RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/R/43 
2 September 2005 
 (05-3831) 
Committee on Agriculture  
   
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ME ETING HELD ON 2 JUNE 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  1. The Committee on Agriculture held its forty-thir d regular meeting on 2 June 2005.  In the 
absence of the Chairman, Dr. Magdi Farahat, due to urgent official business, Mr. Christian Häberli of 
Switzerland was appointed Interim Chairman of the m eeting.  The agenda of the meeting as contained 
in WTO/AIR/2576 was adopted, with the following modifications:  the addition of Thailand's 
questions concerning the Table MA:1 notifi cation G/AG/N/TPKM/22 of Chinese Taipei; the 
withdrawal by Australia of its questions c oncerning Japan's special safeguard notification 
G/AG/N/JPN/109. 
P
ART I:  THE REVIEW PROCESS  
A. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM 
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6 
(a) Australia:  Japan – Rice Conversion Programme  
2. Australia sought further clarification from Japan concerning payments for conversion from 
rice production in the framework of its environm ental programme (discussion at the March 2005 
meeting, G/AG/R/42, pages 20-21 refer).  Australia noted that the level of the payment varied depending upon which product a producer chose to grow instead of rice.  Accordingly, Australia requested clarification as to how the paymen ts for conversion from rice met the fundamental 
requirement of paragraph 1 of Annex 2 of the Agre ement on Agriculture that "the support in question 
shall not have the effect of providing price s upport to producers".  Australia also requested 
information and clarification from Japan concerning:   (i) the average per hectare conversion payment 
made to farmers that chose to grow wheat rather  than rice in 2002;  (ii) whether such farmers 
received, in addition to the conversion payment,  market price for wheat and any wheat production 
subsidies; and (iii) the recent average production subsidy for wheat per tonne. 
3. Japan responded that the payments in questi on were provided to producers of agricultural 
products to encourage them to switch from rice produc tion to other agricultural products.  This was in 
order to avoid adverse effects on the environment caused by the abandonment of paddy fields.  The 
payment was provided on a per unit area basis.  Th e subsidy was allocated to activities designed to 
maintain paddy fields in environmentally soun d condition.  The requirements under the programme 
included (i) production of agricultural products othe r than rice or other appropriate methods of 
management, and (ii) adjustment of  production by producers in a manner that respected the authority's 
predefined management rules.  The measure did not have the effect of providing price support, nor was it intended to ensure a fixed price for wheat.  Consequently, this measure satisfied the conditions 
of paragraphs 1 and 12 of  Annex 2 of the Agreement.  There were no data available regarding the 
hectare payment that applied only to farmers that  produced wheat instead of rice.  For further 
                                                     
 
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/43 
Page 2  
 
information concerning market price support and subsidies for wheat, Japan referred to Supporting 
Tables DS:5 and DS:6 in notification G/AG/N/JPN/108. 
4. Australia responded that it did not dispute the f act that Japan was providing support to switch 
from rice production but questioned whether the measure was correctly notified.  Australia considered 
that the programme should be notified as price s upport rather than under pa ragraph 12 of Annex 2 
since it was directly related to a particular product.   
5. The United States thanked Japan for its written answer to the follow-up question it had posed 
at the last meeting (G/AG/R/42, page 21 refers).  As Australia, the United States remained concerned 
that the measure was not notified in the appropriate box.    
6. Japan considered that the programme should not be included in the Amber Box.  The purpose 
of the payments was to ensure that the abandonment of rice production did not have an adverse impact 
on the environment, by leaving rice paddies fallow.  There were no crop-specific requirements, other 
than leaving rice production.  The releva nt regulation was available on request. 
(b) New Zealand:  Canada – Special Milk Class Scheme 
 
7. New Zealand reverted to the matter it had raised at the March 2005 meeting regarding 
Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (G/AG/R/42, pa ras. 10-17 refer).  New Zealand noted that the 
solids-non-fat (SNF) components to be used under this  scheme would be sold at a discounted price set 
bi-annually by the Canadian Milk Supply Manage ment Committee (currently Can$1.25/kg.).  New 
Zealand sought clarification as to the prevailing ma rket price for SNF on the Canadian market, and 
the level of discount that was therefore being offe red to domestic producers of rennet casein and milk 
protein concentrates under the scheme.  Canada re sponded that Canadian prices for industrial milk 
components, including SNF, were established accordi ng to the end use of the processed dairy product 
in which they were used, i.e., according to the m ilk class from which the SNF was sourced.  The SNF 
price applying to class 4(a)(1) was established at Can$1.25 per kg. until 1 August 2005. 
8. New Zealand also sought clarification regardi ng the relationship between the price for rennet 
casein and the world price, and as appropriate, th e level of discount being offered to domestic 
manufacturers of processed cheese using rennet casein produced under the scheme.  Canada 
responded that the price of milk under class 4(a)(1) was negotiated within the Canadian dairy industry 
and bore no relationship with world prices for m ilk.  The price of the butterfat component of 
class 4(a)(1) milk was set at the class 4(a) price,  whereas the SNF component of class 4(a)(1) milk 
was priced at a rate negotiated by producers and processors through the Canadian Milk Supply 
Management Committee.  Canadian prices for renne t casein were influenced by world prices since 
rennet casein could be imported duty-free.   
9. New Zealand noted that Canada had previously advised that it expected that most of the 
rennet casein and milk protein concentrates produced  under the special milk class scheme, and the 
processed cheese produced from these i nputs, would be consumed domestically.  In light of the fact 
that imports of these products currently entered Canada at a low duty or duty-free, New Zealand 
requested clarification as to the impact of the scheme on the level of imports of rennet casein and milk 
protein concentrates.  In response, Canada stated  that milk class 4(a)(1) was unlikely to have a 
significant impact on imports of these products, cons idering that it only provided milk products for 
the manufacture of non-standardized processed cheese products.  Caseins and milk protein 
concentrates were used in a wide variety of food  and industrial products.  In fact, a very large 
percentage of all rennet casein uses consisted in the production of non-da iry foods which were 
unaffected by the establishment of this milk class.  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 3 
 
 
10. Argentina and the EC noted their interest in th is matter.  The EC noted that some of its 
exporters had experienced market access problems in the Canadian dairy market and the EC was 
therefore carefully following evolutions in market access and market support in Canada. 
(c) United States:  Canada – Farm Income Payment Programme  
11. The United States sought clarification from Ca nada regarding the announced Farm Income 
Payment Program (FIPP), in particular how funds  would be allocated under this programme.  The 
United States understood that most of the funds would be provided as disaster assistance payments in the framework of the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) programme.  The United 
States also requested clarification as to how Canada intended to notify this programme to the WTO.  
12. Canada responded that the Farm Income Paym ent Program consisted of two payments:  a 
general payment (Can$841.5 million) to all producers and a per head payment to producers of cattle 
and other ruminant animals (Can$155 million).  To be eligible for th e general payment, producers had 
to have reported farm income for tax purposes for the 2002 tax year.  The amount of the payment was 
based on a percentage of their historic sales (1998-2002).  The per head payment was based on 
producers' inventories of cattle and other ruminant  animals on 23 December 2003.  This programme 
was separate from the CAIS programme. 
13. The eligibility and payment criteria for both th e general payment and the per head payment 
were based on clearly-defined criteria in a define d and fixed base period.  Decisions that producers 
had taken since 2002 could not affect the amount of th e payment that they received (e.g. did not affect 
the type or volume of production, or factors of production employed), nor had prices affected the amount of the payment.  No current production was re quired in order to receiv e a payment.  The Farm 
Income Payment Program was therefore eligible to be assigned to the Green Box under Annex 2, 
paragraph 6.  Canada would provide a Tabl e DS:2 notification in the near future. 
B. REVIEW
 OF NOTIFICATIONS 
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised in advance of the issuance of the 
convening airgram  
14. The Committee reviewed the following no tifications as listed in the agenda: 
 (i) relating to the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  
Chinese Taipei (TPKM/22); 
 (ii) relating to imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from 
China (CHN/7 and Corr.1), Malaysia (MYS/12), Switzerland (CHE/28 and CHE/31), Chinese Taipei (TPKM/21) and Tunisia (TUN/31); 
 (iii) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Canada 
(CAN/53), the European Communities (EEC/51) and Tunisia (TUN/32); and   
 (iv) in the context of export subsidy comm itments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from China 
(CHN/4 and CHN/6), the European Comm unities (EEC/52) and Panama (PAN/9). 
15. Specific points raised with respect to the notif ications listed above and the responses thereto 
are summarized in the Annex to this report. G/AG/R/43 
Page 4  
 
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of wh ich no questions have been raised in advance 
of the issuance of the convening airgram  
16. 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 
Chile (CHL/17); 
 (ii) relating to imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from 
Chile (CHL/18), Colombia (COL/29), Ro mania (ROM/21), Slovenia (SVN/29) and 
Chinese Taipei (TPKM/6/Rev.1, TPKM/14/Rev.1 and TPKM/21/Rev.1); 
 (iii) in the context of the special safegua rd (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Colombia 
(COL/27), Japan (JPN/109 and JPN/111) and the Slovak Republic (SVK/46); 
 (iv) in the context of domestic support co mmitments (Table DS:1):  from Australia 
(AUS/58), Burundi (BDI/2), Colombia (COL/30), Cyprus (CYP/15), Guyana (GUY/12), Honduras (HND/19), Macao, China (MAC/17), New Zealand (NZL/41) 
and Qatar (QAT/5);  
 (v) in the context of new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction 
(Table DS:2):  from Australia (AUS/59), Canada (CAN/54) and Honduras (HND/20);  
and 
 (vi) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Burundi (BDI/1), Chile 
(CHL/19), Colombia (COL/28), Croatia (HRV/1), Japan (JPN/110), Macao, China 
(MAC/16) and Qatar (QAT/4). 
(c) Notifications circulated or made available af ter the notice convening the meeting was issued
 
17. 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) relating to imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:2): from 
Morocco (MAR/21/Corr.2); 
(ii) on domestic support commitments (Tab le DS:1):  from Brazil (BRA/22);  and 
(iii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Guyana (GUY/13). 
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings  
18. There was no discussion under this agenda item. 
(e) Counter-notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement  
19. The Committee took note that no counter-notifi cations had been received under Article 18.7 
of the Agreement.  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 5 
 
 
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process  
20. New Zealand sought clarification from the EC as  to when it would provide a revision to its 
domestic support notification G/AG/N/EEC/49 (G /AG/R/40, pages 23-24 refer) and whether it 
intended to provide a corrigendum to its domest ic support notification G/AG/N/EEC/51.  New 
Zealand also recalled that the EC had undertaken to provide a response to the question of how the 
voluntary set-aside programme met the Blue B ox criteria (G/AG/R/42, page 18 refers).   
21. The EC responded that it was in the process of  preparing revisions to its domestic support 
notifications:  it would submit a revision to notification EEC/49, and possibly a revision of the previous domestic support notification, as well as a corrigendum to notification EEC/51.  The Blue 
Box measure was an integral part of the arable aids payment scheme, with the payments based on 
fixed area and yields.  The measure included obligatory set-aside and supplementary voluntary set-
aside.  The area in the obligatory or voluntary set-aside was an integral part of the fixed regional areas 
in the arable aids scheme. 
(g) Overdue notifications
 
22. The Committee took note that the Secretariat ha d made available a revised and updated room 
document, dated 1 June 2005, showing the current st atus of compliance with notification obligations. 
23. Australia called for a strong message to Member s that they submit overdue notifications, in 
particular on domestic support, given that mon itoring and surveillance would become increasingly 
important with the conclusion of the Doha negotiations. 
24. Switzerland announced that it would provide outstanding notifications in the near future.  
25. The Interim Chairman appealed to delegations to submit overdue notifications since it was in 
the interest of all Members to have full info rmation and transparency in this respect.  
(h) Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications  
26. The Committee took note that the following Members administering tariff quotas had 
submitted the requisite Table MA :1 Addenda in accordance with the General Council Decision of 
December 2000 (paragraph 1.1 of WT/L/384 refers):   Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, the 
EC-15, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, No rway, Slovenia, Switzerla nd, Thailand, and the 
United States.  The Interim Chairman urged tho se Members administering tariff quotas which had not 
yet done so to provide Addenda to their Table MA:1 notifications  in accordance with the General 
Council Decision in WT/L/384. 
PART II:  OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE  
A. IMPLEMENTATION 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  
27. The Committee took note that this agenda item concerned the implementation of Article 10.2 
of the Agreement and the related provisions of the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision (G/AG/16, 
Section A).    
28. Argentina recalled its position that, without prej udice to Article 10.2 of the Agreement, the 
establishment of additional and specific discip lines on export credit programmes, export credit 
guarantees and insurance programmes was an impo rtant pending issue from the Uruguay Round.  
Accordingly, Argentina requested that this ma tter be kept on the agenda of the Committee. G/AG/R/43 
Page 6  
 
29. The Interim Chair noted that the issue of implementation of Article 10.2 was one of three 
implementation issues before the Committee.  Th e other two implementation issues concerned the 
Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications on tariff quot a administration and the implementation of the 
Marrakesh NFIDC Decision.  The Committee took note that the Chairman would provide a report to 
the General Council, on his responsibility, summar izing the state of play regarding the three 
implementation issues.   
B. M
ARRAKESH NFIDC  DECISION – PROPOSAL BY THE AFRICAN GROUP IN THE CONTEXT OF 
THE REVIEW OF ALL SPECIAL AND DIFFE RENTIAL TREATMENT PROVISIONS BY THE 
COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IN SPE CIAL SESSION AND REPORT TO THE 
GENERAL COUNCIL  
30. The Committee took note that the Chairman had convened informal consultations with 
interested delegations on this matt er on 19 May 2005, in the course of  which Kenya had indicated that 
the African Group was working on a follow-up pr oposal.  Several Members had welcomed the 
announcement by Kenya and indicated their readin ess to engage in discussions once the proposal 
would be submitted.  
31. The Committee took note that under the terms of the July package, a ll Committees to which 
Category II proposals had been referred to, were "to report to the General Council, with clear 
recommendations for a decision, as soon as possible and no later than July 2005" (paragraph 1.d of WT/L/579 refers).  The Committee took note that the draft report to the General Council (made 
available as a room document) would be su bmitted, as amended, by the Chairman on his 
responsibility.  The report was issued as document G/AG/20. 
C. M
ATTERS RAISED UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS " 
32. Under "Other Business" Argentina requested that the Summary Report of the March 2005 
meeting be corrected to reflect missing interv entions by Argentina (G/AG/R/42/Corr.1 refers). 
Date of Next Meeting  
33. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on Thursday, 
22 September 2005.  The Committee took note that, at  the next meeting, the Committee will hold its 
fourth annual Transitional Review under paragraph 18 of the Protocol  of the Accession of the People's 
Republic of China and that any questions or commen ts that Members may have in the context of the 
Transitional Review should be submitted by the end of  July, with a copy to the Secretariat.  The 
airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will be issued on Monday, 
12 September 2005. 
 
  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 7 
 
 
ANNEX  
 
  Page  
Review of notifications by the Committee on Agriculture at the meeting on  2 June 2005   
 
 (i) administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) :  Chinese 
Taipei (TPKM/22); 8 
    
 (ii) imports under tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:2 ):  China (CHN/7 
and Corr.1), Malaysia (MYS/12), Swit zerland (CHE/28 and CHE/31), Chinese 
Taipei (TPKM/21) and Tunisia (TUN/31); 9 
    
 (iii) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1 ):  Canada (CAN/53), the European 
Communities (EEC/51) and Tunisia (TUN/32); and 12 
    
 (iv) export subsidy commitm ents (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) :  China (CHN/4 and CHN/6), 
the European Communities (EEC/52) and Panama (PAN/9). 17 
    
    
Attachments  
  
 1 G/AG/N/TPKM/22 - Imports under rice tariff quotas (as submitted by Thailand) 20 
 2 G/AG/N/CHE/28 and CHE/31 – Imports under wine tariff quotas 23 
   
 
 G/AG/R/43 
Page 8  
 
ANNEX
 
 
Review of notifications by the Committee on  Agriculture at the meeting on 2 June 2005 
 
Summary of specific points raised and responses thereto  
 
 
Table MA:1 Notifications 
 
Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/22   Ta riff Quota Administration (Table MA:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Thailand – Clarification sought regarding the import 
regime for rice products under HS tariff lines 
19019099 (other products containing less than 30 per 
cent of rice) and 19019091 (other rice products containing not less than 30 per cent of rice). 
Refer to Attachment 1 for information regarding 
Chinese Taipei's rice imports for the years 2002-
2004. Products under HS 19019099 , in accordan ce with the 
Chinese Taipei Schedule, shall be imported freely at 
the bound rate of 30 per cent.  This regime has been 
maintained since accession  to the WTO in 2002. 
Products under HS 19019091 were subject to 
Annex 5, Special Treatment.  Under this import 
regime traders paid a tariff of 25 per cent and a mark 
up which was not higher than NT$ 25.59/kg.  
However, since the beginning of 2003, Chinese 
Taipei has shifted to a tariff quota import regime for these products.  Under this regime, the in-quota tariff 
rate is maintained at 25 per cent.  The out-of-quota 
tariff rate is established at NT$ 49/kg. 
United States – Whether Chinese Taipei allows imports from non-WTO Members under its 
scheduled rice tariff quota of 144,720 tonnes. For the year 2005 the enti re rice tariff quota of 
144,720 tonnes will be allocated to WTO Members 
only. 
  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 9 
 
 
Table MA:2 Notifications 
 
China   G/AG/N/CHN/7 and Corr.1   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Australia - Reason for the low fill rate for corn (less 
than 5,000 tonnes for a tariff quota of 7.2 million 
tonnes). After the tariff quota is opened, it is up to enterprises 
themselves to decide when and where to import 
according to their needs and market conditions. 
With the sufficient supply of corn resulting from the 
most plenteous harvest sin ce 2002, the price of corn 
in the domestic market re mained at a comparatively 
low level.  Since the cost of imported corn was much 
higher, it seems that enterp rises preferred to choose 
the domestically-produced corn at a relatively lower 
price. 
Follow-up comment by the United States –  The 
United States has a continued interest in the 
administration of tariff quotas under China's 
accession protocol and a system ic interest in tariff 
quota administration more generally.  
 
 
Malaysia   G/AG/N/MYS/12   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Australia – Reason for low fill rates in both 1997 and 
1998 for the sugar tariff quota (cane or beet sugar in 
solid form – refined sugar only). Undertook to provide a response.  
 
 
Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/28 and G/AG/N/C HE/31   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
United States – Reason for aggregation of three 
separately scheduled wine tariff quotas, into two 
tariff quotas as notified in G/AG/N/CHE/28 and then 
one tariff quota as notified in G/AG/N/CHE/31. On 22 December 1995 Switzerland notified its 
decision to change to a more liberal import system 
for wine as of 2001 (G/SECRET/5 refers).  The result 
of this change was a reduction in the number of tariff 
quotas from three to on e single aggregated tariff 
quota.  A phase-in period of sub-quota quantities for 
red and white wine was provided during the period 
1997-2000.  This change appears in the Table MA:2 
notification G/AG/N/CHE/28 for 2000 and 2001, and 
the corresponding Table MA:2 notification, 
G/AG/N/CHE/31, for the years 2002 and 2003. 
Request for imports statistics for these products by category. Refer to Attachment 2. G/AG/R/43 
Page 10  
 
Switzerland   G/AG/N/CHE/28 and G/AG/N/C HE/31   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Follow-up comment from the United States –  The 
United States raised the issue of being able to track 
changes to Schedules of commitments and noted that 
the Doha negotiations provide a good opportunity to 
up-date Schedules.   
Follow-up comment by the Interim Chair –  GATT 
Article XXVIII procedures are secret and thus the 
results are communicated in terms of Table MA:2 
notifications without references to the Article XXVIII procedures.  This means problems may arise 
at times about the precise nature of the obligations 
but the Secretariat is the depository of the actual state of Schedules and this information can be made 
available to interested delegations.   
 
 
Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/21   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Australia – Reason for nil fill rates for a number of 
tariff quotas (bananas, dried day lily, pineapples, 
mangoes, shaddocks and dried longans and longan 
pulp). 
  
 
Follow-up comment by Australia –  Australia 
reiterated its concerns regarding the status of 
auctioning with respect to WTO obligations.  
According to Secretariat documents auctioning has 
one of the lowest, if not the lowest, average tariff quota fill rates of any of the administration methods.  Regarding the nil fill rates for tariff quotas for 
bananas, dried day lily, pineapples, mangoes, 
shaddocks, and dried longans and longan pulp in the 
year 2004, this was due to a combination of domestic 
market factors, includin g over-supply and a decline 
in consumption.  In addition, some trading partners 
could not meet SPS requirements. 
 
Follow-up response from Chinese Taipei –  Chinese 
Taipei uses auctioning for its rice and Asian pear 
tariff quotas, among others.  For both of these tariff 
quotas, the fill rate is close to 100 per cent.  The auctioning system operates in a very transparent, 
predicable way, and is based on market mechanisms.  
Therefore the low tariff quota fill rates of some other products simply reflect their supply and demand 
conditions.  
New Zealand – Reason for significant underfill of the persimmon tariff quota for 2004. This was due to domestic market factors, including  
over-supply and a decline in consumption. 
Explanation sought for the continued use of a public auction system to allocate the persimmon tariff quota 
when this method of allocation obviously results in 
significant underfill of the tariff quota. 
 The auction system for the persimmon tariff quota 
was implemented on the basis of Chinese Taipei's accession commitments, which have been agreed to 
by Members.  The auctioning system used for tariff 
quota products has the adva ntages of transparency, 
equity, predictability and efficiency in the allocation 
of the tariff quotas, and in general results in a higher 
quota fill.  Chinese Taipei intends to maintain this 
method of allocation.  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 11 
 
 
Chinese Taipei   G/AG/N/TPKM/21   Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
New Zealand (cont'd) - What considerations are taken 
into account when determining the timing of the 
auction system as it appears to conflict with the 
persimmon seasons in some of Chinese Taipei's main 
supplying countries? The timing of the auction is determined solely by 
consideration of the domestic production season. 
 
What WTO provision is used by Chinese Taipei to 
justify the collection of revenue in excess of the in-
quota tariff rate, as is likely to occur under the public 
auctioning system used to allocate tariff quotas? Chinese Taipei is of the view that the auction method 
is consistent with WTO provisions, given that it is 
transparent in the alloca tion process and promotes 
open and fair competition among importers. 
Follow-up comment from New Zealand – New 
Zealand's views on auctioning are well known.  
However New Zealand exporters continue to value the Chinese Taipei market and remain interested in 
seeking improvements to the current administration, 
particularly related to the timing of this auctioning 
system.  
United States – Reason for the shortfall of 18 tonnes 
in the rice and rice products tariff quota for the year 
2004. 
   
 
Was the shortfall amount in the private or public 
sector portion of the tariff quota? 
Will Chinese Taipei include the unfilled volume 
(18 tonnes) of rice into the 2005 tariff quota 
allocation? 
 The entire tariff quota was allocated well in advance 
of the end of 2004.  The shortfall was due to 
cumulative weighing errors during the loading and 
shipping processes.  According to international trading practice, a smal l weight error in bulk 
commodities purchasing is acceptable.  In the context 
of the large private-sector portion of 50,652 tonnes, the quantity of 18 tonnes is sufficiently small to be 
considered of negligible proportions. 
The shortfall of 18 tonnes was in the private-sector 
portion of the tariff quota. 
Because the shortfall is of  negligible proportions 
Chinese Taipei is of the view  that there is no need to 
deal with such a shortfall.  
  
Tunisia   G/AG/N/TUN/31   Ta riff Quota Fill (Table MA:2) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
New Zealand – Reason for the persistent underfill of 
tariff quotas, particularly those for bovine meat, sheep meat, and milk powder. 
Are there any out-of-quota imports, or is no trade at 
all occurring in these products? 
As similar questions have been raised for several 
years, why has Tunisia not yet considered moving to 
a tariff-only regime for these products?  Undertook to provide a response. 
 
 
  
 G/AG/R/43 
Page 12  
 
Table DS:1 Notifications 
 
Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/53   Domestic Support (Table DS:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Green Box 
Australia - 'Infrastructural services'  
Could Canada provide more details on the Prairie 
Farm Rehabilitation Administration and confirm that 
such services are direct ed to the provision or 
construction of capital works only and do not include 
subsidized on-farm facilities? 
  
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration 
(PFRA) offers technical assistance and in some cases 
financial assistance in a wide range of areas, 
including soil and water conservation, water supply 
development and waste water treatment, irrigation, rangeland management, community pastures, shelter 
belts, engineering, surveying and drafting, project 
management, economic planning and rural development, integrated resource management, 
environmental analysis, sust ainable agriculture, and 
wildlife and waterfowl habitat.  It is not possible to attribute this complex variety of activities to separate 
Annex 2 categories, such as research, training, 
extension and advisory se rvices, infrastructural 
services, other general services, environmental 
programmes and regional assistance programmes.  
All PFRA operating and capital expenditures are therefore placed in the "I nfrastructural services" 
category of Annex 2. 
As Canada has indicated previously (G/AG/R/23), 
the criteria applying to the different component 
programmes have been monitored closely to ensure 
that the programmes reported under infrastructural 
services do not subsidize the provision of on-farm 
facilities, other than for the reticulation of generally-available utilities. 
'Other', Annex 2, paragraph 5  
Which criteria of paragraph 5 of Annex 2 does the 
"technology innovation und er the Quebec/Canada 
agreement" measure meet?  
This measure meets the criteria laid out in the second 
sentence of paragraph 5.  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 13 
 
 
Canada   G/AG/N/CAN/53   Domestic Support (Table DS:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Amber Box 
Australia (cont'd) 
Calculation of Current Total AMS  
Further details sought as to the nature of support to 
soybeans and the reason for the increase from 
Can$42.2 million in 1999 to Can$104.7 million in 2000.  
 
The soybean AMS consists mainly of price-related 
direct payments that stab ilize revenue, as shown in 
Supporting Table DS:6.  The 2000 notification reports some payments based on crop year 2000-01 
(e.g. Market Revenue Program), some on fiscal year 
2000-01 (e.g. Ontario Grain Stabilization Payment), and some on calendar year 2000 (e.g. 
Assurance-Stabilisation des revenus agricoles).  The 
reporting year for a given program remains the same from notification to notification.  In terms of the 
trend and level of support, soybean prices in crop 
years 1999-00 and 2000-01 were very low.  As a 
result of the consistent reporting practice, this 
translates into higher notified payments in the notification for the 2000 reporting  year. 
Clarification sought as to whether the decrease in the level of support for pork from Can$159.6 million in 
1999 to Can$18.4 million in 2000 will remain at this 
level in the coming years or whether this is only a temporary decline in support. The pork AMS consists mainly of price-related direct 
payments that stabilize revenue, as shown in 
Supporting Table DS:6. The amount of support 
reported under the price-related payments fluctuates depending on prices.  As such, Canada cannot predict 
whether support to pork will remain at this level in 
the future.  However, unusually low pork prices in 
1998 and 1999 made the payments unusually large in 
those years. 
United States - Explanati on sought as to how the 
producer prices for the poultry and egg sectors are 
established.  For poultry, prices in Canada are negotiated between 
provincial poultry producer boards and primary 
poultry processors based on market conditions.  The Government of Canada and the national supply 
management agencies have no role in poultry pricing. 
For eggs, each provincial egg board sets prices for 
producers within its jurisdiction.  The grading 
stations pay these prices to processors and then sell 
these eggs to the wholesale, retail and other sectors at negotiated prices.  The Government of Canada has no 
role in the pricing of eggs. 
Explanation sought as to the price received by, and 
the relationship with the applied administered price, 
for butter and skim milk powder produced under 
Classes 5(a), (b), and (c), as product sales are 
excluded from eligible production. 
 The pricing mechanism for butter and skim milk 
powder produced in Classes 5(a), (b) and (c) bears no 
relationship whatsoever with the support prices 
established by the CDC for skim milk powder and 
butter which is destined for other uses.  Prices in Classes 5(a), (b) and (c) reflect prices in the US 
and/or world markets. 
 G/AG/R/43 
Page 14  
 
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/51   Domestic Support (Table DS:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Green Box 
Canada - Payments for Relief from Natural Disasters  
The EC describes this measure as "Compensation 
payments in respect of weather; restoration of 
agricultural production potential and natural 
disasters".  Canada assumes that this measure type refers to paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.   
The EC refers to "2000/C28/02", which Canada 
assumes refers to "Community Guidelines for State 
Aid in the Agriculture Sector" (Notice No. 
2000/C28/02 of the Official Journal of the European Communities).  Article 11.3.1 of 2000/C28/02 allows 
a damage threshold of "20 per cent of normal 
production in the less-favoured areas".  Article 11.3.4 
of 2000/C28/02 allows fo r multi-year accumulation 
of losses.  Article 11.3.2 of 2000/C28/02 allows the reference period for the production loss to be only 
one year or two years, obtained by eliminating from a 
three-year period that or those year(s) when production was so low that compensation was 
payable.  
How does a damage threshold of 20 per cent meet the 
stipulation of "a production loss which exceeds 30 
per cent …"? 
How does multi-year accumulation of losses meet the 
stipulation about "a production loss"? 
How does eliminating low-production years meet the 
stipulation about "the preceding three-year period or 
a three-year average based on the preceding five-year 
period, excluding the highes t and the lowest entry"?  
Undertook to provide a response.  
United States - Wine Subsidies  
Clarification as to where the payments for the 
restructuring and conversion of vineyards under the 
wine restructuring programme are notified. 
 Follow-up comment by the United States –  The 
United States is trying to understand information 
found in various EC Commission and member State documents and relate this to the notified information.   
The payments for the restructuring of vineyards are 
notified in the Green Box under structural adjustment 
investment aids.  
 Follow-up response from the EC –  Two measures for 
wine were notified in Table DS:2, (i) grubbing up 
measures; and (ii) wine restructuring.  
  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 15 
 
 
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/51   Domestic Support (Table DS:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
United States (cont'd) - Organic Products  
Clarification sought as to whether payments to 
organic farmers are only for "conversion" or for other 
purposes, and open-ended and on-going.  
Within the framework of agri-environmental 
measures a compensation for extra costs incurred and 
income foregone can be a llocated to producers who 
take a commitment to use agricultural production 
methods that are delivering particular benefits to the 
environment.  Organic production methods may be eligible if they entail such a delivery and the 
compensation may be allocated for both conversion 
and for maintenance.  The level of compensation is in all cases based on comp liance with agricultural 
production methods which go beyond good farming 
practices.  Good farming practices entail at least compliance with general mandatory requirements.  
Follow-up question from the United States –  Is the 
maintenance period limited to the maximum of three 
years as stated under EC rules? Follow-up response from the EC –  The EC can 
confirm that both conversi on and maintenance are the 
object of the payment.  Conversion payments are 
limited to a maximum of three years while 
maintenance payments could extend beyond three years. 
Amber Box 
Canada – Follow-up from similar questions raised at 
the 39th and 42nd meetings of the CoA (G/AG/R/39, 
page 17 and G/AG/R/42, page 18 refer), regarding the total support (payments) for the beef sector. 
Can the EC clarify if the total beef support payments 
are accounted for in G/AG/N/EEC/49 or in 
G/AG/N/EEC/51?  If not, why not? 
 - If they are, where can  they be located in the 
notification? 
 - If "amber", how are the referenced payments 
accounted for in the market price support calculation 
in Supporting Table DS:5? 
 - If "blue", under which programme name in 
column 2 of Supporting Table DS:3?   
 
 
The support is notified as "Amber" support contained 
in the price gap calculation.  
Follow-up comment by Canada –  Canada is trying to 
determine where a series of EC measures relating to 
payments covered by a price gap, as indicated by the 
EC, are accounted for in the EC's notification.  The total Amber support to beef is provided by the price 
gap on market price support.  But there is the 
possibility of other payments, e.g. non-exempt direct payments, which could be measured as outlays or as 
a price gap.  It is still unclear where these other 
payments are reflected in the notification and why they are included in th e market price support 
calculation.   Follow-up response from the EC –  The EC has two 
types of support in the beef sector.  The reforms of 
1992 created a system of premiums and these 
premium payments are notified in the Blue Box.  The rest of the support provided can be considered price 
support.  The price support is covered by the price 
gap calculation as indicated  in the notification. 
 
 G/AG/R/43 
Page 16  
 
Tunisia   G/AG/N/TUN/32   Domestic Support (Table DS:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Canada – Request for data concerning inflation, 
exchange rates and unadju sted Current Total AMS 
for 2002. Undertook to provide a response. 
New Zealand – Request to provide notified 
information using unadjusted reference prices from 
the base period.   Undertook to provide a response. 
  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 17 
 
 
Table ES:1 to ES:3 Notifications 
 
China   G/AG/N/CHN/4 a nd G/AG/N/CHN/6   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
United States  - Referred to similar questions raised 
at the 42nd meeting of the CoA (G/AG/R/42, page 24 
refers).  
Confirmation sought for the 2005 base price for corn. To rebate VAT collected domestically when  
products are exported is the general practice of all 
governments which apply the VAT system.  China has been applying the VAT rebate system for many 
years. 
Explanation sought on how the base price for calculating the VAT rebate for exports of corn is 
determined and why it is increasing while domestic 
prices are dropping. 
Do Chinese users of corn  or state-authorized 
exporters pay VAT on corn used domestically? 
If so, what is the VAT rate? 
If not, is the VAT rebated and how is the rebate 
calculated? According to the Provisional Regulations of the 
People's Republic of China on the Value Added Tax, 
corn users and exporters are required to pay the VAT 
when they make the purchase, with the tax rate of 
13%.  The VAT will be rebated on export, and the rebate rate is also 13%.  The price to calculate the 
amount of tax rebate, the so-called "base price", is the 
price at which the export enterprises purchase those 
products for export. 
 
Since the purchase price of the export products is 
determined by the market , the "base prices" at 
different time vary according to the changes of 
market conditions.  China has never announced any plan to increase the VAT rebate by increasing the 
"base price". 
  
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/5 2   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Argentina  -  
1. Through document WT/TC/NOTIF/AG/1 
(Technical Cooperation Handbook on Notification 
Requirements), Members agre ed that countries whose 
share of world exports of one or more products 
exceeds 5 per cent should no tify the total volume of 
exports of the concerned product(s).  The products that should be notified and the countries considered 
as major exporters appear in both lists of the above-
mentioned document.  
Considering that "incorporated products" is not 
acknowledged as a product category in document G/AG/2 and that the EU is thus not included in the 
list of countries mentioned in the previous paragraph 
(in fact, "incorporated products" should not be consolidated in Section II of  Part IV of the Schedule 
of Commitments), the EU is requested to complete 
the information provided in Table ES:3 and report its 
total exports of incorporated products.  
In the Uruguay Round the EC did not undertake a 
quantity reduction commitment for incorporated 
products.  Therefore there is no need to report additional information.   G/AG/R/43 
Page 18  
 
European Communities   G/AG/N/EEC/5 2   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Argentina (cont'd) 
2. In contrast to the recent reimplementation of 
restitutions for wheat and poultry meat,  in the context of Article 11 of the Agriculture Agreement: 
• Which are the tariff lines of the products 
under the "incorporated" category? 
• What primary products does it include?  
• What is the amount of subsidies per unit 
granted to incorporated  primary agricultural 
products and to primary products as such?  
These tariff lines are listed in Annex B of EC 
regulation 1520/2000.  The primary products that are included can be found in Annex B of EC regulation 
1520/2000.  EC does not have the necessary data to 
reply to this question. 
 
 
 
Panama G/AG/N/PAN/9   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Australia - Clarification sought as to how Panama 
defines 'non-traditional goods'. 
 A non-traditional product under the Tax Allowance 
Certificate (CAT) programme  is one which, pursuant 
to Article 2 of Law No. 108 of 1974 (as amended by 
Article 2 of Law No. 2 of 1991 and Articles 1 and 2 
of Law No. 4 of 1993), constitutes a good wholly or 
partly produced or processed in Panama, with the 
exception of: 
Cane sugar; Bananas and banana purée; Sugar cane 
honey and molasses; Cocoa beans; Raw coffee 
(beans);  Shrimps, fresh, chilled or frozen; Bovine cattle leather, not tanned; Wooden logs; Live bovine 
animals, swine and horses, other than pure-bred; Fish 
flour; Other oils of fish and marine mammals; Scrap 
metal; Hawksbill turtles, unworked; Extracts of 
(citrus) fruit; Petroleum and petroleum products; 
Sales under bilateral, free or preferential trade agreements; Minerals, metals and metal products. 
Explanation sought as to why the products receiving 
export subsidies change from year to year. 
 This export subsidy programme is not product-
specific and applies to both agricultural and non-
agricultural goods, so that it benefits only those exports which from year to year are defined as non-
traditional under the programme.  All documentation 
relating to the CAT may be found in document G/SCM/Q3/PAN/13 of 8 July 2002.  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 19 
 
 
Panama G/AG/N/PAN/9   Export Subsidies (Tables ES:1) 
Points raised by other Members  Response by Notifying Member 
Panama (cont'd) 
Information sought as to whether the CAT was 
eliminated in 2003 and, if  this was the case, what 
forms of export subsidies were provided by Panama 
in 2003, noting that US$9.5 million subsidies were 
granted in that year. 
  
The CAT programme has not been eliminated.  It 
remains in force pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 62 
of 2002.  The Law in question was notified to the 
WTO Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures in document G/SCM/N/95/PAN of 3 July 
2003.  It was published in implementation of the waiver granted for that programme by the WTO 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures pursuant to a request for extension of the programme submitted by the Republic of Panama on 
20 December 2001 – Request Pursuant to Article 
27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (see document 
G/SCM/N/74/PAN/2).  This waiver allows the CAT 
to be in force until 31 December 2005 (see document G/SCM/100). 
 
 G/AG/R/43 
Page 20  
 
Attachment 1 
 
Imports under rice tariff quotas (as submitted by Thailand)
 
 
 
Chinese Taipei Import Statistics 
Commodity:  1901909900, Other Preparations of Heading no. 19.01 
Calendar year:  2002 - 2004 
United States Dollars % Share Partner Country 
2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 % Change 
2004/2003 
World 2,456,399 2,384,951 2,755,999 100 100 100 15.56 
Thailand 1,675,586 849,434 1,089,369 68.21 35.62 39.53 28.25 
Philippines 199,523 267,410 498,665 8.12 11.21 18.09 86.48 
Japan 146,659 299,983 314,545 5.93 12.58 11.41 4.85 
Belgium 0 537,610 239,584 0 22.54 8.69 -55.44 
Hong Kong, China 7,082 84,880 200,582 0.29 3.56 7.28 136.31 
France 37,960 59,332 90,853 1.55 2.49 3.3 53.13 
Viet Nam 40,179 35,045 74,861 1.64 1.47 2.72 113.62 
Germany 24,236 64,031 64,869 0.99 2.68 2.35 1.31 
United States 110,224 49,215 62,229 4.49 2.06 2.26 26.44 
Singapore 104,512 97,363 35,238 4.25 4.08 1.28 -63.81 
Malaysia 65,766 27,359 29,023 2.68 1.15 1.05 6.08 
Australia 13,078 29 13,313 0.53 0 0.48 ∞ 
Korea, Republic of  7,659 3,934 11,385 0.31 0.16 0.41 189.39 
Canada 0 0 8,910 0 0 0.32 0 
China 0 0 7,932 0 0 0.29 0 
Myanmar 4,668 4,699 7,119 0.19 0.2 0.26 51.49 
India 3,176 864 3,587 0.13 0.04 0.13 315.15 
United Kingdom 0 116 1,806 0 0 0.07 1,456.94 
Italy 4,314 0 1,625 0.18 0 0.06 0 
Austria 1,210 1,706 503 0.05 0.07 0.02 -70.53 
Indonesia 286 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 
Netherlands 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 
New Zealand 0 1,941 0 0 0.08 0 -100 
Nigeria 550 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 
Norway 10,802 0 0 0.44 0 0 0 
  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 21 
 
 
 
Chinese Taipei Import Statistics 
Commodity:  1901909900, Other Preparations of Heading no. 19.01 
Calendar year:  2002 - 2004 
Quantity % Share Partner Country Unit 
2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 % Change 
2004/2003 
World kg 7,333,145 4,053,160  5,497,156 100 100 100 35.63 
Thailand kg 6,650,333 3,206,933 3,753,386 90.69 79.12 68.28 17.04 
Philippines kg 129,032 149,760 847,998 1.76 3.69 15.43 466.24 
Hong Kong, China kg 29,890 133, 900 297,083 0.41 3.3 5.4 121.87 
Viet Nam kg 110,072 102,294 212,808 1.5 2.52 3.87 108.04 
Japan kg 58,836 95,016 87,197 0.8 2.34 1.59 -8.23 
Malaysia kg 157,726 67,200 65, 173 2.15 1.66 1.19 -3.02 
France kg 34,732 46,689 58,238 0.47 1.15 1.06 24.74 
Belgium kg 0 120,706 47,727 0 2.98 0.87 -60.46 
Germany kg 18,485 40,066 32, 400 0.25 0.99 0.59 -19.13 
Singapore kg 56,513 52,340 22, 166 0.77 1.29 0.4 -57.65 
Myanmar kg 15,104 14,489 22, 058 0.21 0.36 0.4 52.24 
United States kg 53,813 18,790 16,392 0.73 0.46 0.3 -12.76 
China kg 0 0 12,750 0 0 0.23 0 
Australia kg 3,735 53 11,763 0.05 0 0.21 ∞ 
Korea, Republic of  kg 10, 734 2,948 7,470 0.15 0.07 0.14 153.39 
India kg 1,594 360 1,421 0.02 0.01 0.03 294.72 
Canada kg 0 0 400 0 0 0.01 0 
United Kingdom kg 0 16 263 0 0 0 1,543.76 
Austria kg 750 1,200 260 0.01 0.03 0 -78.33 
Italy kg 730 0 203 0.01 0 0 0 
Netherlands kg 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 
New Zealand kg 0 400 0 0 0.01 0 -100 
Nigeria kg 432 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 
Norway kg 600 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 
Indonesia kg 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 G/AG/R/43 
Page 22  
 
 
Chinese Taipei Import Statistics 
Commodity:  1901909100, Other Preparations of Heading no. 19.01 Containing Not Less Than 30% of Rice 
Calendar year:  2002 - 2004 
2002 2003 2004 Partner Country Unit 
US$ Quantity US$ Quantity US$ Quantity 
World kg 395,329 1,637,677 24,241 63,250 71,719 17,158 
Japan kg 29 45 0 0 71,479 17,158 
Viet Nam kg 0 0 0 0 241 0 
Hong Kong, China kg 1,199 6,000 0 0 0 0 
Spain kg 0 0 6,369 1,750 0 0 
Thailand kg 385,164 1,628,910 17,872 61,500 0 0 
United States kg 8,938 2,722 0 0 0 0 
  G/AG/R/43 
 Page 23 
 
 
Attachment 2 
 
G/AG/N/CHE/28 and CHE/31 – Imports under wine tariff quotas  
 
 
Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Codes 
2000 2001 2002 2003 Units 
2204.1000 10,769 12,196,951 12 ,381,518 12,472,903 Litres 
2204.2121 8,965,830 11,002,119 10,144,280 11,151,232 Litres 
2204.2129 187,483 81,215 56,943 66,997 Litres 
2204.2131 1,253,911 1,110,402 975,647 875,503 Litres 
2204.2139 10,761 7,297 6,748 2,285 Litres 
2204.2141 48,944 54,832,263 55 ,431,104 59,457,151 Litres 
2204.2149 210,731 173,122 190,208 186,145 Litres 
2204.2150 1,088,529 1,287,218 1,202,517 1,159,915 Litres 
2204.2921 608,696 1,800,460 1,790,016 1,238,904 Litres 
2204.2922 8,000,295 9,637,230 12,084,662 7,429,800 Litres 
2204.2929 2,039 382 496 1,939 Litres 
2204.2931 6,114,720 8,136,279 10,706,536 12,720,262 Litres 
2204.2932 85,902 77,822,204 69 ,667,026 68,503,434 Litres 
2204.2939 17,911 23,506 27,880 34,617 Litres 
2204.2941 6,881,907 6,532,547 7,205,418 6,522,205 Litres 
2204.2942 1,505,079 1,288,855 1,048,163 1,140,176 Litres 
2204.2950 394,123 398,592 448,624 297,166 Litres 
2204.3000 889,820 848,667 737,749 852,877 Litres 
 
Total  
164,588,504  
159,790,628  
164,340,957  
160,799,271  
Litres 
Tariff quota 170,000,000 170,000,000  170,000,000 170,000,000 Litres 
 
 
__________