/R/45 
Page 16  
 
  57. Potatoes (07.01) - For potatoes, the applied tari ff is lower than the in-quota tariff rate.  For 
this reason a quota was not administered for potatoes for the year 2004.  
 
 Thailand    G/AG/N/THA/55
 
 58. Question by the United States - Could Tha iland please explain how the requirement to 
purchase domestically produced nonfat  dry milk (HS 0402.10.00.07), soybeans 
(HS 1201.00.10.00 and HS 1201.00.90.01), soybean cake (HS 2304.00.00.08), and corn (HS 1005.90) as a condition for obtaining import licenses is consistent with its WTO obligations?  
59. Our existing measures of import licensing require ment comply with the WTO regulations.  
The import license is required when an importer appl ies for importation of agricultural products under 
the TRQ in order to keep track of the quantity im ported under the TRQ.  The Government of Thailand 
has never enacted any legal regulation requiring domestic purchase of non-fat dry milk, soybeans, soybean cake and corn.  All imported quantities of  those products exceed the quantities committed 
except for corn of which domestic production meets the local demand. 
 
(iii) Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications  
 Chinese Taipei    G/AG/N/TPKM/26  (Table MA:4)
 
 
60. Question by Australia - We note that under Ar ticle 5.7 there is a requirement to notify 
safeguard action within 10 days of implementati on, so we would like to seek reassurance from 
Chinese Taipei of its commitment to timely notifi cations to meet the transparency provisions of 
Article 5 of the AoA.  
61. Chinese Taipei reaffirms its commitment to co mply with Article 5.7 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
 
(iv) Table DS:1 Notifications  
 Armenia    G/AG/N/ARM/5/Rev.1
 
 
62. Question by Australia - We note that Armenia has included several measures under 
infrastructural services that appear to provide  assistance to forestry – a product which falls 
outside the scope of product coverage detailed in  Annex 1.  If this is the case could Armenia 
please amend their notification accordingly?  
63. Armenia undertook to provide a revised Table DS:1 notification. 
 
European Communities    G/AG/N/EEC/51  
 
64. Question by Canada - Canada reiterated it s request for a response from the European 
Communities to a question raised during the 43rd WTO Committee meeting in June 2005 
(G/AG/R/43, page 14, refers).  
65. The EC is well aware of Canada's ques tions from March and June on Regulation 
2000/C28/02, we would like to refer to the Report of the Committee on Agriculture from the meeting  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 17 
 
 
  in September 2005, point 22 on page 5.   Unfortunately, we have nothing to add to that answer at this 
stage.   
66. A reflection on the legislative aspects of the support measures referred to by Canada is 
ongoing.  We need to analyse the situation, and in light of this analysis notifications may be revised.  We cannot yet indicate the timefra me needed for such analysis. 
67. Question by the United States - In March 2005, the United States asked for clarification 
regarding how much of the support no tified under G/AG/N/EEC/51/Corr.1 and 
G/AG/N/EEC/49/Corr.1 "Structural Adjustments provided through Investment Aid" went in 
support of wine producers. In G/AG/N/EEC/51/Corr.1 and G/AG/N/EEC/49/Corr.1, the EEC cites Council regulation 1493/99 in addition to  1257/99 and adds that funds were used for 
restructuring and conversion of wine production.  However, it is still not clear how much of the 
total funds allocated under this category went in  support of wine producers.  Is it the total 
notified under Structural Adjustments provided through Investment Aid?  If not, what 
percentage of the total went in support of wine producers?  
68. In which countries and areas did wine producers receive funds for this purpose?  
69. Restructuring and conversion in the wine sector are: 
 Amounts allocated million EUR area replanted (ha) 
 
 Budget 2001 Budget 2002ha 
2000/01 ha 
2001/02 
 
Germany 12,6 12,5 
2 940  
2 281 
Greece  4,4 0 746 
Spain 171,5 188,7 30 009 36 271 
France 18,7 70,9 2 578 13 284 
Italy 115,0 103,6 17 964 16 426 
Luxemburg 0,1 0,1 14 11 
Austria 12,0 11,5 1 822 1 885 
Portugal 30,6 32,5 5 711 4 537 
 360,5 424,2 61 038 75 441 
 
Cyprus: all specified regions for the production of quality wines psr except from the region of 
"Commandaria" and all wine growing regi ons located at altitude exceeding 600 m. 
 Germany: Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Brandenb urg, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-
Pfalz, Saarland, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Thüringen.  Greece: East Macedonia – Thrace, Central Macedonia, Western Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Ionian 
Islands, Western Greece, Continental Greece, Pe loponnesus, Attica, Northern Aegean Islands, 
Southern Aegean Islands, Crete.  Spain: Andalucia, Aragon, Asturias, Baleares, Canarias, Castilla y Le on, Castilla-La Mancha, 
Cataluna, Extremadura, Galicia, Madrid, Murcia, Navarra, La Ri oja, Pais Vasco, Valencia. 
 
Italy: Piemonte, Lombardia, Veneto, Friuli, Li guria, Emilia-Romagna, Toscana, Umbria, Marche, 
Lazio, Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Puglia, Basili cata, Calabria, Sicilia, Sardegna, Prov. Aut. 
Bolzano, Prov. Aut. Trento.   G/AG/R/45 
Page 18  
 
  Austria: Niederösterreich, Burgenland, Steiermark, Wien. 
 
Portugal: Minho, Tras-os-Montes, Beiras, Ribatejo, Es tremadura, Terras do Sado, Alentejo, Algarve. 
 70. For the other countries applying the restru cturing scheme (Czech Republic, France, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Slovaki a and Slovenia), no breakdown by region is available at the 
Commission. 
71. Follow-up comment by  United States
:  Highlighted some inconsistencies between the budget 
data submitted, and that publishe d on the EC's Web Site, for example, for France.  Also questioned 
the consistency of the programme with Annex 2 para  11 (e) criteria.  In the EC's view, the reported 
inconsistencies may arise because the Web site reflects budgeted expenditures, instead of actual 
spending.  The EC undertook to provide  a more detailed response.   Mo reover, the EC considers that a 
detailed review of Annex 2 para 11 crite ria has already taken place in the past. 
72. Question by the United States - How much land in low quality grapes was removed from 
production and how much in high quality grapes was replanted?   
73. Was there a net gain in area planted?  
74. The measure does not aim at increasing the Commun ity vineyard area. On the contrary, when 
implementing the measure Member States must  ensure that there is no overall increase in production 
potential . (Article 13 (3) first subparagraph of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000). 
 
 Iceland    G/AG/N/ISL/26  
 
75. Question by Australia - Australia notes that  Iceland continues to notify current total 
AMS in both an unadjusted and adjusted for infl ation form, as Iceland first indicated it would 
do at the 20th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in September 1999.  In the years covered 
by this notification, Iceland would be in brea ch of its AMS commitment levels in two years 
(2002 and 2003) on the basis of the unadjusted figures.  Which version of the notification does 
Iceland consider its official notification:  the v ersion with or without adjustment for inflation?  
76. Iceland views the notification as a whole as the o fficial version.  It contains information on 
Iceland's current AMS calculations both on the basi s of adjusted and unadjusted figures.  It is 
Iceland's position that only the adjusted version is a fair representation of the current AMS in view of 
the distortion created by the use of an unadjusted external reference price (ERP) in market price 
support calculations.  This ERP was erroneously e xpressed in Icelandic krona in Iceland's Uruguay 
Round AGST, instead of SDR as would have been  more appropriate, as that is how Iceland’s 
commitment level is expressed.  This error is the ro ot cause of the problem as all other values in the 
market price support calculations represent those of  the period to which the notification extends.  
Given that there are diverging views among the member ship as to issues of this nature, Iceland has in 
recent years submitted these dual notifica tions to ensure full transparency. 
77. Question by Australia - What level of infl ation does Iceland consider to be excessive?  
78. It is probably not worthwhile to pursue a defi nition of the word "excessive" beyond what can 
be deduced from Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Ag riculture.  It may be maintained that "excessive" 
means any level of inflation which has sufficien t influence to push a Member beyond its domestic 
support commitment level.  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 19 
 
 
  79. Question by Australia - To assist the Comm ittee in examining the need for inflation 
adjustments, could Iceland provide the annual inflation rates for each year since 1995?  
80. The requested information is contained in the ta bles below.  In Iceland's view, light can only 
be shed on the problem by looking at developments  since the UR base period (1986-88) rather than 
the start of the UR implementation period, since th e ERP in question is derived from the former.  The 
tables cover the period 1986 to 2005, both as concer ns the development of the CPI and the SDR 
exchange rate. 
 
Table 1  - Changes to the consumer price index 1986-2005 
 
Year CPI; annual 
average Change Total inflation 
1986-2005 
2005 598.5 4.03% 
2004 575.3 3.23% 
2003 557.3 2.09% 
2002 545.9 4.84% 
2001 520.7 6.64% 
2000 488.3 5.06% 
1999 464.8 3.43% 
1998 449.4 1.67% 
1997 442.0 1.80% 
1996 434.2 2.26% 
1995 424.6 1.65% 
1994 417.7 1.51% 
1993 411.5 4.10% 
1992 395.3 3.78% 
1991 380.9 6.78% 
1990 356.7 14.84% 
1989 310.6 21.09% 
1988 256.5 25.43% 
1987 204.5 18.76% 
1986 172.2 21.27% 
1985 142.0           - 247.6% 
Source : Statistics Iceland 
 G/AG/R/45 
Page 20  
 
  Table 2  - Changes to the SDR exchange rate 1986-2005 
 
Year Average exchange 
rate, kr Change Total change 
1986-2005 
2005 92,795 -10.63% 
2004 103,831 -3.40% 
2003 107,491 -9.15% 
2002 118,321 -4.90% 
2001 124,423 19.78% 
2000 103,874 4.91% 
1999 99,006 2.58% 
1998 96,510 -1.16% 
1997 97,646 0.87% 
1996 96,801 -1.42% 
1995 98,198 -1.95% 
1994 100,146 5.75% 
1993 94,695 16.73% 
1992 81,124 0.38% 
1991 80,815 2.15% 
1990 79,114 8.05% 
1989 73,218 26.48% 
1988 57,886 15.77% 
1987 49,997 3.64% 
1986 48,237 14.18% 
1985 42,244          - 92.37% 
Source :  Central Bank of Iceland 
 
  Israel    G/AG/N/ISR/37
 
 
81. Question by Canada - Would Israel please provi de a DS:2 notification for the "Bovine 
Spongiform Encephalopathy assistance" progra mme with details of the programme and 
indicating under which sub-paragraph of Annex 2, paragraph 2 this programme is notified?  
82. The "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy monito ring program" is indeed a relatively new 
programme which came in light of the growing c oncern of the BSE and in order to prevent the 
outbreak of this serious disease in Israel.  The relevant Table DS:2 notification was officially submitted to the WTO (subsequently issued as G/ AG/N/ISR/40) giving all the relevant details.  
However, this programme falls under Annex 2, pa ragraph 2 sub-paragraph (b) and (e) since the 
programme includes a compulsory examination of a ll the slaughtered cattle (mainly the brain parts) 
aged 30 months and over and annihilation of differe nt carcass parts of all calves aged 15 months and 
over.  During the notified year (2003), a total of  22,700 professional examinations were carried out, 
all with a negative result for BSE. 
 
 Nicaragua    G/AG/N/NIC/18
 
 
83. Question by Australia - We note that th e following programmes appear to be new 
measures for which Table DS:2 noti fications have not been made:  
(a) In the 2003 and 2004 calendar years, under the heading Other services: Support 
for programmes aimed at resolving the prob lems posed by extreme poverty etc.  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (b) In the 2004 calendar year, under the heading Pest and Disease Control: Bringing 
agrifood safety and agricultural and forest  health services up to standard etc.  
(c) In the 2004 calendar year, under the he ading Other services:  Support for 
programmes aimed at developing communi ty food safety determinants etc. 
 If these are new measures, could Nicaragua please submit DS:2 notifications? 
 84. We are in the process of submitting Table DS:2 notifications to the Secretariat. 
85. We note that Nicaragua has also include d several measures that appear to provide 
assistance to forestry – a product which falls outs ide the scope of product coverage detailed in 
Annex 1.  If this is the case, could Nicaragu a please amend their notification accordingly?  
86. We will take into account Australia's comments in our future notifications. 
87. We note that some measures listed under do mestic food aid for the 2004 calendar year, 
would more appropriately be notified under oth er headings, i.e. soil and water conservation, 
rebuilding of infrastructure, training etc.  Would Nicaragua please make the necessary amendments to their notification?  
88. See reply in paragraph 86. 
89. More generally, we would encourage Nicar agua to follow more closely the paragraph 
headings used in Annex 2.  
90. See reply in paragraph 86. 
 
 South Africa    G/AG/N/ZAF/54
 
 
91. Question by Australia - We note that the level of support to regional development 
assistance programmes has increased from ZA R 176.9 million in 2002 to ZAR 452.8 million in 
2003.  Could South Africa provide more details as  to the nature of the measure, specifically, 
consistency with Annex 2 paragraph 13 and the reason for the increase?  
92. Development Aid Programmes as notified under the heading Regional Assistance 
Programmes are implemented by the Provincial Departments of Agriculture.  These programmes are implemented in underdeveloped and disadvantaged ar eas and the criteria for eligibility is that farmers 
should be from previously disadvantaged communities.   These farmers produce at a subsistence level 
for home consumption and local markets.  Paymen ts under these programmes have poverty alleviation 
as the main objective and are not linked to domestic or international prices. 
93. The reason for the increase in the payments is the extension of the programmes in two 
provinces, the Eastern Cape and Kwazulu-Natal.  These Provinces increased their budget allocation 
for these programmes, with the main focu s as mentioned on poverty alleviation. 
94. Question by Australia - The figure provided for total Green Box support is understated 
by ZAR 180 million.  From the figures provided, the total Green Box support should read 
ZAR 4,536.1 million.  
95. We have taken note of the mistake and would like to thank you for bringing it to our attention. 
(A corrigendum was subsequently issued, on 10 March 2006) G/AG/R/45 
Page 22  
 
   
 Switzerland    G/AG/N/CHE/34
 
 
96. Question by Australia - Can Switzerland please provide more detail on "Extreme 
weather conditions" notified under Natural disa ster relief payments for the 2001 calendar year, 
specifically consistency with Annex 2, paragraph 8 (a) to (e)?  
97. Federal contributions are paid as a rule for the repair for rural engineering works such as farm 
tracks, bridges, cable cars for the tr ansport of equipment, water mains,  or for works that are used as 
basic infrastructure i.e. a factor of production.  Federal payments are also made for the rehabilitation 
of land under cultivation covered with  fallen rocks or earth, or in the event of landslides on sloping 
ground.  All such works are covered by structural  improvements to agriculture which come under the 
Green Box as they have no implications for production.  
98. Only half the costs incurred as a result of extreme weather conditions are covered by federal 
contributions;  the balance has to be borne by th e owners of the engineering works or structures 
(usually communes, labour unions and farmers).  In th is connection, it should be noted that damage to 
rural engineering works and cultivated land is not insu rable.  Projects for the repair of damage caused 
by extreme weather conditions are limited to restor ing the works or structures to their previous 
condition.  They do not, therefore, constitute an element of agricultural income. 
99. Question by Australia - Noting previous an swers provided by Switzerland on regional 
assistance programmes to the Committee (G/AG/ R/12, 15, and 20) can Switzerland please 
provide more detail in relation to:  Non-silage allowances , specifically what law or regulation 
defines the Gruyere region as more than te mporarily disadvantaged and what neutral and 
objective criteria were used to consider Gruy ere as more than temporarily disadvantaged? 
Noting Switzerland's answer in G/AG/R/16, that  the non-silage allowance is a temporary 
measure, can Switzerland provide an indication on when this measure will expire?  
100. The purpose of the measure is to contribute to the judicious use of grassland areas while at the 
same time maintaining traditional cheese-making fac ilities for the production of hard cheese.  Such 
cheeses are mainly produced in Swiss hill and mount ains regions which are usually disadvantaged. 
The Law on Agriculture limits the validity of this me asure to the end of 2008 (Article 188, para. 3 of 
the Law on Agriculture). 
101. Question by Australia - In addition, noting Switzerland's response that this measure is 
temporary, it appears in conflict with the criteri a stipulated in Annex 2, Paragraph (13)(a) that 
the region in question must be more than tempor arily disadvantaged.  Can Switzerland please 
provide more detail on how this measure meets th e criteria stipulated in Annex 2, Paragraph 
(13)(a)?  
102. The geographical and topographical disadvantages suffered by hill and mountain areas are not 
a temporary phenomenon.  The effort to promote the judicious use of agricultural land in these regions 
simultaneously contributes to economic and social ba lance between the rural and urban populations in 
Switzerland. 
103. Question by Australia - Noting that Switz erland has provided information in G/AG/R/20 
stating that all dairy farms in the Gruyere re gion are eligible to receive the non-silage 
allowance, can Switzerland confirm that all other producers in the region are not eligible for the 
allowance?   G/AG/R/45 
 Page 23 
 
 
  104. Dairy producers who base their production on sila ge are excluded from this payment.  Indeed, 
they make no comparable contribution to the use of  pastures.  All dairy farms in the Gruyère region 
are entitled to the non-silage allowance, provide d that they meet the relevant criteria. 
105. Question by Australia - Allowan ces for milk processed into cheese , specifically what 
regions are considered disadvantaged and what law or regulation defines these regions as more 
than temporarily disadvantaged?  
106. Generally speaking, cheese production takes plac e in highland and mountain regions remote 
from the main centres of consumption of milk and da iry products.  Normally, milk production in these 
regions is the only possibility for employment and use of pasture land.  Moreover, the measure is 
consistent with the socio-economic objectives of Swiss agricultural policy and makes it possible, 
through dairy production and development in sma ll artisan and family structures, to maintain 
economic activities in outlying regions, thereb y contributing to decentralized land use. 
107. Question by Australia - Noting Switzerland's response of G/AG/R/28 that this measure 
relates specifically to milk, can Switzerland plea se provide detail on how this measure meets 
Annex 2, Paragraph 13 (d), specifically how it is generally available to all producers in the 
region and not just available to producers of milk?  
108. In Switzerland, disadvantaged a nd peripheral regions are located in parts of the country where 
the main agricultural activity is milk production (m eadows/alpine meadows/pastures) for reasons of 
topography.  Cheese manufacture is therefore the best way of using this milk.  The question of putting 
the milk to another use does not arise in practice in this context, since few other alternatives exist for 
the small quantities produced.  In these remote regi ons, the milk collection costs are far too high. 
109. Noting answers provided in G/AG/R/16 and 28, can Switzerland provide more detail on 
the operation of the programme, i.e. criteria us ed to determine which producer eligibility, and 
details on how the payment is designed in order to get the best added value out of the milk produced?  
110. See answer provided under paragraph 108. 
111. Question by Australia - Allowance fo r milk processed into hard cheese
, specifically what 
regions are considered disadvantaged and what law or regulation defines these regions as more 
than temporarily disadvantaged?  
112. See answers provided in G/AG/R/16 concerning this measure. 
113. Noting Switzerland's response in G/AG/R/16 th at this measure relates specifically to 
cheese, can Switzerland please provide detail on how this measure meets Annex 2, 
paragraph 13(d), specifically how it is generally available to all producers in the region, not just 
available to producers of cheese?  
114. This payment is linked to areas, and is entirely decoupled from production.  Its objective is to 
preserve agriculture in disadvantaged mountain regi ons.  The payment is therefore entirely decoupled 
from milk production as such.  
115. Noting Switzerland's response of G/AG/R/12 that this measure will be abolished after a 
transitional period in the context of a reform pr ocess, and noting that this measure was notified 
for the years 1999 and 2000 and not 2001, can Sw itzerland please confirm that this measure has 
been abolished?  G/AG/R/45 
Page 24  
 
  116. This measure has been abolished since 2001. 
117. Question by Canada - Would Switzerland plea se provide a Table DS:2 notification for 
the "Payments for herding roughage-consuming animals" and "Payments for arable farming" 
programmes, indicating how the programmes meet each and every  of the specific criteria of 
paragraph 6 of Annex 2 (i.e. eligibility criteria; the fixed and defined base period; how 
payments are calculated; etc)?  
118. See Table DS:2 in G/AG/N/CHE/20.  These paymen ts, which have their legal basis in Article 
73 of the Law on Agriculture, are defined in Articl es 28 to 32 of the Ordinance on Direct Payments.  
The programme is independent of milk or meat pr oduction.  The amounts are paid for all animals that 
consume roughage, and payments ar e made per livestock unit herded during the reference period and 
per hectare of grass land.  The amount of the payments is fixed in the Ordinance on Direct Payments, 
and is independent of market prices.  Finally, th e payments are made whether or not there is any 
production.   
119. Canada has also asked us to produce a Table DS:2 notification for the programme "payments 
for arable farming".  This has drawn our attention to the fact that the measure was inappropriately 
classified (a revised notification has been recently circulated). 
120. Question by Canada - The General Direct Paym ents (according to surface area) that is 
being notified as decoupled income support in ST DS:1 in G/AG/N/CHE/34 appears to be the 
same programme notified in G/ AG/N/CHE/20 (Surface area contributions form part of general 
direct payments).  However, Switzerland did not indicate CHE/20 under which paragraph of 
Annex 2 it was being claimed as green. Since th is programme is now be ing claimed as green 
under paragraph 6 of Annex 2, would Switzerla nd explain how this programme meets each and 
every of the specific criteria of this paragraph (i .e. eligibility criteria; the fixed and defined base 
period; how payments are calculated; etc)?  
121. These payments are made per hectare of useable agricultural area.  They are not linked to any 
specific production and have no effect on the total ag ricultural area, which is limited in Switzerland.  
Nor are they linked to the market prices or to the evolution of income, for example.  Their amount is 
defined in advance.  The payments are conti ngent on required ecological services, which are 
themselves set out in the Law on Agriculture and the accompanying ordinances.  They fall within 
Switzerland's constitutiona l mandate, which calls, inter alia , for environment-friendly agriculture. 
122. Question by Canada - Would Switzerland pl ease provide a D:2 notification for the 
programme "Extreme weather conditions" indica ting how it meets each and every of the 
specific criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2 (i.e. production loss required; whether the preceding 
3 year period or the 3 year average based on the preceding 5 year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry, is used; how the payment is calculated; etc)?  
123. In principle, federal payments are made for th e restoration of agricultural engineering works 
such as agricultural tracks, bridges,  cable cars for the transport of equipment, or water supplies, or 
works serving, in agriculture, as basi c infrastructure in the sense of a "factor of production".  They are 
also allocated for the rehabilitation of cultivated la nd that has been covered by fallen rocks or steep 
slopes that have suffered from landslides.  All of these works constitute structural improvements in 
agriculture that come under the green box,  because they do not affect production. 
124. 
Federal payments cover only half of the costs attributable to extreme weather conditions.  The 
owners of the works (usually the communes, the uni ons, and the farmers) have to pay the rest.  We 
note that damage to agricultural engineering wo rks and cultivated land cannot be insured.  The 
projects relating to the repair of damage caused by extreme weather conditions serve only to restore  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 25 
 
 
  the works to their previous state.  Consequently, th ey are not an item of agricultural income. A Table 
DS:2 notification for this measure will be  submitted (circulated as G/AG/N/CHE/35).  
125. Question by Canada - Would Switzerland plea se provide a DS:2 notification for the 
programme "2002 Agricultural Policy" indicating  how the programme meets each and every of 
the specific criteria of the relevant paragraph of Annex 2?  
126. The PA 2002 programme, which covers the refo rm period from 1999 to 2002, entered into 
force on 1 January 1999.  Among other things, it init iated the process of deregulating the dairy sector 
by abolishing the State system of fixed milk price guarantees.  That year also marked the beginning of 
the harmonization of the direct payments system  through the introduction of the single required 
ecological service condition as a starting point for elig ibility for direct payments.  The new measures 
involving domestic support were already notified in th e form of a Table DS:2 upon their entry into 
force. 
127. Question by New Zealand - Questions relating to Supporting Table DS:1: Could 
Switzerland please advise whether "Payments for arable farming", listed under decoupled 
income support, is a new programme and if n ecessary provide the DS:2 notification outlining 
how this programme meets the requirements of Annex 2.  
128. We thank New Zealand for this question, which drew our attention to the fact that this 
measure was inappropriately classified (see revised notification, G/AG/N/CHE/34/Rev.1).  
129. Question by New Zealand - We note that the description of some of the programmes 
listed under regional assistance have changed, in  particular "payments for herding animals 
under difficult conditions", and "payments for farming on steep slopes (including wine 
cultivation)".  Could Switzerland please advi se whether these programmes have changed and 
how they meet the policy specific requirements of paragraph 13 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
130. Direct payments encourage farmers to exploit the entire useful agricultural area in a 
sustainable manner.  The choice of reference valu es (area, utilization, animals) as well as the 
conditions and charges make it possible to remunerate  tasks that are in the public interest.  In 1999, 
the second agricultural policy reform entered into force in Switzerland.  Since then, the Law on 
Agriculture has distinguished between direct paym ents of a general nature and the more specific 
direct payments which serve to encourage "producti on methods which are particularly suited to and 
respectful of the natural environment and animal life".  Direct payments of a general nature include, in 
particular, payments for animals feeding on rougha ge and allowances for the costs of cattle-owners.  
Two types of specific direct payments are maintain ed in PA 2002:  payments for herding animals 
under difficult conditions, and payments for farming on steep slopes.  These direct payments represent 
an important contribution to the maintenance a nd preservation of the countryside in the regions 
concerned. 
131. Payments for herding animals under difficult c onditions:  The purpose of these contributions 
is to support sustainable agricultural produc tion in the hilly and mountainous regions where 
production conditions are particularly difficult.  These zones are clearly defined by Swiss law 
(Ordinance on Agricultural Zones).  Payments are allocated per livest ock unit;  thus, they concern all 
roughage-consuming animals of any type (bovine, equine , ovine or caprine).  They are reduced if the 
farm does not have the necessary fodder resources to  feed all of its roughage-consuming animals.  
Moreover, the number of animals per farm for wh ich payments are made is restricted.  These 
payments are entirely independent of market prices. G/AG/R/45 
Page 26  
 
  132. Payments for farming on steep slopes
 -  The purpose of these payments is the maintenance 
and protection of the landscape in particularly disadva ntaged areas, i.e. steep slopes.  Indeed, these 
areas are particularly vulnerable to natural disasters.  For example, abandoning high mountain pastures would lead to a significant increase in the risk of avalanches.  Farmers working in these 
disadvantaged areas receive payments in comp ensation for services rendered (maintenance and 
preservation of the countryside).  The payments th emselves are totally independent of the production 
of agricultural goods.  They are paid to all farmer s cultivating this land in the hilly and mountainous 
regions. 
133. Question by New Zealand - Payments fo r the regional assistance programme 
"Allowances for milk processed into cheese" have increased from 184 SwF million in 1998, to 
331 SwF million in 2001.  Further to our past questions could Switzerland please advise how 
this programme meets the requirements of par agraph 13(b) of Annex 2 which states that the 
amount of payments shall not be related to, or  based on the type or volume of production 
(including livestock units) undertaken by the pr oducer in any year after the base period other 
than to reduce that production?  Are these paym ents available to all producers in the specified 
disadvantaged regions even if they  do not produce milk or cheese?  
134. The allowances for milk processed into cheese are paid only for the production of milk that is 
effectively processed into cheese. It does not c onstitute promotion of production because it does not 
result in additional production by the farmer.  The increase in contributions since 1998 is attributable to the increase in the rate of the supplement from 12 to 20 centimes per kilo of milk processed into 
cheese, and not to any increase in production, whic h is subject to quotas until 2009.  It reflects the 
fundamental change in the country's dairy polic y in 1999, during which the State's milk price 
guarantees and State payments for the quantities produced were abandoned. 
135. Question by the United States - Under item d) "Decoupled income support", payments 
for herding roughage-consuming animals and pa yments for arable farming are listed.  Can 
Switzerland please explain how these payments, which appear to be contingent on production of 
specific products, qualify under the criteria of Anne x 2?  Specifically, Annex 2.6(b) "the amount 
of payments in any given year shall not be related to, or based on, the type or volume of production (including livestock units) undertaken by the producer in any year after the base period."  And 2.6(e) "no production shall be required in order to receive such payments."  
136. See answers provided under paragraph 128 (payme nts for arable farming) and paragraph 130 
(payments for herding roughage-consuming animals). 
137. Under item k) "Regional assistance progra mmes", allowances for milk processed into 
cheese and supplements for the manu facture of hard cheese in the silage area are listed.  Can 
Switzerland please explain how these payments, which appear to be contingent on production of 
specific products, qualify under the same criteria of Annex 2?  
138. See answers under paragraphs 106, 108 and 134. 
139. Follow-up questions: Australia requests a breakdown of the types of output in the 
disadvantaged regions concerned.  Argentina is not convinced that "allowances to milk processed into 
cheese" and "allowances to milk processed into ha rd cheeses" are indeed Green Box programmes.  
Since these subsidies are given to milk for processi ng into cheese, in Argentina's view, they are 
inconsistent with Article 3.1(b) of the Ag reement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 27 
 
 
   Tunisia    G/AG/N/TUN/36  
 
140. Question by Canada/United States - Canada appreciates that Tunisia provided time 
series until 2001 of inflation and exchange rates and the unadjusted Current Total AMS in G/AG/R/41 in response to New Zealand's question.   While Canada does not agree with Tunisia's 
adjustments, we seek the corresponding data for 2002, 2003 and 2004.  Could Tunisia explain 
why it keeps adjusting external reference prices and could it explain how reference prices, used for these two reporting periods, are computed?  
141. We note that cumulated inflation between 1988 a nd 2004 reached 98 per cent.  This is due to 
the fact that the inflation rate, which measures th e variation in the general consumer price index, 
progressed at an annual rate of 5 to 7 per cent, and it is only over the past five years that it was limited 
to approximately 3 per cent.  The inflation rate in Tunisia is published in the Annual Report of the 
Central Bank of Tunisia: 
 
Year Annual inflation rate Exchange 
rate 
1988 7.2 0.8543 
1989 7.7 0.9946 
1990 6.5 0.8602 
1991 7.8 0.9159 
1992 5.5 0.6644 
1993 4.0 1.0057 
1994 4.7 1.0133 
1995 6.3 0.9458 
1996 3.7 0.9747 
1997 3.7 1.1029 
1998 3.1 1.1374 
1999 2.7 1.1884 
2000 2.9 1.3716 
2001 2.0 1.4390 
2002 2.7 1.4212 
2003 2.7 1.2877 
2004 3.8 1.2456 
 
142. Similarly, the exchange rate used to determ ine the reference prices during the base period 
1986-1988 in local currency varied considerably.  From US$0.88 to the Tunisian Dinar during the 
reference period, it approximated US$1.44 agains t the Tunisian Dinar in 2001, and 1.25 in 2004.  
These rates are published in the Financial Statisti cs Report of the Central Bank of Tunisia, which 
shows the evolution of the exchange rate of the Dina r against the US$ as indicated in the above table.  
Thus, the inflation and the depreciation of the lo cal currency against foreign currencies recorded 
between 1988 and 2004 justify an adjust ment of external reference prices. 
143. Question by the United States - Could Tunisia explain what is meant by eligible 
production in Supporting Table DS:5 and how it is assessed?  
144. The United States has noted a difference between the quantities of grain eligible for market 
price support as notified and the production collected by the Grain Board (OC), and has asked for an 
explanation of that difference. It should be pointed  out that eligibility concerns all of the quantities 
collected by the OC as indicated in Tunisia's Sc hedule of Specific Commitments, and the quantities 
that were effectively collected by the OC are t hose that appear in Tunisia's notification.  The 
quantities indicated in the US question under the head ing "production collected by OC" represents the G/AG/R/45 
Page 28  
 
  "collection of grain" by other private and coopera tive sector enterprises involved in collecting grain:  
these enterprises account for a signi ficant share of the collection. 
 
(v) Table ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications 
 
Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/33
 
 
145. Question by Canada - Could Switzerland clarify the meaning of footnote 1 to Table 
ES:1?  More specifically, what kind of fluctuatio ns are taken into account according to this 
footnote and were any such fluctuations taken into account for the calendar years 2001 to 2003?  
146. The footnote in question means that Switzerland could temporarily exceed its annual 
commitment levels where circumstances relating to natural fruit harvest fluctuations so justify.  A 
considerable share of the production of fruit for ci der comes from orchards with high-stem trees 
whose output cannot be regulated technically durin g the flowering period.  Too abundant a harvest 
one year causes a sharp decline in flower induction,  and hence in the harvest for the following year 
which, in its turn, is followed by an abundant harvest.   This is the cycle to which the footnote refers.  
During the period 2001 to 2003, the production of fruit for cider fluctuated sharply as a result of this phenomenon.  However, Switzerland has not used the footnote to date, and thus, it has respected the 
annual levels of commitment each year. 
147. Question by Canada - Could Switzerland provide a breakdown of its export subsidies 
for dairy products?  
148. Although we are under no obligation to do so , we have prepared a table showing 
contributions for cheese and for other dairy products .  As regards the total amount of subsidies, we 
noticed that in 2001, the notified amount largel y exceeded the amount actua lly allocated.  Indeed, 
while the figure provided in the notification was CHF 116,700,000, the correct amount is CHF 
104,761,000.  A revised notification has been circulat ed as G/AG/N/CHE/33/Rev.1 in order to rectify 
this error. 
 
 2001 (CHF) 2002 (CHF) 2003 (CHF) 
Other dairy products 9,927,000 31,356,000 34,802,000 
Cheese 94,834,000 42,265,000 29,091,000 
Total 104,761,000 76,521,000  63,893,000 
Notification 116,700,000 75,200,000 63,900,000 
Subsidy CHF/tonne 1,934/tonne 1,934/tonne 1,934/tonne 
 
 149. Question by Canada – Can Switzerland explai n why the average value - per tonne- of its 
export subsidies for dairy products wa s two times larger in 2001 than in 2003?  
150. Switzerland reduced the total amount of our subsidies for cheese, which explains the 
decrease. 
  G/AG/R/45 
 Page 29 
 
 
  ANNEX – PART II  
 
Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process at previous meetings  
 
 
Reply provided by Tunisia in the context of the review of notification G/AG/N/TUN/34 concerning 
imports under tariff quotas (p age 11 of G/AG/R/44 refers)  
 
151. Question by the United States – Tunisia's tariff quota administration mechanism 
continues to be fairly complex.  Tunisia appli es different quota allocation methods in assigning 
tariff quotas, including historical, first-come, first-served, use of sub-quotas, or alternate combinations of these methods.  Could Tunisia please explain how such measures are consistent 
with Article XIII of the GATT 1994 so that th ey do not restrict trade from certain importers 
and aim at a distribution of trade approaching wh at might be expected in the absence of such 
measures?  
152. It should be pointed out that the Agreement on Agriculture does not provide for any tariff 
quota administration mechanisms.  The Agreement me rely provides that the benefit of these quotas 
should be accessible to the different importers con cerned.  To ensure that the quantities imported 
under the tariff quotas benefit from reduced custom s duties, Tunisia's regulations governing the 
administration of tariff quotas provide for three alternative quota management methods.  The choice 
of method is based on the rules of the GATT 1994 and on other relevant provisions of the WTO 
Agreements.  In practice, the choice of method aff ects neither agricultural import transactions, nor the 
importers themselves.  Indeed, the distribution of tariff quotas over the past few years has been 
conducted according to the traditional flow method, wh ich ensures that new importers have a share of 
economic interest. 
 
Reply provided by Tunisia in the context of the review of notification G/AG/N/TUN/33 and Corr.1 
concerning export subsidy commitments  (page 24 of G/AG/R/44 refers)  
 
153. Question by the United States – Could Tunisi a describe in more detail the cost-reduction 
measures qualified as 'direct payments' for to mato double concentrate and wine?  Please 
explain how these are in accordance with Article 9.1(d) and (e).  Regarding subsidies for wine 
exports, of the total value listed, what is the val ue pertaining to direct payments and what is the 
value for freight?  
154. This assistance comes under the recognized measure s in favour of the developing countries to 
help reduce marketing costs, including costs associ ated with the processing of agricultural products.  
Assistance belonging to this same category record ed under the heading "direct payments" is intended 
to cover the costs of processing products such as wine and tomato double concentrate and notified to 
the Committee on Agriculture.  These measures are not recent.  They do not appear in Tunisia's 
schedule of commitments because they are covere d by the above-mentioned provisions of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
 
__________